|
Remit and membership
Remit:
To consider and report on matters relating to the administration
of civil and criminal justice, the reform of the civil and criminal
law and such other matters as fall within the responsibility of
the Minister for Justice. (As agreed by resolution of the Parliament
on 14 December 2000, with effect from 8 January 2001)
Membership:
Christine Grahame (Convener)
Wendy Alexander
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
Donald Gorrie
Maureen Macmillan
Paul Martin
Mr Michael Matheson
Committee Clerking Team:
Clerk to the Committee
Alison Taylor
Senior Assistant Clerk
Claire Menzies
Assistant Clerk
Jenny Goldsmith
Justice 1 Committee
Report on the Prison Estates Review
Executive summary of the Committee's
recommendations and comments
Delay in the publication of the Prison Estates Review
1. The publication of the Prison Estates Review was delayed by
some two and a half years. It is clear that the private build,
public operate option should have been included in the original
Review, given that this option is now widely used in other parts
of the public sector. Consequently, we regret that there was a
delay of this magnitude in the publication of the Estates Review.
The state of the existing prison estate
2. The Committee believes that it is not acceptable that both
prisoners and staff have to endure the degrading experience of
slopping out and that this should be addressed as a priority.
3. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) states that upgrading cells
to include integral sanitation is usually linked to upgrading
to meet two other basic operational and health issues: hot and
cold water supply and electric power in cell.1 The Committee believes that prisoners should live
in humane conditions and that all prisoners must have these facilities.
4. The Committee believes that the current level of overcrowding
is unacceptable and urges the Executive to ensure that, whatever
solution it decides to implement, overcrowding is urgently addressed.
Prisoner numbers
5. The Committee has received evidence that the projected prisoner
numbers are based on "penal expansionist assumptions"2
and that we must examine the Estates Review in the context of
penal reform.
6. The Committee strongly recommends that the Executive should
make figures available on non-custodial sentences and their potential
impact on prisoner numbers. The Committee wishes to establish
how the projected prisoner numbers would change
if the use of alternatives to custody were increased. This information
will be very useful for the Committee in carrying out its inquiry
into alternatives to custody.
7. The Committee is concerned that crucial decisions about the
long-term future of the prison estate are being based on a single
set of assumptions which must be subject to policy considerations.
The Committee intends to carry out its own inquiry into alternatives
to custody but considers that the Executive should have carried
out a complete review of alternatives to custody, how they could
be used more effectively and their potential impact on projected
prisoner numbers in advance of the Estates Review. The Executive
should also have examined existing sentencing policy and practice
as this could have a significant impact on prisoner numbers. It
is not prudent to consider the Estates Review without examining
penal policy.
Rehabilitation and throughcare
8. The Committee believes that rehabilitation and throughcare
opportunities should be available to all prisoners in public sector
prisons. In particular, it is essential that literacy programmes
are available to every prisoner in need of such programmes.
9. The Committee is dismayed by the lack of reliable evidence
on participation in rehabilitation and throughcare in the public
sector. If we do not know the percentage of the prisoner population
taking part in programmes, we cannot assess their effectiveness.
It is essential that reliable data is produced on participation
in these programmes and the outcomes.
Optimum prison size
10. The Committee believes that the Executive should ensure that
plans to build new prisons are based on the public interest, and
not the financial interests of private operators.
Private build, public operate option
11. The Committee repeats its serious concern that this option
was not considered as part of the original Estates Review, but
was added on by Ministers at a late stage.
12. The Committee agrees with Stephen Nathan that there has been
a "paucity of research" carried out for the SPS review in relation
to the private build, public operate option.3 The Committee is concerned that the Estates Review
has not adequately explored this option. We therefore recommend
that the Executive should carry out further comparative work,
including an independent evaluation of the French and Belgian
models, to establish whether other models could be adapted to
suit the needs of the SPS. The SPS should explore with PwC and
others whether the necessary benchmark data could
be provided by this research. The Executive should
also set a rigid timescale for this work to ensure that any further
delay in improving the prison estate is minimal.
Comparison of the options
13. The Committee is extremely concerned about the breadth of
the difference in cost between the public sector option and the
private sector option and has examined in detail the perceived
reasons for these cost differences.
Monopoly
14. The Minister for Justice told the Committee that the SPS
has been operating as a monopoly over decades and that "in a number
of areas where there has been a monopoly practice, costs are higher
than when there has been competition".4 Similarly, the Chief Executive of the SPS claimed
that "inertia and resistance to change are features of monopolies".5
This calls into question the quality of operational leadership
and management of public sector prisons and whether there is an
appropriate accountability mechanism. The Committee requires the
Executive to inform it of what steps the management of the SPS
is taking to improve efficiency.
Ability of the public sector to manage building projects
15. The Committee recommends that the Executive should calculate
the costs and possible savings achieved by bringing in the necessary
expertise to the SPS to design, build and manage the projects
proposed in the Estates Review whilst maintaining public sector
control of the project.
16. The Executive should explore the argument that the SPS would
not be able to commission a building project and manage the associated
risks efficiently. We accept that there are fundamental issues
of risk, experience, capability and specialism in the building
of prisons. It is a vital capability that the SPS both manages
its own estate effectively and is capable of acting as a procurer
of new buildings. The Committee considers that the Executive should
explore the reasons why the SPS does not believe that it has sufficient
in-house expertise to achieve this.
Different building specifications
17. The Committee found the evidence of the Chief Executive of
the SPS extraordinary and unconvincing on the issue of buildings,
staffing and the space required and found his comments about the
inefficiency of his organisation astonishing.
18. The Committee is concerned that the specification for HMP
Kilmarnock is being used as a point of comparison, despite evidence
that there is inadequate space for staff in that building. The
Committee believes the building specification is inextricably
linked to staffing levels, which are discussed below.
Staffing levels
19. The Committee questions the use of HMP Kilmarnock as a point
of comparison for proceeding with further private prisons in Scotland
when there is strong evidence that staffing levels at Scotland's
only private prison are low. The Committee has serious concerns
about these staffing levels.
Industrial relations
20. The Committee is encouraged by the willingness expressed
by the Prison Officers' Association Scotland to negotiate new
working practices and is concerned that the costings in the Estates
Review are predicated on the assumption that staffing issues will
be a barrier to increasing efficiency in the public sector.
Private vs. Public
21. We recognise that for many there is a philosophical issue
on private versus public provision in the prisons sector. Our
task, however, has been to consider the consultation in its own
terms based ostensibly on cost and quality considerations. As
described above, the absence of comparable performance data to
support a like-for-like operational comparison makes it almost
impossible to assess the financial options on a comparable basis.
Decreased prison provision in the public sector
22. The Committee is concerned that if the Executive enters into
three 25-year contracts for private prisons and the prisoner population
falls, there could be a further reduction in the number of prisoners
held in public sector prisons. This progressively diminishes flexibility
in managing the prison estate. The Committee requires clarification
from the Executive on this point.
Accountability
23. The Committee is extremely concerned about the lack of public
accountability and scrutiny of private prisons. This will require
to be addressed if the Executive is to proceed with its plans
to build three new private prisons.
24. The Committee is also concerned that a culture of secrecy
currently exists in the SPS and that this is evident in the contractual
terms it has set out for Kilmarnock prison. We believe that this
should also be addressed.
Contracts
25. The Committee recommends that if the Executive pursues the
private sector route for building three new prisons, it must build
flexibility into the new contracts.
Rehabilitation at HMP Kilmarnock
26. As previously stated, the Committee is not persuaded that
there are adequate rehabilitation programmes available in the
public sector. We are also concerned about the lack of opportunities
available to prisoners at HMP Kilmarnock to address their offending
behaviour. The Committee is supportive of the holistic approach
to delivering programmes which does not exist at HMP Kilmarnock.
The Committee recognises that work can be effective as rehabilitation,
dependent on the quality and appropriateness of the work that
is available. The Committee is also concerned that rehabilitation
is imperilled when a prisoner must go to work.
Given these concerns, the Committee does not
believe that HMP Kilmarnock should be used as a point of comparison
for proceeding with further private prisons in Scotland.
Financial Review of the Scottish Prison Estate
27. In relation to the "Financial Review of the Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review" prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC),
the Chief Executive of the SPS claimed that "neither PwC nor we
have seen a report on the prison sector as thorough as the one
that has been produced here".6
The Committee has received evidence which seriously questions
that assertion.
Comparability and disaggregation of the figures
28. The Committee requires more information in order to reasonably
assess the options, and the potential impact of expenditure levels
on building (initial build cost and recurrent maintenance), running
costs (including staffing costs) and on quality. The Committee
is concerned that the PwC report is not comparing like-for-like
because we cannot see the qualitative aspects in the private sector
costings. This relates directly to concerns outlined earlier in
this report relating to staffing levels, opportunities to address
offending behaviour and building specifications.
Analysis of cost structure at HMP Kilmarnock
29. The Committee is concerned that, given the proposals for
three more private prisons, no work has been done to establish
how closely the cost structure and staffing levels envisaged in
the original model have been fulfilled over its operations in
recent years. The Committee believes that such an operational
understanding would be vital not only for the SPS in ensuring
value for money in future private contracts, but also in achieving
future efficiencies in its own operations. A related issue is
whether basic staffing levels should form part of any contract
with a private provider. This should be considered by the SPS
not as part of an effort to defend any particular working practices,
which will clearly change over time and depend on the needs of
the particular prison population. However, Peter McKinlay made
a crucial point that prisons are above all a "people" business7 and there is a need, as part of a humane regime,
for a minimal level of human contact. Such issues warrant further
inquiry.
Mouchel Report
30. PwC did not review the Mouchel Consulting Report of March
2000, "Alternative Types of Prisons", produced for Her
Majesty's Prison Service.8
The Committee believes that it would have been very appropriate
for consultants asked to review the financial projections for
the SPS to have considered the findings of this report.
Other Options
Not-for-profit organisations
31. The Committee regrets that this option has not been evaluated
as part of the Estates Review. We recommend that the Executive
should investigate the feasibility of not-for-profit organisations
providing new prisons in Scotland and report back to the Committee
at the earliest opportunity.
New houseblocks
32. The Committee believes that the SPS should progress rapidly
with providing as much new accommodation as practicable and desirable
within its existing estate to deal with the slopping out issue.
