Hansard

I would like to outline the Executive's proposals for the future of the prison estate in Scotland, which are being published today for consultation.

Prisons are a crucial element of the criminal justice system. The public is entitled to protection from those who commit serious crimes and it is our responsibility to ensure that those who are imprisoned are held in secure custody. It is also the Executive's responsibility to ensure that prison conditions meet modern standards. Many of our prisons were built in Victorian times, but their role has since changed. Prisons are no longer merely places for holding prisoners; they should help to reduce crime by working to help prisoners to change their behaviour so that they do not re-offend on release.

It is an uncomfortable but undeniable fact that the existing prison estate does not meet the needs of many prisoners, nor does it address the public's interest in effective rehabilitation as well as it should. That is not to denigrate the efforts of prison staff, who display dedication and expertise in dealing with a wide range of often very difficult prisoners. However, many staff work in poor conditions, which makes it harder for prisoners to address their offending behaviour and for staff to help to rehabilitate them.

Three main issues need to be addressed if we are to have a prison estate that is fit for its purpose. First, the number of prisoners is rising and is projected to continue to rise. Overcrowding is already an issue in some prisons and the situation will worsen unless additional prisoner places are provided. The need for extra prisoner places over the next 10 years cannot be met simply by refurbishing existing accommodation and building on existing sites. It is our responsibility to plan now to meet that need.

Secondly, we must deal with existing accommodation that falls well short of an acceptable standard. We inherited a prison estate that suffered from serious underinvestment. Her Majesty's Prisons at Barlinnie and Peterhead fall well below modern standards and at Low Moss, prisoners are held in wooden huts that were built 60 years ago as temporary accommodation. The buildings at Low Moss and Peterhead are reaching the end of their useful lives.

The third issue is slopping out. That a quarter of Scotland's prisoners must still slop out is wholly undesirable and we are committed to making that a thing of the past.

Prisons are important, but they are only one part of our criminal justice system. We are taking action to achieve a safer Scotland. That has had some success already, as falling levels of crime demonstrate. We will continue to build on that progress.

For many less serious offenders, imprisonment is not the answer. That is why our criminal justice strategy makes available to our courts an increasing range of tough, high-quality, non-custodial options. For example, restriction of liberty orders are being made available to all Scottish courts later this year and drug treatment and testing orders are being established. However, serious offences will remain, for which deterrence and the protection of the public require prison sentences and therefore prisons.

The proposals that we are publishing today have taken a long time to develop. We have been clear that we needed robust information on which to base our decisions. The issues are complex and the decisions have long-term implications and involve large sums of taxpayers' money. Our proposals meet immediate needs and long-term requirements and deliver value for money. Before I describe the proposals in detail, I will explain the basis on which they have been developed.

The remit of the estates review was to identify the likely pressures on the prison estate over at least the next 10 years and to generate options for dealing with those pressures. The review was conducted with an open mind. As I said in Parliament, nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in. To supplement the review, PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted an in-depth study of the cost of public and private sector options, and of a mixed option of private sector building and public sector operation for the provision of new prison accommodation.

Today, we are publishing not just our consultation document but the estates review, including the statistical background to our prisoner projections, and the PricewaterhouseCoopers study.

The latest projections for the next 10 years are an increase in the prisoner population from the current population of 6,300 to a level that will range from a low of 6,700 prisoners to a high of 8,500 prisoners. Given the uncertainties that exist, and taking into account the Executive's policies to provide more alternatives to custody, we concluded that we could prudently plan on the basis of 7,200 prisoners. If numbers begin to exceed that prudent projection, there will be flexibility in the new capacity and time to put measures in place to meet greater demand. Projecting future trends in the prisoner population is not an exact science.

Although overall the level of crime is falling, levels of serious crime remain high. Detection rates are at their highest level since 1939 and the average length of sentences has increased by 40 per cent since 1980. I will never apologise for a criminal justice system that locks up serious and violent offenders for a long time. Those factors are driving up prisoner numbers and are central to the projections that I outlined.

The review concluded that to meet the projected demand for increased prisoner places and replace existing poor-quality accommodation, a total of 3,300 new prisoner places must be provided. A significant programme of public sector investment in the refurbishment of existing accommodation or construction of new buildings can provide about 1,100 of those places within existing Scottish Prison Service establishments, so about 2,200 places in new prisons are required.

The optimum size for a new prison is about 700 places, although the actual size of any new prison will depend on a number of factors, including site availability and location. Prisons that are significantly larger than 700 places can be much more difficult to manage, while smaller prisons are often less economical to run. In order to meet the requirement for about 2,200 prisoner places, we need to plan for three new prisons, although a final decision on the third will be taken in the light of updated projections of the prisoner population.

