Chamber and committees

You picked out HMP Greenock in particular and you described the conditions there as shocking. In your report last year, you said that it was in urgent need of replacement and was clearly

“ill-suited to a modern prison system.”

However, also last year, the cabinet secretary said that it was unlikely that the Scottish Prison Service would be able to commence such a replacement before 2025-26.

Our calculation is that the cuts that we are considering for the justice sector will be in the region of 20 per cent over the coming years. If the forecast was 2025-26 last year, that suggests that it could be some time before there will be any serious proposals on Greenock prison’s replacement. Is that a massive concern? What will be the implications of a lack of substantial investment, given the current condition of that prison?

That is helpful information.

You have said clearly that you believe that there is a need for radical reform of justice. Politicians have been arguing for that since the creation of the Scottish Parliament and before it. They have said that there is no need for a full women’s prison in Scotland, that that is not the right way to dispose of woman prisoners and that prison is also not the right way to deal with the offending behaviour of many male prisoners. Those debates have been going on for many years. Why has the radical justice reform that you have spoken about not happened? Why has it been impossible to drive change in the system? What are your thoughts on that?

Some of what I was going to ask about has already been covered.

Is it fair to say that the main reasons for Kilmarnock prison’s being cheaper to run are the staff terms and conditions and the staffing levels there? You said that the pay might be comparable but that some of the other terms and conditions might be less beneficial for staff at Kilmarnock than for those in the mainstream prison estate. My understanding of the staffing levels at Kilmarnock, based on what I have heard, has always been that they are poor, particularly at night. Therefore, the reason for its being cheaper to run is that it employs fewer staff in addition to those staff having poorer terms and conditions. Are those the main reasons? I ask because you obviously have a level of knowledge about the place, given your previous role there.

I have a further question about Kilmarnock prison, but perhaps you could respond to that first.

It has closed-circuit television and so on.

That is because it has technology such as CCTV in place. I understand your point.

You might know about the staff contracts for Kilmarnock, and perhaps about those for the other private prisons. We have been told—this has also been my own understanding—that guaranteed cost of living increases are built into such contracts. Given the challenges that we now face across the prison estate because of the size of the proposed budget cuts, will the private sector prisons have a level of protection from those while the mainstream estate will have to bear a greater share of them? Is that your understanding of how things are likely to operate?

Yes. Also, women tend to get longer sentences than men for similar offences. Do you have any thoughts on that? Prison is not necessarily the right solution, but it also has massive budgetary implications.

Do you agree that that work has to be a priority? I am sure that there is a whole range of upgrading work on the estate that, ideally, should take place, but this particular work has to be a priority. It would be useful to get as much information as possible on the capital spend for this tranche of work that is necessary for the reasons that I have given.

In an area such as fingerprinting, if you lose expertise because staff go, does that mean that you might have to bring in officers who are less likely to stay in those roles for a lengthy period because they will be progressing through the organisation or are more expensive? Is it a false economy?

My question is on pay. The Fire Brigades Union is lobbying the Parliament tomorrow. As you know, it is currently having a consultative ballot on the 5 per cent pay offer and has recommended rejection. The case that the FBU makes, as I am sure you are well aware, is that its members have received year-on-year real-terms pay cuts for 15 years and, over the past decade, there have been significant job cuts. We all know the inflation rates. It is not that the FBU has a bad or unreasonable case.

How will you make decisions about how to deal with the pay issue? Will the cabinet secretary be involved? It is clearly a massive issue for the people whom you employ.

I want to pick up on the extensive research that now exists on the carcinogenic effect of fire particles and ask about the implications, including legal implications, of that for the fire service and the duty of care that you have for the people who you employ. My understanding is that there is a significant number of stations that do not have adequate shower or toilet facilities or—I know that you have referred to this—even a proper fresh water supply. Will you give us more detail about that? As I said, there are legal obligations in terms of your duty of care for staff. I understand that a lot of work has been done abroad and a lot of research is now available that shows that there is a significant link between exposure to fire particles and various forms of cancer. Will you expand on the need to upgrade the estate?