Options for existing prisons
HMP Barlinnie
Scottish Executive's preferred option
33. PwC were asked to review and validate the estimated costs
for the construction and operation of a new 360 place houseblock
at Barlinnie, but not the cost of refurbishment.9 We are told that refurbishment would be expensive10,
but the figures are not provided. As no detailed costings have
been provided for the latter option, the Committee is unable to
take an informed view on the viability of this option in comparison
with the option to fully refurbish the remaining halls. The Committee
therefore recommends that these figures be set out fully.
Overcrowding
34. The Committee is concerned that if Barlinnie prison's capacity
were reduced to 530 places, the prison would quickly become overcrowded
due to the volume of referrals from local courts and other unforeseen
circumstances. As such, the Committee asks the Executive to provide
an assurance that the downsizing of Barlinnie prison will not
lead to overcrowding in the medium term.
Future of the prison
35. The Estates Review leaves the future of Barlinnie prison
open, stating that "decisions about the size of Barlinnie thereafter
would depend on the operational efficiency of the prison and the
future prisoner population".11 The Committee seeks an estimation of the longevity
of the preferred option and the timescale for decisions being
made about the long term future of Barlinnie.
HMP Low Moss
Condition of the building
36. The Committee is in no doubt that the current prison is untenable
and that the location of the site is ideal for a new development.
As such, the Committee supports the Executive's proposal to close
HMP Low Moss. Obviously, the Executive should ensure that suitable
additional accommodation is made available before the closure
of the prison.
Feasibility study
37. The local POAS representative for Low Moss advised the Committee
that a feasibility study was published on HMP Low Moss in April
2000.12 The Committee has
concerns that proper consideration was not given to the options
explored in the feasibility study. We require an explanation from
the Executive as to why the feasibility study was not made available
to PwC to review, given the in-depth costings and design options
already in existence.
HMP Peterhead
Condition of the buildings
38. The Committee requests that a detailed survey be carried
out by an independent firm of surveyors in order to establish
the state of the building.
39. The Committee notes again, as already referred to in the
section on HMP Barlinnie, that no financial information has been
provided in the Estates Review to support the Executive's case
against the refurbishment option.13 The evidence received by the Committee casts uncertainty
on the comparison of the costs and benefits of refurbishment of
the buildings with the other options. In these circumstances the
Committee requests sight of detailed costings before it is in
a position to analyse whether refurbishment of the buildings (including
the installation of in-cell electricity and sanitation), building
a new houseblock or a new prison (or a combination of all or some
of the options) is the best way forward.
Slopping out
40. HMCIP presented to the Committee a possible way to get around
the use of portapotties, as suggested by the staff at Peterhead.
This is to bring the number of staff up to full complement and
allow prisoners to get out and go to the lavatories.14
The Committee requests that a risk assessment be carried out on
the escorting of prisoners to the lavatories during the night
as soon as possible. This should take account of any possible
security risks, reorganisation of accommodation for prisoners,
possible increases to the staffing complement and the associated
cost implications.
Costs and risks of transferring HMP Peterhead elsewhere
41. The Committee considers that there is no evidence that the
wider costs of the closure of HMP Peterhead have been accounted
for in costing the options. This leads the Committee to question
the accuracy and depth of the calculations set out in the Estates
Review. The Committee is interested to know the Minister's response
to the Aberdeenshire Council figures, which it finds convincing.15
Location
Acceptance of the prison in the community
42. The Committee acknowledges that the prison has been part
of the community for some time and believes that the acceptance
of Peterhead prison in the community is a valuable asset. The
Committee questions the likely acceptance in other communities
of proposals for a new sex offenders' prison or of proposals for
an existing prison to be converted into a facility dedicated to
sex offenders.
Throughcare
43. Although the difficulties associated with throughcare have
been advanced as an argument in favour of relocating the prison,
the Committee is not persuaded by that argument. This has to be
weighed against the substantial advantages of the location and
the culture for staff, prisoners and their families and the acceptance
of the prison by the community.
44. The Committee believes that the provision of throughcare
to all prisoners should be directly addressed by the Minister.
45. The Committee believes that throughcare is an important issue
for the prisoners at HMP Peterhead. However, with effective co-ordination,
the Committee is convinced that it is possible to provide effective
throughcare services to the prisoners at that location.
Proposed closure: effect on staff
46. The proposal to close Peterhead has been demoralising for
prison officers at Peterhead and throughout the SPS. The
Committee is concerned that staff will not be willing to move
from Peterhead to the central belt resulting in a loss of valuable
expertise within the SPS. The Committee is also concerned that
the closure of Peterhead and the break up of the existing team
would send out a very harmful signal to all prison staff. The
Peterhead staff have gained international recognition for the
world-class service they deliver. Their reward is to choose between
relocation and having to reconstruct their team on the one hand,
or redundancy on the other.
Timescale for closure
47. The Committee is concerned that if Peterhead were to close,
the transitional period would lead to a fragmentation of Peterhead's
staff which could cause destabilisation of the treatment of sex
offenders.
Monoculture
48. The Committee believes that the monoculture is an appropriate
environment for the treatment of sex offenders and recommends
that the Executive should explore the option of a prison dedicated
to short-term sex offender prisoners.
Effectiveness of the STOP Programme
49. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the STOP Programme
delivered in a monoculture should be undertaken as soon as practicable.
This again reflects the Committee's concerns that there has been
no evaluation of the effectiveness of any of the rehabilitation
programmes operated by the SPS. If this is not possible because
of the lack of tracking offenders' statistical information, systems
should be put in place to enable an evaluation. An evaluation
would provide a foundation on which to monitor the effects of
the Estates Review on the treatment of sex offenders.
Review of the treatment of sex offenders
50. Alec Spencer, Director of Rehabilitation and Care at the
SPS, is chairing a review group "to provide Ministers with advice
on the practical issues and implications that will have to be
taken into account to enable a fully formed decision on the future
of Peterhead to be reached."16
The Committee believes that this review should have been carried
out in advance of the publication of the Estates Review. This
demonstrates a lack of strategic planning. The Committee would
like to know the criteria for establishing the group carrying
out the review. For example, the Committee would question why
Professor Bill Marshall, a renowned expert in the treatment of
sex offenders, was not invited to take part in the review. Given
his knowledge of sex offenders' programmes worldwide, there is
no doubt that his contribution would be valuable. The Committee
recommends that the report on the review should be published at
the earliest opportunity.
HMP Peterhead: conclusion
51. The Committee agrees with the SPS that the experience gained
in working with sex offenders and the acceptance of HMP Peterhead
by the local community are valuable
assets.17 The Committee recognises the issues associated
with the state of the building and throughcare, and requests that
these issues be addressed as a matter of urgency. The Committee
does not believe that the problems associated with the location
of the prison are insurmountable. The Committee therefore recommends
that a long-term male adult sex offenders' facility should remain
at Peterhead with the following recommendations: the state of
the building should be addressed either by refurbishment or new
build and the difficulties associated with throughcare should
be tackled.
Overall conclusions
52. The Committee believes that slopping out should be eradicated
as soon as possible and recommends that this be addressed by either
refurbishing existing accommodation or by building new houseblocks
on existing sites.
53. The Committee recognises the Executive's role in ensuring
the stewardship of public funds and agrees that all of the options
should be looked at to find the right solution. However, the Committee
does not have adequate information to evaluate whether what is
proposed is the right way forward and is not content with the
quality of comparison between the options. There are too many
unanswered questions for the Committee to be able to come to a
final view.
54. The Committee regrets that the Estates Review was undertaken
in a vacuum and not in the context of wider penal reform. The
Committee urges the Executive to implement improved penal policies
by providing adequate resources and leadership to schemes aimed
at reducing offending and reoffending where appropriate and to
establish a full range of effective community disposals across
the country. The Committee would need more evidence before being
convinced of the need for three new prisons.
Justice 1 Committee
6th Report 2002
Report on the Prison Estates
Review
The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows-
Background
55. The Prison Estates Review was published on 21 March 2002.
The purpose of the review was to identify the likely pressures
on the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) estate over the long term
and to generate a series of options for meeting these18 and to establish the cost to the taxpayer of building
and operating enough appropriate accommodation to hold the projected
future prisoner population and ending slopping out as quickly
as possible.19
56. The SPS states that there is a requirement for 3,300 new
prisoner places in the Scottish prison estate (2,400 of which
are to replace unfit or temporary accommodation).20 It concludes that the construction of new houseblocks
at existing SPS prisons could provide around 1,100 of the needed
places and that the remaining 2,200 should be provided by 3 new
prisons.21 Having examined
the 3 options available for building new prisons (public build,
public operate; private build, public operate and private build,
private operate), the Review concludes that the private build,
private operate model is a "strong option"22 and should be implemented.23
57. In addition to identifying the requirement for 3 new prisons,
the SPS board has determined that the key decisions on the existing
estate relate to HMP Barlinnie, HMP Low Moss and HMP Peterhead.24
The SPS proposes that there should be investment in Barlinnie,
with the prison reducing to 530 places in the medium term, and
that Low Moss and Peterhead should close.25
58. The Committee welcomes the consultation on the Estates Review,
and is encouraged that no decisions have yet been made.26
The Committee urges the Executive to ensure that all responses
to the consultation are taken into account. This report contains
the Committee's response to the Review and is based on a wide
body of evidence received by the Committee.
59. The Committee has taken oral evidence from the Governors
of HM Prisons Barlinnie, Peterhead, Barlinnie and Low Moss; the
Prison Officers' Association Scotland (POAS); the Association
of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments; Prison
Services Union; Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP)
and his team; Stephan Nathan (editor of Prison Privatisation Report);
Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice; SACRO (Safeguarding
Communities - Reducing Offending); APEX Scotland; STOP Programme
team, HMP Peterhead; Alec Spencer, Director of Rehabilitation
and Care, the Scottish Prison Service; HMP Peterhead Visiting
Committee; Dr Jim McManus, Chairman of the Parole Board for Scotland;
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA);
Professor Christine Cooper and Phil Taylor; PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC); Premier Prisons Services Ltd and the former Director of
HMP Kilmarnock; the Minister for Justice; the Chief Executive
of the Scottish Prison Service; Professor Marshall; Peter McKinlay,
former Director of the Scottish Prison Service and Grant Thornton.
The oral evidence can be found with associated written evidence
at Annex C in Volume 2 of this report. The Committee has also
received written evidence which is attached as Annex D in Volume
2. During this inquiry, Committee members visited HM Prisons Peterhead,
Kilmarnock, Barlinnie, Edinburgh and Glenochil. Notes of these
visits are attached at Annex B in Volume 2.
