Chamber and committees

I, too, am pleased to speak in the debate, and I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing it to the chamber. I commend the 68 is too late campaign, which seeks to address a long-standing anomaly whereby prison officers in the UK are unable to access their pension until they are 68. As a former emergency services worker, I recognise the strength of feeling and support behind the campaign.

I am astounded at the appalling position taken by UK ministers, who view 68 as an appropriate age for prison officers to retire on the ground that a prison is a controlled environment, which completely fails to understand the complexities and challenges of managing a changing 21st-century prison population. The UK Government must bring about pension justice for our front-line prison staff, and I lend my weight to the efforts to secure that change.

I want to continue the theme of wellbeing and acknowledge the commitment of prison officers in Scotland. That was highlighted at a recent event that I sponsored in the Parliament on behalf of Aid & Abet, a charity that works with ex-prisoners. The event celebrated the publication of “The Good Prison Officer”, which is a collection of reflections written by ex-prisoners who are all now practitioners and educators in the criminal justice field. Their personal stories offer an insight into the importance of developing a rehabilitative culture in prison that derives from the empathy, compassion and respect that are shown by prison officers and which were shown towards them, profoundly impacting their lives and, in some cases, probably saving their lives.

Those people described what I would call discretionary effort, the lifeblood of every organisation, whereby staff go above and beyond their role, day in and day out. If workers do not feel that that effort is recognised and acknowledged, they will eventually withdraw it. I will pick up on that point in the context of today’s debate. In a recent lecture titled “We asked for workers and they sent us humans”, the former chief constable of Lancashire constabulary, Andy Rhodes, set out a compelling argument for placing mental health and wellbeing at the forefront of every operational and organisational decision. The context was policing, but the principle applies across other bodies of public-facing workers and particularly, I would argue, to prison staff.

Andy Rhodes spoke of the importance of embedding organisational justice so that a workforce is given the protection and support that it deserves and is better able to respond to the public in a competent and compassionate way. That ties in closely with the survey findings in the report “68 is Too Late: The Case for a Fair Retirement Age for Prison Officers”, which highlights the impact that

“prolonged exposure to this environment has on front-line staff, particularly for those staff who are required to continue working until they are 67 and 68 years of age.”

The report includes some powerful quotations that were shared with the POA, including the one that Maggie Chapman used in her contribution, which I am going to repeat:

“I am aged 59 at the moment and have 30 years of experience in working in various establishments. The job that I am required to do has had a lasting mental and physical impact on me, in particular the latter years. The thought of having to go to 67/68 fills me with dread as I feel that I will be less capable of doing what is demanded of me. It is not an environment for anybody over the age of 60.”

I would have felt exactly the same.

I wish the Prison Officers Association well in its campaign, and I hope that today’s debate shines a light on the injustice that is being faced by prison staff in Scotland and the UK.

That is very interesting. Goodness me.

I am interested in what you think about the intention to allow proceedings against former officers to commence or continue. The timescale for that is up to 12 months after an officer has left the force, unless, according to the bill, specific criteria are met. Do you have a view on that?

A very good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2024. We have apologies from Pauline McNeill. Sharon Dowey joins us online.

Today we begin taking our stage 1 evidence on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. Before I begin, I declare that I was a police officer for Grampian Police and Police Scotland. I invite other members to declare any interests that they might have.

From what you say, it seems that those actions contributed to the lengthy timescales that you experienced.

Of course.

Do not worry if you do not have that to hand.

Thank you. I am just looking around the room to see if members want to ask any other questions. If not, I will draw the session to a close. Is there anything else that we have not covered this morning about the bill or the police complaints system that you think it is important that the committee knows about? Do you have any final thoughts?

I am going to bring this session to a close. Thank you so much, Stephanie, for joining us this morning. What you have shared with us has been extremely valuable for the committee to hear. Thank you for your support in the public gallery, which is most appreciated.

Thank you. We have limited time today, so I will open up the session to other members.

I know that it is very difficult not to refer to your own experience, but I wonder if I can move you on. There are a number of other questions that we would like to ask.