Chamber and committees

Again, I will bring in Don McGillivray on that, but I will first give another example. For some time in advance of COP26, all leave was cancelled for the police in Scotland, which will have consequences as people get their leave entitlement back, and that will continue beyond COP26. From talking to the police and, where necessary, the UK Government, I believe that there is an understanding of the cost. However, it becomes more difficult to attribute costs such as those that you mention. You are right in saying that increased activism is a good thing, and the police will have to respond to it.

Going back to previous questions, I do not want to speak too soon, as we still have three days of COP26 to go, but I think that Police Scotland’s reputation will be enhanced, notwithstanding the issue with kettling, which has been mentioned, and a number of other incidents such as when, early on, a decision was made to have local people, including women, walk through Kelvingrove park in the dark. That was wrong and the police have apologised for it. There are things to learn from the experience, but my feeling is that Police Scotland’s reputation will be incredibly enhanced internationally after the event, if things go as well as we hope they will for the next three days. That will bring opportunities as well, although these things are hard to quantify at this stage.

Of course, it is not just about the police. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service had quite a bit of work to do in the run-up to COP26, and those costs are being covered as well. There are also costs for the Scottish Ambulance Service. As I said, we are pretty confident about the nature of the arrangements that are in place, and we are hearing from our justice partners that they are confident about that, too.

Don McGillivray might want to say more about legacy costs.

I would respond on that more generally. We might come on to discuss the replacement for Barlinnie, for instance. I hate to use this expression, but how such things can be the most energy efficient is much more baked in from the start now. I am aware, from my previous area of responsibility, that that is being done in relation to housing. I do not know whether district heating is specifically being considered in this context, but reducing the carbon footprint is certainly factored into any new build.

I go back to a point that the convener made. In my area, we have one police station in Clackmannanshire, and it has now moved into the council headquarters. That would not be suitable for a fire station, for obvious reasons, but we would want our public bodies—the police, the fire service and the Scottish Ambulance Service, too—to think more cogently about working together on some things. That can massively reduce costs and increase efficiency. Where there are new facilities, that would allow for initiatives around district heating systems or otherwise reducing the carbon footprint. For the fire service, one such area will be the electrification of the fleet. I imagine that that would be a big area for the service.

I note from my recent experience at committees that there have been a number of times during the pandemic when the usual expected patterns of development for measures have been curtailed, for fairly obvious reasons. It was probably not possible, even in July, to predict what stage the pandemic would now be at, although when the powers were due to expire was predictable.

The extension of the powers is not being nodded through. I acknowledge that the consultation process was limited; however, I again emphasise that the SPS did not have to undertake it, although it was right to do so. I am also not sure that it is true that the balance was critical here. Officials might have the exact details, but some who were contacted did not respond at all while others said that they had no comment to make.

You are right to say that the issues raised were significant and probably reflect those that members will raise today; indeed, they are the obvious issues of concern. As a result, the Government did not seek to have the proposed extension nodded through. We talked to the Prison Service about it and, on balance, believed—for the reasons that I gave in my opening remarks—that allowing the powers to be extended was the right thing to do.

I understand that the extension runs to 31 March next year but, as I have pointed out, the pandemic has changed in nature and, indeed, is changing all the time. I hope that, when we see the figures today, further progress will have been made. I undertake, if the nature of the pandemic changes again—and if the committee so wishes—to come back before that date next year and further discuss the need for the powers. I am more than willing to do that. However, at this point, the Government has considered the consultation responses and believes that, on balance, this is the right way to go.

That may have been a technical answer, but it is also a factually correct one. We have observed the standing orders of the Parliament. There is a role for the committees, if they wish to take earlier consideration. This is the second committee of the Parliament to consider the powers, and that is in the context of a pandemic. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has undertaken a voluntary consultation exercise, which was not required. The SPS has done the right thing in that regard.

If the committee wanted to annul the instrument, it could do that, or that could be done through the Parliament, and the powers would continue until that process happened. I do not think that there is a material loss of benefit to the scrutiny process in that regard.

On the consultation responses, as I tried to explain in my response to the committee, we did not get permission from the consultees to publicise their responses. Work is being done to do that—although some of them are already known to members of the committee. As soon as those permissions have been granted, the responses will be published. You are right to say that that will be next month, but next month starts on Friday. I am not saying that the responses will be published on Friday, but next month starts on Friday, and they will be published as soon as it is possible to do so.

Given Jamie Greene’s previous question, I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the information that we can provide. I get an update every week—sometimes more often—on vaccination rates for prisoners and staff, as well as on the presence of the virus. As Fulton MacGregor rightly said, that has implications for visiting. In addition, when people come directly into custody as part of the judicial process, there are processes in place to minimise transmission. As far as I am able to, I will get specific figures to you on that. In general terms, it is the same profile as the general population, so the same process is followed in relation to the age that people are when they get vaccinated. From memory, there is a higher incidence of refusals in the prison population but, again, I will get that detail to you.