Delay in the publication of the Prison
Estates Review
60. The Review was originally announced on 17 December 1999 but
its publication was delayed by some two and a half years. During
this time, morale in the service has been very low due to the
uncertainty that this presented to staff, particularly to those
working in the prisons which were implicated in the Review. The
Prison Officers' Association Scotland told the Committee that
prison officers were worried about what would happen as a consequence
of the Estates Review and that "that feeling was pervasive across
the prison estate".27 Clive Fairweather, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
of Prisons for Scotland added that it would take a long time for
morale to be put right, whatever the results of the Estates Review.28
61. The Committee is aware that the delay in the publication
of the Estates Review was due to three factors. Firstly, Ministers
requested that the figures in the Review be examined independently.29
This was carried out by PwC. The Minister for Justice told the
Committee that the delay was exacerbated by the request for the
private build, public operate option to be included in the Review.
This option had not been explored by the SPS in advance of presenting
the Review to Ministers. There was also a requirement for further
work to be done following the formation of Jack McConnell's cabinet,
which caused a further delay.30
62. It is clear that the private build, public operate
option should have been included in the original Review, given
that this option is now widely used in other parts of the public
sector. Consequently, we regret that there was a delay of this
magnitude in the publication of the Estates Review.
The state of the existing prison estate
63. The Committee welcomes the Estates Review as an attempt to
modernise the elements of the existing prison estate which are
in urgent need of attention, in particular to address slopping
out and overcrowding.
64. According to the Estates Review, there is a need to replace
approximately 1,900 prisoner places in Scotland that, during lock
up periods, do not have access to toilet facilities and have to
"slop out".31 The SPS policy
is to end slopping out as soon as possible.32 The Committee agrees that it is not acceptable
that both prisoners and staff have to endure the degrading experience
of slopping out and that this should be addressed as a priority.
65. The SPS states that upgrading cells to include integral sanitation
is usually linked to upgrading to meet two other basic operational
and health issues: hot and cold water supply and electric power
in cell.33 The Committee
believes that prisoners should live in humane conditions and that
all prisoners must have these facilities.
66. According to the Estates Review, five prisons in the Scottish
prison estate suffer from overcrowding.34 The problems associated with overcrowding include
the necessity to share a cell, less work available for individuals,
more escorts required for court appearances and this detracts
from the work prison officers could be doing to tackle offending
behaviour.35 The Committee believes that this level
of overcrowding is unacceptable and urges the Executive to ensure
that, whatever solution it decides to implement, overcrowding
is urgently addressed.
Prisoner Numbers
67. The Estates Review shows that the prisoner population is
rising and despite some occasional decreases, the overall trend
is upward.36 It predicts
that the population will reach around 7,200 prisoners in the next
ten-year period, 1,000 prisoners more than are held at present.37 It says that the Executive is keen to promote
alternative penalties where appropriate but experience in the
1990s has shown that over a period when the use of community penalties
grew, the prison population also grew.38
68. The Committee has received evidence that the projections
are based on "penal expansionist assumptions"39 and that we must examine the Estates Review in
the context of penal reform. Stephen Nathan, an expert
in prison privatisation, told the Committee that "the Executive
should consider the sentencing policies that are putting people
in prison and the causes of crime, rather than discuss whether
there should be three private prisons or three public prisons".40
SACRO (Safeguarding Communities - Reducing Offending), APEX Scotland
and the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice (the
Consortium) warned, "if we build more prisons, we will fill them,
just as if we build more motorways, they get congested".41
69. The projections assume that the trends in sentencing behaviour
will continue42 and whilst
Government policies may impact on the sentencing practice affecting
the prison population, the SPS make clear that "these
effects have not been allowed for in the projections".43 SACRO, APEX Scotland and the Consortium criticised
this approach for not taking into account the new sentences that
the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill proposes, and what could
be done if existing community sentences were adequately resourced
so that they were available in every sheriff court in Scotland.44
They set out detailed proposals which they claimed could substantially
reduce prisoner numbers (by well over 2,000 places), including
the expansion of bail services to all courts and rapid nation
wide introduction of all community sentences.45 Dr McManus, Chairman of the Parole Board for Scotland,
told the Committee that the Review extrapolates statistics from
the past 10 years and that "there is plenty of room for policy
to interfere with such extrapolations".46 In response to these arguments, the Minister for
Justice told the Committee that the Executive was presented with
projections for prisoner numbers ranging from 6,700 to 8,500 and
claimed that the fact that their estimate was within 500 of the
bottom of that range is "a mark of our faith in our programmes
for promoting alternatives to custody".47
70. The Committee strongly recommends that the Executive
should make figures available on non-custodial sentences and their
potential impact on prisoner numbers. The Committee wishes to
establish how the projected prisoner numbers would change if the
use of alternatives to custody were increased. This information
will be very useful for the Committee in carrying out its inquiry
into alternatives to custody.
71. According to SACRO, APEX Scotland and the Consortium, 82%
of people in prison have short sentences which "serve no useful
purpose".48 Dr McManus agrees
that "we cannot do much with people that is positive during short
terms in prison".49 However,
the SPS claims that alternatives to custody mainly provide alternatives
to short-term prison sentences and therefore have a much greater
impact on reception numbers than on the average daily prison population
(although it does acknowledge that the potential impact of early
release on Home Detention Curfew is reasonably substantial).50
72. The Executive argues that any reductions in the short-term
population will be dependent much more on the decisions of the
courts than on either the reduction in crime or on the policies
of the Executive.51 Evidence
about lack of resources for, and availability of, community sentences
would contradict this assertion. It has been suggested that if
more resources were directed towards community sentencing, the
courts would be more likely to make use of such sentences. SACRO,
APEX Scotland and the Consortium told the Committee that some
judges do not have confidence in other disposals because they
are not adequately resourced.52 The Sheriffs' Association confirmed that if there
were more appropriate alternatives to imprisonment, there would
be less need for prison places.53
73. Several witnesses suggested that the proposed investment
in prisons could be diverted to alternatives to custody. SACRO,
APEX Scotland and the Consortium accepted the need for some new
build to address slopping out but suggested that we must carry
out the investment into alternatives to custody "much more rapidly
than is usually the case to ensure that we do not need those extra
900 places".54 They said
that community sentences might be more cost effective than prison
and when they are used in the right way and with the right target
groups, community-based sentences are actually more efficient
in relation to recidivism.55
Similarly, Dr McManus claimed that if the money spent on prisons
were directed towards resources in the community, "we know that
we could produce better results and better non-reconviction rates".56
74. The Minister for Justice told the Committee that the projected
figures in the Estates Review had been examined "in painstaking
detail" and that it would be irresponsible to pretend that the
figures did not exist.57 However, the Committee questions the reliability
of these projections. HMCIP told the Committee that he would only
have faith in the statistics in the short term but "as time goes
by, I would be less certain". He gave examples of the unreliability
of such statistics, "I remember talk of there being 7,000 or 8,000
prisoners by the end of the 20th century, but that was not the
case when we reached the end of the century".58 The Minister has admitted that predicting prisoner
numbers is "notoriously difficult". In giving evidence to the
Justice and Home Affairs Committee in 1999, he said "because of
alternatives to custody, we anticipate that the projected rise
in the prison population, which is already diminishing, will continue
to fall. It is perhaps significant that the population of Scottish
prisons has been stable at an average of 6,000 a year since 1997-98".59
75. The Committee is concerned that crucial decisions
about the long-term future of the prison estate are being based
on a single set of assumptions which must be subject to policy
considerations. The Committee intends to carry out its own inquiry
into alternatives to custody but considers that the Executive
should have carried out a complete review of alternatives to custody,
how they could be used more effectively and their potential impact
on projected prisoner numbers in advance of the Estates Review.
The Executive should also have examined existing sentencing policy
and practice as this could have a significant impact on prisoner
numbers. It is not prudent to consider the Estates
Review without examining penal policy.
Rehabilitation and throughcare
76. In what follows in this report, we will examine rehabilitation
at HMP Kilmarnock. However, the Committee is aware of the shortcomings
in this area in the public sector. Members' visits to prisons
have shown that there are good programmes available in prisons
to address offending behaviour but that due to a lack of resources
(both staff and facilities), many prisoners go through prisons
without ever accessing any of these programmes. Some evidence
showed the low standards of literacy of many prisoners (70% of
prisoners who go through prisons in Scotland are functionally
illiterate).60 While the
prisons visited by members all had worthwhile educational programmes,
many prisoners who would benefit from them do not attend them,
partly through lack of resources or of encouragement.61
It appears that short-term prisoners are particularly disadvantaged
in lack of access to programmes.62
These problems are often associated with overcrowding when there
are not sufficient facilities in a prison to offer services to
all prisoners.63 The Association
of Visiting Committees confirmed that many prisoners have difficulty
in getting onto anger management courses, and that there is little
information available about waiting lists for courses.64
77. Members were impressed by the throughcare centre at HMP Edinburgh,65
but the Committee is aware that there is insufficient provision
in other prisons in Scotland. The Minister for Justice acknowledged
that there are shortfalls in relation to throughcare.66 The Chief Executive of the SPS told the Committee
that a new post of director of rehabilitation and care has been
created to "bring together a lot of disparate work and to encourage
co-operation with others in improving services", but that the
SPS is constrained by high prisoner numbers.67 Alec Spencer, Director of Directorate of Rehabilitation
of Care of the SPS, told the Committee that it is only in the
last decade that people have asked the SPS to provide programmes
and that they are starting to consider how to evaluate these programmes.68
78. The Committee believes that rehabilitation and throughcare
opportunities should be available to all prisoners in public sector
prisons. In particular, it is essential that literacy programmes
are available to every prisoner in need of such programmes.
79. The Committee is dismayed by the lack of reliable
evidence on participation in rehabilitation and throughcare in
the public sector. If we do not know the percentage of the prisoner
population taking part in programmes, we cannot assess their effectiveness.
It is essential that reliable data is produced on participation
in these programmes and the outcomes.
Optimum prison size
80. The SPS view is that the optimum size for any new prison
at the current time is around 700 places. The POAS agrees that
this is a manageable figure.69
This number is said to represent an operational maximum in terms
of management complexity. The SPS also claims that prisoner groupings
should be separated to deal with order problems and that effective
separation requires a reasonable number of moderately sized prisons.
The SPS applies the economy of scale argument, stating that large
prisons are on average 25% more cost effective in cost per prisoner
place terms than small prisons.70 However, HMCIP suggested to the Committee that
"profits go up in the private sector once numbers get over 500"71
and that the optimum size estimate that has been given in the
Estates Review has "much to do with considerations of what would
be financially better for a private company running a prison".72
81. The Committee believes that the Executive should
ensure that plans to build new prisons are based on the public
interest, and not the financial interests of private operators.
Options in the Estates Review
82. The Estates Review explores 3 options for building the 3
new prisons: public build, public operate; private build, public
operate and private build, private operate.
Public build, public operate option
83. Under the public build, public operate option, the public
sector would determine the design of the prison, contract out
the building work and operate the prison.73 The Estates Review calculates the total cost for
3 new prisons provided under the public sector option as approximately
£1.3 billion in NPV terms and that it would take 11 years
to complete. According to the Estates Review, this is the most
expensive option.74
Private build, public operate option
84. The private build, public operate option is an alternative
public private partnership in which the private sector delivers
the building to a required specification and provides facilities
management, but the core operational work would be retained by
the public sector.75 The
Estates Review estimates that the cost for 3 new prisons provided
under this option would be approximately £1.0 billion to
£1.3 billion NPV and it would take at least 11 years to build
them.76 The Financial Review
of the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review (the PwC Report)
says that this option potentially offers savings by comparison
with the public build option but that "significant practical issues
regarding its deliverability would require to be addressed in
detail before it would be regarded as a viable option".77 The Estates Review concludes that this option
is likely to be "considerably more expensive" than the private
build, private operate contract.78
85. PwC was not asked to look at this option until after the
original remit of the financial review of the prison estate was
set.79 The Chief Executive
of the SPS confirmed that the SPS had originally worked from existing
models of which they had experience (which did not include the
private build, public operate model).80
86. The Committee repeats its serious concern that this
option was not considered as part of the original Estates Review,
but was added on by Ministers at a late stage.
Operational risk
87. The Executive believes that the private build, public operate
option may not translate well into the prisons sector where the
private sector role in successful PPP contracts has covered not
only the delivery of ancillary services but also the delivery
of core operations.81 It
says that the delivery of this type of model would present extreme
difficulties since the facilities management work in a prison
is "inextricably linked to its operation".82
88. The SPS asserts that for this option to work, the private
sector would have to absorb a high level of risk from the public
sector. Specifically, if the design stems from the operation,
then much of the risk that the design is properly specified must
rest with the operator.83
It also explains that the behaviour of prisoners such as vandalism
would be an operational matter and that the "risk transfer is
blurred".84 According to
the SPS, "there is considerable scope for debate about apportionment
of responsibility where a failure of facilities management leads
to disruption".85
89. PwC says "in terms of the risk assessment exercise carried
out, we consider it highly unlikely that the prison PPP Private
Build Public Operate model could work as it does for the education
and health sectors".86 The
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the leading
professional accountancy body for public services, confirmed that
with other public sector private build schemes it is possible
to transfer financial risk, but it is inevitable that a number
of operational risks will fall back on the public sector but says
that "it is possible to cope with the risks that are involved".87 Similarly, given that transferring risks is achievable
in other sectors, Grant Thornton is of the view that the private
sector may accept such an approach on a value for money basis.88
Comparators
90. The Executive states that no model of this kind has yet been
adopted in the prisons sector worldwide. Advice from both PwC
and SPS is that "the market is not ready to accept this type of
contract and the worldwide experience supports this view".89 However, the POAS told the Committee that comparators
do exist elsewhere in the world. They outlined the situation in
France where prisons have been privately built and publicly run
with the core custodial function being performed by public sector
employees. 90
91. Several witnesses expressed doubt about whether the French
model has succeeded. Phil Hornsby of the Prison Service Union
told the Committee that the private build, public operate prisons
in France have "not been tremendously successful" due to "too
many administrative difficulties between the two parties". He
spoke of "inherent difficulties in having two sets of managers".91 Stephen Nathan also talked about problems which
have arisen as a result of the dual discipline of a private company
managing all the non-custodial services and the Government employing
the prison officers.92 The Minister is not persuaded that the French
model represents a template for what might be done in Scotland.93
The PwC report confirms that the French model is "a straightforward
outsourcing of services without the significant risk transfer
responsibility applied to the private build, public operate model".94 There has been no independent academic research
to evaluate the French model.95
92. Stephen Nathan gave further examples of semi-private prisons
which have been commissioned in Chile and one which exists in
Belgium.96 The Minister for
Justice gave an undertaking to the Committee to look into the
Belgian model which has not yet been considered by the Executive.97
The Committee welcomes this assurance and urges the Executive
to report back to the Committee with its findings at the earliest
opportunity.
93. The PwC report claims that it is not possible to construct
a detailed financial model of the private build, public operate
model "with the same degree of confidence in cost estimates" as
for the private build, private operate and the public build, public
operate options because of the absence of any benchmark data.98 PwC did carry out an assessment of risk transfer
and interfaces with the private sector for this option. However,
this exercise was carried out on a hypothetical basis.
94. Grant Thornton suggested that this option requires more investigation
to gain more understanding. The PwC report considers the absence
of private public models in the prisons sector as a justification
for the lack of commercial viability of the model. Grant Thornton
believes that this view could only be justified if there were
evidence of differential pricing from the private sector operators
in their consideration of this option. This information is not
available in the PwC report.99 Grant Thornton believes that there is scope to
"test out the market and possibly come up with a workable solution".100
95. The example of the Sussex police project to centralise its
custody facilities was outlined to the Committee. This project
is publicly operated and privately delivered. Grant Thornton suggested
that if this can be achieved in the police sector, which to a
degree must be similar to the prison sector, "it must be possible
to craft a deal that will work for both sides".101
96. The Committee noted the support expressed for this option.
The POAS told the Committee that "there is no trade union side
resistance to a public-private partnership if the money and the
facility are provided by the private sector and the public sector
runs it".102 The Association
of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments would
also support this option.103
97. The Committee agrees with Stephen Nathan that there
has been a "paucity of research" carried out for the SPS review
in relation to the private build, public operate option.104 The Committee is concerned that the Estates Review
has not adequately explored this option. We therefore recommend
that the Executive should carry out further comparative work,
including an independent evaluation of the French and Belgian
models, to establish whether other models could be adapted to
suit the needs of the SPS. The SPS should explore with PwC and
others whether the necessary benchmark data could be provided
by this research. The Executive should also set a rigid timescale
for this work to ensure that any further delay in improving the
prison estate is minimal.
Private build, private operate option
98. The third and final option considered in the Estates Review
is the private build, private operate option. Under this option,
a public private partnership would be formed with a private sector
consortium which designs, finances and operates the prison in
accordance with the terms of the contract with the public sector.105
There is one such prison in Scotland at Kilmarnock, which opened
in March 1999 and currently holds 9% of Scotland's prison population.106 The Review estimates that the cost for 3 new
prisons provided under this option would be approximately 50%
cheaper than the other 2 options and it would take 5-6 years to
build the prisons.107 The
Review therefore proposes that new prison places that are needed
beyond what can be added by houseblock developments in SPS establishments
should be provided through the private build, private operate
option.108
Comparison of the options
99. A fundamental concern for the Committee is that the approach
to performance management adopted by the SPS means neither they,
the Committee or any third party has the basis for a like-for-like
output based comparison, because of the apparent absence of performance
data on the public sector. Only the private sector is asked to
perform against outputs, whilst the public sector is still managed,
primarily in terms of inputs. Hence the difficulties in fair operational
comparisons. Such difficulties can be avoided. The notion of a
level playing field, in the form of common comparable performance
standards or output specifics is increasingly common in other
parts of the public sector, as a means of ensuring a like-for-like
approach, and we are not clear why progress towards such a like-for-like
regime has been slower in this sector.
100. The Estates Review estimates that two prisoner places of
an equivalent quality can be provided by the private sector compared
with one place which the public sector can provide for the same
cost.109 It finds that the
private build, private operate option would cost £700 million
less than the public sector option. The Minister for Justice has
described the gap in the figures for the options as "breathtaking".110
The Committee is extremely concerned about the breadth
of the difference in cost between the public sector option and
the private sector option and has examined in detail the perceived
reasons for these cost differences.
Monopoly
101. The Minister for Justice told the Committee that the SPS
has been operating as a monopoly over decades and that "in a number
of areas where there has been a monopoly practice, costs are higher
than when there has been competition".111 Similarly, the Chief Executive of the SPS claimed
that "inertia and resistance to change are features of monopolies".112
102. This calls into question the quality of operational
leadership and management of public sector prisons and whether
there is an appropriate accountability mechanism. The Committee
requires the Executive to inform it of what steps the management
of the SPS is taking to improve efficiency.
Timescale
103. The estimated timescales for delivering 3 new prisons each
of 700 places are set out in the Estates Review as 11 years for
both public build, public operate and private build, public operate
options and 5-6 years for the private build, private operate option.
The Estates Review states that the considerable difference in
timescale between the private build and private operate option
and the other two options is accounted for mainly by the longer
time necessary for preparation and design followed by a longer
period of contractual negotiation and design completion. The first
2 options provide for a "prudent gap" between the development
of the first 2 prisons and the third as the SPS has operational
concerns about its capacity and the risks of attempting themselves
to open three new establishments virtually simultaneously.113 The Review concludes that the private build,
private operate option could deliver the ending of slopping out
some 6 years before the other options.114
Ability of the public sector to manage building projects
104. According to the Executive, there is a tendency in the public
sector to over-specify requirements and make changes to the buildings
specification after the design is finalised leading to higher
construction costs.115 It
claims that the public sector has neither designed nor built a
prison for a generation and their recent experience of new houseblocks,
refurbishments and other capital projects "has made it clear that
the Agency do not have the depth and strength of skills to tackle
such large scale projects".116 PwC told the Committee that the private sector
is producing prisons to a fairly standardised model that meets
their operating requirements, whereas the SPS has not done this
for 30 years.117 Dr McManus
concurs stating that private providers build more quickly than
the public sector, as the public sector has a tendency to alter
plans which lengthens the time taken to build.118 However, the Committee is aware that the new
houseblock at HMP Edinburgh was bought off the shelf to the SPS's
specification. The POAS confirmed that there has been no delay
associated with the recent building of new houseblocks.119
105. The Executive argues that the problem of delay in delivering
major projects is one found throughout much of the public sector:
the ability to drive and deliver large complex projects is not
good, and the SPS is no exception.120 In evidence to the Committee, CIFPA challenged
this assumption. They gave examples from the education sector
where buildings have been delivered on time and on budget by the
public sector.121 However, the Committee does acknowledge that
some public sector building projects are not well managed.