It might provide further reassurance to say that governors have to act in consultation with health professionals. If a prison governor, for whatever reason, wanted to have a more stringent regime, they could not have one just because they wanted to. They can use the powers under the regulations only if a health professional says that that is required, and it is not likely that health professionals would insist on such measures.

We are dealing with a closed population. We have had a number of outbreaks and, as I said, the virus is currently in nine different prisons. When it bubbles up in a particular prison, the incident management team goes in and takes relevant measures. It is a very real threat, because the virus is able to spread more quickly than it can among the general population. The powers are being extended for the right reasons—and only those reasons. It would not be in a prison governor’s interest to use the powers for anything other than health reasons. I will get as much information as possible and write to the convener with that information for the benefit of members.

The officials have confirmed that.

I think that Tom Fox wants to come in on that point. The Government’s lawyers and the SPS have looked at that and are very conscious of taking a human rights-based approach. It is not a hollow threat because, if they were to be in breach of human rights legislation, they could be challenged on that by individual prisoners or their representatives.

We are asking for the powers to be extended to 31 March next year. The point that I was trying to make was that the pandemic can quickly change in nature. What if, hypothetically speaking—I have no inside knowledge on this—we saw a very benevolent decrease in the pandemic and a much smaller incidence of the virus in the prison estate and elsewhere? That would inevitably raise concerns among committee members, and in that context—or in some other context—I would be more than willing to come back to the committee to explain things or listen to members’ concerns. That is my offer at this stage.

Thank you for inviting me to come along. I will be brief.

SSI 2021/289 extends the application of certain modifications that were made to the prison rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic by the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2020 (SSI 2020/122). The current amendments to the prison rules are due to expire tomorrow, and the instrument’s purpose is to extend the application of the changes until 31 March 2022 and to revoke others that are no longer considered to be required.

Given the unique operating environment of the prison setting, the Prison Service considers it necessary to retain some of the flexibility afforded by previous rule amendments that were made during the pandemic to ensure the safe running of our prisons for the pandemic’s duration. The Prison Service also considers it necessary to take steps to retain some of the flexibility afforded by previous SSIs that were introduced during the pandemic to ensure that we are prepared and able to focus on any immediate priorities that might arise.

Members will of course be aware that the threat of coronavirus to the operation of the justice system remains. As at Monday this week, there were 136 positive Covid cases spread across nine prisons in the prison estate, so vigilance is vital. I should also say that the Scottish Prison Service’s track record in this area is very good compared with the record of other jurisdictions.

The SSI seeks to retain some of the powers that were taken in response to the pandemic, which gave prison governors the flexibility to introduce precautionary and responsive measures to prevent and limit the spread of the virus and, crucially, to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those who live in, work in and visit our prisons.

Among the key powers that are being retained are powers to allow governors to suspend or restrict, if necessary, in-person visits, purposeful activity and recreation in response to local outbreaks; rule 40A and the extended timescales in rule 41, which provide governors and local national health service partners with the means to comply with Public Health Scotland and Scottish Government advice in relation to the isolation of large groups or individuals who are symptomatic or who have been in close contact with a person who is symptomatic or have been identified as a close contact of a person who is symptomatic, or who are new admissions that might present a Covid-19 risk; and the ability for governors to extend the period for which a prisoner is on home leave for up to 14 days from the normal seven days where prisoners advise that they or someone in their home has coronavirus or has developed symptoms of coronavirus.

The committee will be aware that, in advance of laying the instrument before Parliament, the SPS undertook a tailored consultation in July with stakeholders such as the Howard League, Families Outside and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland. In addition, an operational review determined that not all amendments to the prison rules would require to be maintained, due to the majority of the estate returning to a regular two-shift model working day in October 2021, with staff attendance patterns that better support a fuller regime model.

The majority of amendments that are revoked by the instrument are related to administrative processes and associated timescales in areas such as internal disciplinary processes and requests and complaints. The rules that are being retained are intended to remain in force until 31 March 2022 but can be revoked earlier if necessary. Consistent with the wider community, the Prison Service is opening up regimes across the estate and its priority remains to continue transitioning to a full regime in alignment with public health advice.

For clarity, the powers in question are therefore proposed as precautionary measures and will be used only if they are felt to be necessary and proportionate. They will be subject to multidisciplinary input and decision making, and will be kept under review if put in place. Senior SPS headquarters staff and governors will continue to work with the Government and NHS colleagues to ensure that the most up-to-date information available is used to inform their response and contingency planning.

Given the uncertainty that exists as we approach another winter, it is essential that the Government ensures that the Scottish Prison Service can rapidly respond to all eventualities of the pandemic, whether nationally or locally. The draft rules provide for precautionary powers that are essential to the SPS’s continuing response to the pressures that prisons face during the pandemic.

I welcome any questions that members may have.