Buying in the necessary skills
106. According to the SPS, the key operational issue is deliverability,
as the SPS does not have the resources required to deliver more
than one prison at a time.122 Despite the fact that the SPS has been "working
hard" to address this issue and that the process for the procurement
of new houseblocks or refurbishment works is being "radically
streamlined", it claims that it would be unrealistic to think
that the gap can be closed over the timescale needed to end slopping
out quickly.123
107. The POAS told the Committee that the "only impediments to
a short public sector timescale are bureaucracy and political
will". They suggested buying in the necessary skills and claimed
that if they contracted a private company to design the building
and manage the contract, the public sector could build on the
same timescale as the private sector.124
CIPFA also suggested that if the SPS or any other public sector
body does not have project management skills in relation to the
design or management of the construction phase, it can buy them
in.125
108. The SPS does not support this suggestion and says that any
procurement process would be "severely delayed" while the SPS
bought in the skills required and developed the operational specification
on which the design would be based.126 The Chief Executive of the SPS told the Committee
that the private consortia bring together people from all over
the world, and that they can provide successive work to attract
people but the SPS can only provide "an episode of such activity"
because it is a "small player in the market".127 Accordingly, the cost of the need to bring in
additional skills are not reflected in the public build, public
operate costs in the PwC report.128
109. Given that the buying of necessary skills is common in other
parts of the public sector, the Committee would have found it
useful to examine the costs of acquiring the necessary project
management skills to oversee the design and construction of the
new prisons. The Committee recommends that the Executive
should calculate the costs and possible savings achieved by bringing
in the necessary expertise to the SPS to design, build and manage
the projects proposed in the Estates Review whilst maintaining
public sector control of the project.
110. The Executive should explore the argument that the
SPS would not be able to commission a building project and manage
the associated risks efficiently. We accept that there are fundamental
issues of risk, experience, capability and specialism in the building
of prisons. It is a vital capability that the SPS both manages
its own estate effectively and is capable of acting as a procurer
of new buildings. The Committee considers that the Executive should
explore the reasons why the SPS does not believe that it has sufficient
in-house expertise to achieve this.
Different building specifications
111. The Executive claims that the design of a public sector
prison would be different from that of a private sector prison
because the way in which a public sector prison operates is different.129
PwC told the Committee that SPS prisons are built around an operating
model that includes a significantly higher number of prison officers
and that the prison would have to be physically bigger for the
SPS to operate it "in the manner in which it currently operates
prisons"130. The costing
of the public build, public operate option is therefore based
on an adaptation of the design for HMP Kilmarnock to fulfil the
requirements of the SPS operational approach.131
112. The POAS criticised PwC for using different building specifications
for the private and public sector options. They said that the
specification of build and facilities for the public sector option
is far higher than that which was used at Kilmarnock.132
For example, the SPS would ensure that houseblocks were self-contained,
as keeping prisoners in residential blocks allows a degree of
control at difficult times, whereas at HMP Kilmarnock it is possible
to see from one block to another.133
They claimed that "if you want us to build Kilmarnock type prisons,
we can do it for the same price" but explained that this would
require them to compromise on quality, "either we can sacrifice
standards and provide the same number of prisoner places, or we
can maintain our standards with a view to encouraging the private
sector to increase its standards at some point in the future".134
113. CIFPA told the Committee that the public sector has tended
to go for "high quality and long lives" and suggested that consideration
should be given to whether it would be better to go for a shorter
life with a different quality to allow advances in technology
to catch up.135
114. When questioned on whether a like-for-like comparison has
been carried out in relation to the building specifications, the
Minister for Justice said, "we tried to be fair and to allow for
the public sector option to use a comparable plan to the private
sector one".136 The Chief
Executive of the SPS explained that the public sector build to
a more expensive standard because it has more staff and works
in a less efficient way.137
When pressed on the reason for the requirement for more physical
space, the Chief Executive answered "because they have always
been like that, as a result of being a monopoly" and "that is
the way in which we have designed our buildings in the past".138 He said that the SPS could not build a prison
in the public sector to the same standard as one that is built
in the private sector because of "restrictive practices on over-manning".139
The Committee found the evidence of the Chief Executive
of the SPS extraordinary and unconvincing on the issue of buildings,
staffing and the space required and found his comments about the
inefficiency of his organisation astonishing.
115. HMCIP described conditions for staff at HMP Kilmarnock as
"extremely cramped" and reported that staff are "overcrowded in
the areas in which they work".140
In particular, the accommodation used by the social work team
was described as "inadequate".141
Given that the calculations done by PwC are based on the building
specification for HMP Kilmarnock,142 this evidence would suggest that this building
specification does not supply adequate space for staff to work
in.
116. The Committee is concerned that the specification
for HMP Kilmarnock is being used as a point of comparison, despite
evidence that there is inadequate space for staff in that building.
The Committee believes the building specification is inextricably
linked to staffing levels, which are discussed below.
Staff costs and staffing levels
117. The Executive explains that running costs are a significant
element in the differences in costs, and within that, SPS staff
costs are markedly higher than those of its competitors. It says
that some of the terms and conditions offered by private prisons
are "less generous" than the public sector. 143 In addition, staffing levels in private sector
operated prisons in the UK are estimated to be around 25% lower
than in the public sector.144 Phil Hornsby of the Prison Service Union (which
represents 60-70% of the staff at HMP Kilmarnock) told the Committee,
"it is not rocket science to work out that the only way in which
a private prison can be made profitable is by paying the staff
less or having fewer of them".145
Staffing levels and safety
118. Ron Tasker, now former Director of Kilmarnock prison told
the Committee, that in a new prison with modern buildings, modern
technology, clear sightlines and good compartmentalisation between
different groups of prisoners, it would always be possible to
manage supervision using lower staff ratios than would be the
case in buildings that might not be so efficient.146
119. However, the Committee has received strong evidence to suggest
that staffing levels are too low at HMP Kilmarnock. Phil Hornsby
of the Prison Service Union told the Committee that he receives
almost daily reports from staff that they are frightened about
what might happen because of the very low staffing levels.147
HMCIP has also reported that the majority of staff said that they
felt that staffing levels were dangerously low at times. He was
also concerned that "when there are few members of staff about,
it is difficult for them to interact with the prisoners".148
120. Phil Hornsby blamed the low staffing levels in private prisons
on the contracting authority. He said that it is the contracting
authorities which approve the staffing levels in the contract
and that "the ferocity of the tendering system means that every
new private prison that comes on stream does so with fewer staff
on lower pay, because the wage bill is the big cost in running
a prison".149 He claimed
that an increase in staffing of around 20% would be required at
HMP Kilmarnock to bring the level up to proper staffing complement.150
121. In response to concerns about staffing levels in private
prisons, the Chief Executive of the SPS told the Committee that
staffing levels were not agreed with Premier Prisons and that
it is up to the company to decide on staffing levels.151 He has "no comment" on the specific staffing
levels at Kilmarnock as he claims that it is a matter for the
operator.152
122. The Committee believes that safety is inextricably linked
to staffing levels. The Chief Executive of the SPS disputes this
view and believes that, regardless of staffing levels, Kilmarnock
"delivers a safe prison".153
However, in his recent report on the prison, HMCIP found that
in the past 12 months the number of incidents of prisoner on prisoner
violence had almost doubled.154 HMCIP added that Kilmarnock is not the most violent
prison, "it is at the top end of the scale as far as the number
of serious assaults is concerned, but Edinburgh and possibly one
other prison are ahead of Kilmarnock".155
123. It has also been suggested that some violent incidents are
not properly reported. Taylor and Cooper said that at HMP Kilmarnock
there is a "fundamental problem of misreporting serious incidents"
such as downgrading assaults from the "serious assault" category
because of the penalty points system.156 There is an issue with the way in which assaults
are recorded in that a fight between 2 prisoners is counted as
2 assaults,157 but the Chief
Executive of the SPS assured the Committee that "the recording
of assaults at Kilmarnock is superior to that anywhere else" as
the SPS controller and his staff are at the prison all the time.158
The Committee also acknowledges that the regime operates on the
basis that all prisoners have a significant amount of time out
of cell (cited as an example of best practice by HMCIP)159 and that this may give rise to increased levels
of violence.
124. Some witnesses told the Committee that low staffing levels
can also impact on the services available to prisoners. HMCIP
has found the drugs strategy at HMP Kilmarnock to be "somewhat
superficial and unco-ordinated".160 Phil Hornsby of the Prison Service Union said
that the staff blamed this on low staffing levels as "there is
not enough time to do the job properly, because the number of
staff is insufficient".161 HMCIP agrees, stating that he is not sure that
staff at HMP Kilmarnock can "keep on top of the drug problem"
because of the shortage of staff162 and that "all the prison staff said that they
felt that there was a lot more that they could do about drugs,
but they had neither the training nor the time to deal with the
problem".163 The Committee
does acknowledge the good work being done in Kilmarnock prison
in relation to drugs. HMCIP highlighted ex-drug using prisoners
involved in delivering drugs courses to remand prisoners as a
best practice example.164
125. In relation to reducing staffing costs in the public sector,
the SPS view is that its overall staffing levels remain high and
that experience of long delays in the introduction of the latest
staff attendance systems demonstrate some of the difficulties
in making the SPS more efficient.165 The Chief Executive of the SPS told the Committee
that the Board of the SPS is "determined to seek increasing efficiency
savings" but that "there are limits to what we can manage within
the public sector".166 The SPS acknowledges that it has considerable
skills and expertise and sees no reason why, given the right incentives
and management they could not provide an equivalent service to
the private sector. Though they doubt whether they could ever
match, pound for pound, the costs of the private sector, they
consider that the cost gap can be very significantly reduced.167
126. The Committee questions the use of HMP Kilmarnock
as a point of comparison for proceeding with further private prisons
in Scotland when there is strong evidence that staffing levels
at Scotland's only private prison are low. The Committee has serious
concerns about these staffing levels.
Pay and conditions
127. The Committee has received evidence that the terms and conditions
in private prisons are inferior to those offered in public sector
prisons. Phil Hornsby of the Prison Service Union told the Committee
that staff at HMP Kilmarnock are paid £5,000 or £6,000
a year less than the public sector equivalents168
and feel undervalued because of their level of pay.169 Premier Prisons refuted this claim and told the
Committee that staff in the SPS start on a salary of £12,500,
whereas staff at HMP Kilmarnock start on £13,250 once an
officer has finished their training.170
128. The private sector operates local recruitment and pays regional
market rates for all grades of staff.171 Phil Hornsby of the Prison Service Union told
the Committee that he does not agree that the level of pay should
be determined by the local job market and suggested that few jobs
in the local community are as challenging as that of a prison
officer.172 The POAS told
the Committee that local pay bargaining works for Premier Prisons
because they only run one prison in Scotland, whereas the SPS
is a national service and members can be posted to any of the
SPS establishments "at any notice, at any time".173
State benefits
129. Phil Hornsby told the Committee that 60% of the members
of the Prison Service Union at HMP Kilmarnock receive state benefits.174
However, Premier Prisons told the Committee that family tax credit
is paid through their payroll and that only 13 staff receive that
benefit.175 Some members have also learned that there are
prison officers in the public sector who receive benefits.
Pension schemes
130. Prison Officers in the SPS are part of a comprehensive pension
scheme which contributes to the employment costs of the SPS. The
POAS said that it does not think "that it is right and proper
that the existence of the SPS pension scheme should be cited as
a disadvantage of prisons remaining in the public sector" and
that "the fact that the state can predict pension costs wholly
in advance" is an advantage.176
131. In relation to pension provision in the private sector,
Phil Hornsby told the Committee that Premier Prisons will pay
up to 3 per cent of gross salary towards a pension, provided that
the employee pays a similar amount but that three quarters of
the members of the Prison Service Union at Kilmarnock prison do
not take up a pension "because they simply cannot afford it".177 Ron Tasker, now former Director of Kilmarnock
prison confirmed that the pension scheme is based on matched contributions
and that if prison officers do not contribute towards their own
pension, the company does not pay either.178
Training
132. The Committee notes that training provision at HMP Kilmarnock
appears to be better than that offered in the public sector. In
the public sector, every officer is guaranteed five days' training
per year and every first-line manager is guaranteed seven days.179
At HMP Kilmarnock, operational officers receive six days' training
annually.180
Attendance patterns
133. Phil Hornsby also told the Committee that staff at HMP Kilmarnock
get few or no meal breaks and that they might work 13 or 14 hours
a day without a break.181 Ron Tasker told the Committee that he has been
"working furiously for nine months to get staff to work shorter
shifts with longer meal breaks" but that staff prefer to "come
to work, get on with the job and go home without the day being
elongated by an off-duty meal break".182
Industrial relations
134. The SPS acknowledges that the Board and the trade union
side "clearly need to address jointly the various factors that
contribute to the cost gap"183
and claims that "in the face of competition", it is seeking to
"lower the average pay of prison officers" but that "progress
will be slow".184 The POAS
told the Committee that since its industrial action in April 2001,
both sides have worked constructively and have produced a new
pay system, which was accepted by more than 70 per cent of staff
membership.185 They also
gave other examples of their willingness to talk constructively
about new working practices in new prisons.186
135. The SPS claims that there would be a "huge risk" that prison
opening programmes would be "frustrated by staffing issues and
by union resistance to change".187 However, the POAS told the Committee of a move
towards "a partnership approach in industrial relations" and that
there was a provisional agreement on staffing levels and costs
before the new houseblocks at Edinburgh and Polmont were built.188
136. The Committee is encouraged by the willingness expressed
by the POAS to negotiate new working practices and is concerned
that the costings in the Estates Review are predicated on the
assumption that staffing issues will be a barrier to increasing
efficiency in the public sector.
Private vs. Public
137. We recognise that for many there is a philosophical
issue on private versus public provision in the prisons sector.
Our task, however, has been to consider the consultation in its
own terms based ostensibly on cost and quality considerations.
As described above, the absence of comparable performance data
to support a like-for-like operational comparison makes it almost
impossible to assess the financial options on a comparable basis.
Trends in other jurisdictions
138. The Executive believes that the private sector option separates
the demand from the supply which has proved to be "a powerful
spur to getting better value for money for the taxpayer because
it introduces competition" and that it is "a successful means
of delivering and operating prisons in the UK and other parts
of the world".189 HM Prison
Service in England and Wales has entered into 7 private build,
private operate contracts and is at the preferred bidder stage
on another 2.190 Phil Hornsby
of the Prison Service Union reported that England's experience
has been that privately managed prisons are successful191 as they have a set of minimum standards for prisoners
and that the rules in the contract are "adhered to strictly so
that prisoners know where they stand". He believes that there
is inconsistency in public sector prisons which do not all operate
according to the same rules.192
139. Other evidence has painted a bleaker picture of private
prisons. Stephen Nathan told the Committee about the problems
experienced with a prison privatisation programme in Victoria,
Australia. He said that the Australian Government's policy has
shifted and that of the three new prisons that have been commissioned,
one is publicly financed and operated and the other two will be
privately financed but publicly operated. There are also prisons
in the USA being brought back into the public sector.193
Stephen Nathan concluded that "for the Scottish Executive to take
a route that has not been proven and that, at best, is on the
wane in other jurisdictions" would be a "mistake".194 Similarly, Andrew Coyle, Director of the International
Centre for Prison Studies, warned that the number of contractors
in the field may well reduce rather than expand, thus limiting
the element of genuine competition.195 In response, the Chief Executive of the SPS claimed
that "worldwide provision of prisons built and run by the private
sector is still expanding rapidly" and cited examples of new private
prisons being commissioned in South Africa and Western Australia.196
Decreased prison provision in the public sector
140. Stephen Nathan warned that if the Executive decides to build
three new prisons in the private sector, and the prison population
declines we will be left with a scenario in which publicly run
prisons would have to close because the Government will be locked
into contracts with private operators.197 Taylor and Cooper confirmed that the US General
Accounting Office gathered evidence to show that when a certain
proportion of prisons go into the private sector, expertise gradually
moves away from the state prison service into the private sector.198
They said that if the proposals in the Estates Review go ahead,
38.2 per cent of Scottish prisoners would be in private prisons,
which would mean that Scotland would have the largest proportion
of its prisoners in private prisons in the world.199
141. PwC confirmed that "if the SPS built a prison for which
there was no need, it would be contractually committed to pay
for a prison for which there was no need". The SPS would have
the option of terminating the contract and taking back the prison
building but there would be a cost in terminating the contract
and the authority would be left with an empty building.200 The Minister for Justice admitted that "if we
build new, privately funded prisons, those prisons will be the
estate's newer prisons, and that might well make an argument for
retaining them".201
142. The Committee is concerned that if the Executive
enters into three 25-year contracts for private prisons and the
prisoner population falls, there could be a further reduction
in the number of prisoners held in public sector prisons. This
progressively diminishes flexibility in managing the prison estate.
The Committee requires clarification from the Executive on this
point.
Accountability
143. There is an argument that private sector prisons are more
accountable than their public sector counterparts. The Executive
claims that the contract sets the level of service to be delivered
and a range of performance measures which are frequently checked
against the specification. It says that this level of detailed
scrutiny exceeds that of public sector prisons.202 Dr McManus agrees that private prisons are more
accountable in that they are strictly monitored on compliance
with the contract.203
144. The Executive believes that there has been a reluctance
in the public sector "to measure what is being delivered against
detailed output requirements such as are specified in a contract".204
The SPS states that in the past, the public sector has not measured
itself by such "carefully planned meticulously recorded outputs".
In an attempt to improve this situation, the SPS has adopted the
Correctional Excellence Model and is making considerable advances
in defining the desired outputs and how they are measured.205 The Committee welcomes this development and believes
that the public sector should strive to achieve measurable outputs.
145. However, the Committee is concerned about public accountability.
Dr McManus admitted to the Committee that there is a problem with
accountability to the Scottish Parliament and ultimately the Scottish
people.206 This is often due to the confidentiality of the
contracts under which private prisons operate. Similarly, the
Association of Visiting Committees is "worried about things going
private because of a lack of flexibility, accountability and openness".
They said that it is hard to find out exactly what is happening
in the private sector.207
Many members have experienced similar problems in obtaining information
about the operation of HMP Kilmarnock. It was over 6 months
before the Committee was allowed to view the full contract for
Kilmarnock prison. This was also demonstrated
by the Chief Executive of the SPS being unable to answer the Committee's
concerns regarding staffing levels at HMP Kilmarnock, claiming
that this is a matter for the operator.208 Whilst the SPS may argue that private prisons
are more accountable for their outputs, their public accountability
can be compromised by a lack of information.
146. The Committee is extremely concerned about the lack
of public accountability and scrutiny of private prisons. This
will require to be addressed if the Executive is to proceed with
its plans to build three new private prisons.
147. The Committee is also concerned that a culture of
secrecy currently exists in the SPS and that this is evident in
the contractual terms it has set out for Kilmarnock prison. We
believe that this should also be addressed.
Contracts
148. Some members are concerned about the lack of flexibility
in the contract drawn up for the operation of HMP Kilmarnock.
It appears that this lack of flexibility is causing problems in
the delivery of services in the prison. Elaine Bailey of Premier
Prisons told the Committee that the contract has "manoeuvrability"
and can be amended,209 but
the Committee has received evidence to the contrary. Dr McManus
told the Committee that the contract that was initially drawn
up for Kilmarnock was much more tightly drawn than English or
foreign equivalents in relation to which there has been constant
renegotiation.210 HMCIP described
problems caused by the rigidity of the contract and "hoped that
more flexibility would be taken into account in the future for
Kilmarnock or for other privately built prisons".211
149. The SPS believes that the risks taken on by the private
sector in a private build, private operate contract "are considerable"
given that failure to provide the building on time and to meet
agreed performance standards results in reduced payment.212
150. The Committee accepts that if one does not have a rigid
contract, it is difficult to obtain accountability for taxpayers'
money. However, the contract requires a degree of flexibility
to allow for changing working practices over the years. There
is therefore a balance to be struck between precision and flexibility.
The Committee recommends that if the Executive pursues
the private sector route for building three new prisons, it must
build flexibility into the new contracts.
Rehabilitation at HMP Kilmarnock
151. Recent data shows that almost fifty per cent of prisoners
return to prison within 2 years of being released.213 Rehabilitation of the offender is therefore a
fundamental matter when considering the future of the prison service.
The Committee is concerned that the Estates Review fails to address
this issue.
152. Evidence received by the Committee has cast doubt on whether
Scotland's only private prison is successful in offering rehabilitation
opportunities. According to the Association of Visiting Committees,
in a survey carried out among prisoners at HMP Kilmarnock, 52%
of prisoners questioned said that they were not receiving adequate
assistance in addressing their offending behaviour.214
Similarly, HMCIP identified a "lack of quality opportunities available
for prisoners to address their offending behaviour".215 He said that this problem is not unique to HMP Kilmarnock,
but that the timetabling of programmes can be changed quite quickly
in a public sector prison, whereas the contract at HMP Kilmarnock
would have to be changed.216 Premier Prisons refuted these criticisms and
told the Committee that they provide education and offending behaviour
programmes on a day release basis from work.217
They added that additional prisoner programmes are currently being
designed to ensure a broad range of rehabilitation options are
available to prisoners.218
153. The Executive denies that there is any evidence to support
the arguments that private prisons are not tackling the issue
of recidivism as well as the public sector. It says that output
in terms of whether prisoners will reoffend once they have served
their prison terms is difficult to relate to any single factor
and is therefore difficult to gauge.219 It does acknowledge, however, that more can
be done to ensure that private prisons focus more on reducing
reoffending.220 The Minister
for Justice told the Committee that the Executive sees an emphasis
on rehabilitation as being "an important part of any contract".221
154. Stephen Nathan told the Committee that there is a trend
in private prisons toward regarding work as the "be-all and end-all
of rehabilitation". He explained that there is an issue in England
and Wales, Australia and the United States that the kind of work
that is being offered is ultimately fairly useless in preparing
a person for the outside world, because the work does not exist
in the outside world.222
155. The POAS told the Committee that the HMP Kilmarnock contract
is set up on a work basis, not on one of challenging offending
behaviour.223 Taylor and
Cooper confirmed that that prisoners are "disincentivised from
attending behavioural programmes" for if a prisoner at Kilmarnock
wishes to attend an offending behaviour programme, that activity
counts as an unauthorised absence from work and could impact on
the prisoner's wages.224 HMCIP agreed that "it is quite difficult to
shift the main thrust of the Kilmarnock contract, which is about
getting prisoners into the work sheds, irrespective of whether
there is enough work for them to do" and that "there is not quite
enough flexibility in the contract to allow the prison to switch
them on to offending behaviour programmes".225 He added that HMP Shotts is also a "working
prison" that must also consider a shift towards timetabling offending
behaviour programmes.226
156. The Minister for Justice believes that work constitutes
rehabilitation and that "being able to gain employment is one
of the factors that is most likely to assist a prisoner in rehabilitation
within the community".227 The SPS added that many prisoners have never
had a job in their lives and most of them did not go to school
regularly - "so inculcating regular habits and particular work
habits is a vital task for us if we can manage it". It believes
that in this respect, Kilmarnock is at the "forefront not the
back" of correctional excellence which it intends to roll out
through the SPS over the next few years.228 On various visits to prisons, members have learned
that there is a variety of work opportunities available to prisoners.
Some work experience gained in prison, such as making fibre glass
boats to sell to outside customers229 and welding230 is excellent. However, the success of work as
rehabilitation is dependent on the quality of work on offer. Such
work must be relevant to the outside world.
157. Dr McManus told the Committee that the programmes at HMP
Kilmarnock are being delivered by the prison's internal psychology
and social work staff and not by prison officers and that his
preference is for programmes to be delivered by professional programme
deliverers.231 HMCIP is
of the view that such programmes being delivered by psychologists
rather than custody officers may limit further important interaction
on offending behaviour between prison officers and prisoners in
the residential wings.232 The SPS responded that there is no evidence
that one system of delivery is necessarily better than the other.233
158. The Executive has made clear that the delivery of the STOP
2000 programme will remain within the public sector.234 This is either an indication that the Executive
does not believe that private prisons would be capable of delivering
this programme, or that private operators would not compete for
this work. Either way, the Committee believes that this indicates
that the Executive would not trust the private sector in delivering
this programme.
159. As previously stated, the Committee is not persuaded
that there are adequate rehabilitation programmes available in
the public sector. We are also concerned about the lack of opportunities
available to prisoners at HMP Kilmarnock to address their offending
behaviour. The Committee is supportive of the holistic approach
to delivering programmes which does not exist at HMP Kilmarnock.
The Committee recognises that work can be effective as rehabilitation,
dependent on the quality and appropriateness of the work that
is available. The Committee is also concerned that rehabilitation
is imperilled when a prisoner must go to work. Given these concerns,
the Committee does not believe that HMP Kilmarnock should be used
as a point of comparison for proceeding with further private prisons
in Scotland.
Financial Review of the Scottish Prison
Estate
Background
160. One of the three main challenges set out by the Executive
in the Estates Review is to find the option which "represents
the best value for money to the taxpayer".235
The task for the Committee is to establish what is meant
by "value for money". Scottish Ministers asked PwC to
carry out detailed verification of the Estates Review costs "so
that decisions could be taken in the knowledge that the financial
assumptions underpinning the Estates Review were sound".236 The financial analysis in the PwC report is
based on a comparison exercise between the three options. The
comparisons are provided on a "cash value real" basis, and on
a Net Present Value basis (NPV). The NPV comparisons are used
as the prime determinants in deciding which option would represent
best value for the SPS.
161. In relation to the PwC report, the Chief Executive
of the SPS claimed that "neither PwC nor we have seen a report
on the prison sector as thorough as the one that has been produced
here".237 The Committee
has received evidence which seriously questions that assertion.
Comparability
162. It is crucial that there is a like-for-like comparison of
options in order to get an acceptable NPV comparison. The information
contained in the PwC report, and the answers given to the Committee
by PwC, do not enable the Committee to properly ascertain whether
like is being compared with like. The delegation representing
CIPFA, the professional accounting body that has greatest expertise
in the public sector accounting field, clearly felt that there
is insufficient information to make a proper comparison between
the options. This was illustrated by the answer when the Committee
asked which option did they think provides the greatest potential
for efficiency and quality improvement, "we do not have enough
information from the evidence from the Estates Review and the
PwC report to answer that".238 Grant Thornton concurred, "we are not able to
comment on PwC's approach because we cannot see the fundamental
basis on which PwC has worked through the costings".239
The Committee believes that there is no basis for operational
comparison. It is therefore not possible to make a financial comparison.
163. Grant Thornton questioned the magnitude of cost differential
set out in the PwC report. Experience in England has shown that
the cost differences were about 10 or 15 per cent, rather than
the 50 per cent differential found in the PwC report.240
The history of PFI projects in the UK is said to have shown smaller
differentials between public sector comparators and privately
financed projects. In their view, "the public sector costs have
been inflated and the private sector costs have been deflated".241 They believe that certain costs have been omitted
and some costs have been treated simplistically.242
Grant Thornton stated that the exclusion of 2 outliers from the
English prison average has deflated the costs for the private
option, whereas the public sector costings have been inflated
by using HMP Shotts as a benchmark given that it has specific
characteristics.243 The
use of historic costs for the private sector option is also said
to be flawed in that it fails to take account of recent developments,
such as at Yarlswood, which are likely to affect risk pricing
by bidders and their funders.244
164. Taylor and Cooper claim that the PwC report is "almost silent
on the issue of quality".245 CIPFA also believes that there are points about
quality that the report does not address, "until we know
what the underlying assumptions are, it will be difficult to come
to a final view".246 They told the Committee that they would look
for the assumptions behind some of the figures, including construction
and running costs (including staffing ratios) where the question
of quality is particularly relevant, and that without information
about assumptions made, they cannot draw conclusions at the moment.247
165. The figures for operational costs for the public build,
public operate option represent the single biggest cost item and
are based on historical data from a sample of prisons, but CIPFA
believes that there must be a relationship between the design
of the prison and how efficiently it can be operated. They believe
that we must assume that efficiencies can be designed into a public
build prison in the same way as they can be built into a private
build prison. They concluded that "perhaps the method that is
used to cost the public-public option is not valid"248 and that "we need more flesh on the skeleton
to see what lies behind the figures".249 Grant Thornton agrees, "there is no clear indication
of how the costs have been adjusted to take account of modern
operational practices within prisons including flexible staffing
systems and use of security and IT".250
166. CIPFA said that there is an assumption in the financial
review that the public sector cannot deliver a prison with the
same cost-effectiveness because it has not recently designed one.
Again, CIFPA questioned whether this was a valid assumption.251 The report also says that the public sector
would take almost twice as long as the private sector to procure
3 prisons. CIPFA was not clear on why this assumption had been
made. They assumed that the same design could be used for all
three prisons.252 Grant
Thornton suggested that the use of historic costs means that they
relate to schemes delivered in different timescales and that quantity
surveyors should undertake proper costings in order to price the
public sector comparator on the same basis as the private sector
option, "the costings need to be priced on the basis of the same
specification for service".253
167. The HMP Kilmarnock costs have been adjusted upwards to reflect
the costs of a 700 place prison rather than the 500 places actually
built. However, Grant Thornton have pointed out that no information
was given in the PwC report as to how this was done. They believe
that it is not good practice to base costs estimates on one scheme
only because the costs could be skewed by the particular characteristics
associated with that scheme.254
Disaggregation of the figures
168. The Executive believes that "it is of great importance that
the full cost of these large investment decisions is considered"
and that "it is not merely the capital cost of a new prison building
that is involved, as the cost of staffing and running the prison
over 25 years is more significant than the initial cost of providing
the facility".255 In this
regard, the Committee is concerned that it is not possible to
compare the capital costs and revenue costs of all of the options.
169. The estimation of costs for the options appear to have been
calculated on a basis that is defensible for each option, but
the methodology for arriving at the costs for the public build,
public operate option and the private build, private operate options
are completely different. The costs of the public build, public
operate option have been built up through detailed estimates for
capital and revenue costs. The costs of the private build, private
operate option are based on an estimation of costs per prisoner
place, multiplied by the number of places to be made available.
Footnotes
1 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p7-8, para 29
2 Response to the SPS Estates
Review by the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice,
APEX and SACRO, Annexe C
3 Stephen Nathan, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3571
4 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3773
5 Chief Executive of the
SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3774
6 Chief Executive of the
SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3772
7 Peter McKinlay, Justice
1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, column 3877
8 PwC, Justice 1 Committee,
21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3709
9 Financial Review of
Scottish Prison Estates Review, p4, para 1.2.4
10 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p34, para 136
11 Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the Future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p31,
para 101
12 POAS, Justice 1 Committee,
13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3463
13 Financial Review
of Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p4, para 1.2.4
14 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3546
15 Peterhead Prison:
Building on Success, Aberdeenshire Council's Response to the Scottish
Prison Service Estates Review
16 Alec Spencer, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3633
17 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p39, para 156
18 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p1, para 3
19 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p39,
para 135
20 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p10-11, para 44
21 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p46, para 190
22 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p46, para 190
23 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p40
24 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p32, para 127
25 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p46, para 190
26 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p39,
para 140
27 POAS, Justice 1 Committee,
13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3462
28 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3537
29 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 22nd meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3747
30 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3748
31 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p1,
para 3
32 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p7, para 28
33 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p7-8, para 29
34 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review (figures from July 2001), p9, para 40
35 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p10, para 41
36 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p10,
para 13
37 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p16,
para 29
38 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p10-11,
paras 17 and 18
39 Response to the SPS
Estates Review by the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal
Justice, APEX and SACRO, Annexe C
40 Stephen Nathan, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3561
41 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column
3576
42 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p11, para 45
43 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, Appendix F, para 30 (Existing non-custodial sentences
include: admonition; caution; absolute discharge; fine; probation
order; compensation order; supervised attendance order; drug treatment
and testing order; restriction of liberty order. There is also
a range of disposals to deal with mentally disordered offenders
(SPICe briefing 02/61, Alternatives to Custody))
44 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column
3575
45 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, written evidence, Annexe C
46 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3651
47 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3751
48 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column
3575
49 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3651
50 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, Appendix F, para 31
51 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p13,
para 24
52 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column
3577
53 Sheriffs' Association,
written evidence, Annexe D
54 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column
3587
55 APEX, SACRO and the
Consortium, Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column
3573
56 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3652
57 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3749
58 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3555
59 Minister for Justice,
Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 14th Meeting, 14 December
1999, columns 518-9
60 Association of Visiting
Committees, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 April 2002,
column 3469
61 Justice 1 Committee
visit to HMP Edinburgh, Note by the Clerk, Annexe B
62 Justice 1 Committee
visit to HMP Barlinnie, Note by the Clerk, Annexe B
63 Justice 1 Committee
visit to HMP Barlinnie, Note by the Clerk, Annexe B
64 Association of Visiting
Committees, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 April 2002,
column 3471
65 Justice 1 Committee
visit to HMP Edinburgh, Note by the Clerk, Annexe B
66 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3769
67 Chief Executive of
the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3769
68 Alec Spencer, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3627
69 POAS, Justice 1 Committee,
22nd Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3451
70 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p15, paras 57-61
71 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3534
72 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3535
73 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p18,
para 38
74 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p24,
para 63
75 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p18,
para 38
76 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p20,
para 49 & p29, para 92
77 Financial Review
of the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p8-9, para
1.7
78 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p21, para 82
79 PwC, Justice 1 Committee,
21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3699
80 Chief Executive of
the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3747
81 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p18-19,
para 39
82 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p21,
para 50
83 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p30, para 117
84 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, p30, para 120
85 Scottish Prison Service
Estates Review, piii
86 Financial Review
of the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p5, para 1.3
87 CIPFA, Justice 1
Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3677
88 Grant Thornton, Justice
1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, column 3884
89 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p21,
para 50
90 POAS, Justice 1 Committee,
22nd Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3431
91 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, columns 3479-80
92 Stephen Nathan, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3570
93 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column 3818
94 Financial Review
of the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p31, para
4.2
95 Stephen Nathan, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3569
96 Stephen Nathan, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3571
97 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3771
98 Financial Review
of the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p31, para
4.2
99 Grant Thornton, Justice
1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, columns 3884
100 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, columns 3890
101 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, columns 3889-90
102 POAS, Justice 1
Committee 22nd Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3431
103 The Association
of Visiting Committees, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23
April 2002, column 3470
104 Stephen Nathan,
Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3571
105 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p18,
para 38
106 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p4, para 10
107 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p24,
para 63 & p29, para 92
108 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p30,
para 95
109 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p24,
para 66
110 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3747
111 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3773
112 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3774
113 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p29,
paras 92- 93
114 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p30,
para 94
115 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p25,
para 72
116 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p20,
para 45
117 PwC, Justice 1 Committee,
21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3703
118 Dr McManus, written
evidence, Annexe C
119 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3438
120 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p18,
para 34
121 CIPFA, Justice 1
Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3672
122 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p29, para 114
123 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p26,
para 72
124 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3439
125 CIPFA, Justice 1
Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3675
126 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p26, para 98
127 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column
3823
128 PwC, Justice 1 Committee,
21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3707
129 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p20,
para 47
130 PwC, Justice 1 Committee,
21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3702
131 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p19, para 74
132 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3428
133 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, columns 3432-3
134 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3452
135 CIPFA, Justice 1
Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3672
136 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column 3764
137 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3764
138 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3765
139 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3766
140 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3538
141 HM Prisons Inspectorate,
HMP Kilmarnock, Follow up inspection, 14-15 March 2002, p30
142 Financial Review
of the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p4, para 1.3
143 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p26,
para 74
144 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p27,
para 77
145 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3488
146 Former Director
of Kilmarnock prison, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May
2002, column 3724
147 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3484
148 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3539
149 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3486
150 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3488
151 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column
3803
152 Chief Executive
of the SPS , Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column
3808-9
153 Chief Executive
of the SPS , Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column
3809
154 HM Prisons Inspectorate,
HMP Kilmarnock, Follow up inspection, 14-15 March 2002, p7, para
4.7
155 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3540
156 Professor Christine
Cooper and Phil Taylor, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22
May 2002, column 3689
157 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3540
158 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column
3812-13
159 HMCIP Annual Report
for 2000-2001, p38, para 4
160 HM Prisons Inspectorate,
HMP Kilmarnock, Follow up inspection, 14-15 March 2002, p8, para
4.11
161 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3484
162 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3539
163 HMCIP, Justice 1
Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3541
164 HMCIP Annual Report
for 2000-2001, p38, para 2
165 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p27,
para 78
166 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3774
167 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p28,
para 87
168 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3486
169 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3492
170 Premier Prisons
Services Ltd, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002,
column 3722
171 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p27,
para 80
172 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3492-3
173 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3444
174 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3493
175 Premier Prisons
, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3723
176 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3448
177 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3491
178 Former Director
of Kilmarnock prison, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May
2002, column 3725
179 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3445
180 Premier Prisons
Services Ltd, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002,
column 3739
181 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3487
182 Former Director
of Kilmarnock prison, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May
2002, column 3733
183 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p27, para 108
184 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p27,
para 79
185 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3442
186 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3443
187 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p29, para 114
188 POAS, Justice 1
Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, columns 3438-9
189 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p23,
para 60
190 Financial Review
of Scottish Prison Service Estates Review, PwC, p25, para 3.1
191 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3480
192 Prison Service Union,
Justice 1 Committee, 14th Meeting, 30 April 2002, column 3481
193 Stephen Nathan,
Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3566
194 Stephen Nathan,
Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3568
195 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the Future of the Scottish Prison Estate, A response
by Dr Andrew Coyle, Director, International Centre for Prison
Studies, p11, para 35
196 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column 3800
197 Stephen Nathan,
Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3561
198 Professor Christine
Cooper and Phil Taylor, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22
May 2002, column 3696
199 Professor Christine
Cooper and Phil Taylor, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22
May 2002, columns 3696-7
200 PwC, Justice 1 Committee,
21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3712
201 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column 3799
202 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p23,
para 61
203 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3662
204 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p20,
para 44
205 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p45, para 186
206 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3663
207 The Association
of Visiting Committees, Justice 1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 23
April 2002, column 3468
208 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column
3808
209 Premier Prisons
Services Ltd, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002,
column 3743
210 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, column 3662
211 HMCIP evidence,
Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3540
212 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p23, para 85
213 Scottish Prison
Service Estates Review, p5, para 14
214 The Association
of Visiting Committees, Justice 1 Committee, 13th Meeting, 23
April 2002, column 3469
215 HM Prisons Inspectorate,
HMP Kilmarnock, Follow up inspection, 14-15 March 2002, p8, para
4.11
216 HMCIP, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3539
217 Premier Prison
Services Ltd, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002,
column 3742
218 Premier Prisons
Services Ltd, Supplementary written evidence, Annexe D
219 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p28,
para 85
220 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p30,
para 95
221 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column 3799
222 Stephen Nathan,
Justice 1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3565
223 POAS, Justice
1 Committee, 13th Meeting, 23 April 2002, column 3427
224 Professor Christine
Cooper and Phil Taylor, Justice 1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22
May 2002, column 3690
225 HMCIP, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, columns 3540-1
226 HMCIP, Justice
1 Committee, 19th Meeting, 14 May 2002, column 3539
227 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column 3816
228 SPS, Supplementary
written evidence, Letter from Director of Operations (South and
West) to HMCIP re: HMP Kilmarnock, Annexe C
229 Justice 1 Committee
visit to HMP Glenochil, Note by the Clerk, Annexe B
230 Justice 1 Committee
visit to HMP Kilmarnock, Note by the Clerk, Annexe B
231 Dr McManus, Justice
1 Committee, 20th Meeting, 21 May 2002, columns 3662-3
232 HM Prisons Inspectorate,
HMP Kilmarnock, follow-up inspection, 14-15 March 2002, p8, para
4.11
233 SPS, Supplementary
written evidence, Letter from Director of Operations (South and
West) to HMCIP re: HMP Kilmarnock, Annexe C
234 Minister for Justice,
Justice 1 Committee, 24th Meeting, 6 June 2002, column 3816
235 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p3,
para 10
236 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p3,
para 7
237 Chief Executive
of the SPS, Justice 1 Committee, 22nd Meeting, 23 May 2002, column
3772
238 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3672
239 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, column 3884
240 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th meeting, 11 June 2002, columns 3880-1
241 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th meeting, 11 June 2002, columns 3881-2
242 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th meeting, 11 June 2002, column 3880
243 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th meeting, 11 June 2002, column 3882
244 Grant Thornton,
supplementary written evidence , Annexe C
245 Privatised Prisons
and Detention Centres in Scotland: An independent Report, Philip
Taylor and Christine Cooper, p9, para 2.1
246 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, columns 3672-3
247 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3673
248 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3673
249 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3674
250 Grant Thornton,
supplementary written evidence, Annexe C
251 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3674
252 CIPFA, Justice
1 Committee, 21st Meeting, 22 May 2002, column 3675
253 Grant Thornton,
Justice 1 Committee, 25th Meeting, 11 June 2002, columns 3885-6
254 Grant Thornton,
supplementary written evidence, Annexe C
255 The Scottish Executive's
Consultation on the future of the Scottish Prison Estate, p19,
para 40
|