How should those prisons be provided? As I said, the review considered public, private and mixed options. In order to compare the costs of the options, they have been assessed on the standard Treasury-approved net present value—or NPV—basis over 25 years. Using NPV, an option that would involve expenditure's being incurred over a long time can be compared objectively with one in which a greater proportion of the expenditure is incurred up front.

The NPV cost of three new public sector prisons would be approximately £1.3 billion. The mixed private-public option would cost between £1 billion and £1.3 billion and the wholly private sector option would cost £0.6 billion. The difference between the wholly private sector option and the public sector option is £700 million. No responsible administration can ignore such a difference. We should remember that if we choose the public sector option, there will be £700 million less to spend on other public services.

The public sector and hybrid options would take about 11 years to complete, but the private sector option could deliver the prisoner places in five or six years. That means a considerable difference in the time scale for ending slopping out. A number of factors lead to that difference. The experience of other private prisons is that the private sector can deliver major building projects more quickly and efficiently than the public sector. A public sector option would require longer for preparation and design. The need for the new prisons is too pressing for such a delay to be acceptable, and we would be failing in our duty if we did not take the route that offered the best value for money.

Some people oppose the use of the private sector in prisons because they believe that it is wrong to entrust the care of prisoners to the private sector. Others argue that the private sector will not be able to deliver to an acceptable standard, but experience in Scotland and elsewhere has demonstrated that the private sector can deliver successfully against very demanding requirements. The objective evidence is clear that the new prison at Kilmarnock was delivered quickly and economically, and is now operating as an effective part of the Scottish prison system. It is beginning to deliver accredited programmes and has the highest out-of-cell time of any Scottish prison.

Although we propose that the private sector would provide the new prisons, about two thirds of prisoners will continue to be housed within establishments that are operated by the public sector.

I turn now to issues concerning the public sector estate. The Executive remains committed to supporting the Scottish Prison Service in its management of the public sector prison estate. As I speak, a refurbished hall is opening today at Barlinnie. That represents investment of another £2.5 million in our public sector prison service and another £35 million of investment is already under way in new house blocks at Edinburgh and Polmont prisons. Further investment in the public sector prison estate is a key priority.

The estates review concluded at an early stage that the majority of the existing SPS prisons ought to be retained, but questions remained about the future of Barlinnie, Low Moss and Peterhead.

There is no doubt that Barlinnie is in an excellent location. It is close to the busiest courts in Scotland and has good transport links. Without Barlinnie we would need to establish a replacement prison near Glasgow. I can make it clear that we propose to maintain the prison at Barlinnie. However, the accommodation at Barlinnie falls far short of modern standards. Public sector investment in substantial improvements to the accommodation at Barlinnie is a high priority and progress has already been made. One of the halls at Barlinnie has been fully refurbished and another is being partially refurbished. However, refurbishing halls is very costly, and the resulting accommodation is less flexible than new build, so we propose to clear part of the site and build a new house block, which will provide 360 prisoner places. Combined with the investment that has already been made, that will secure the long-term future of the prison with at least 530 places.

The accommodation at Low Moss is also highly unsatisfactory and is nearing the end of its useful life. It is very poor in terms of security and fire risk. Refurbishment is not an option, so it is proposed that Low Moss should close as soon as possible. However, the site is well placed to serve the main population centres in the west of Scotland. It could be considered as the location for one of the proposed new prisons.

Peterhead raises particular issues because its population is made up of long-term sex offenders, although nearly half of all sex offenders are held in other prisons. The accommodation there is also reaching the end of its useful life and all prisoners there have to slop out. Because refurbishment of the buildings, including the introduction of night sanitation, would be a lengthy and extremely expensive exercise, the cost would be very difficult to justify. Given the age of the buildings, refurbishment could not in any case be a long-term solution and so would not represent good value for money. New accommodation could be built on the site but that, too, would be a very expensive process, as a result of being constrained by the need to build while the existing accommodation remained in use.

The fact remains that Peterhead prison is distant from the central belt, from where most of its prisoners come. That makes it difficult for many prisoners to maintain appropriate family and other links, which are important in their rehabilitation. We therefore propose to close Peterhead prison. That would take at least three years to implement.

Peterhead has delivered excellent work with sex offenders in recent years. However, many sex offenders are already housed elsewhere and the STOP 2000 programme, which addresses sex offending, is already being delivered in a number of existing central belt establishments. The role of Peterhead in delivering sex offender programmes will be retained within the public sector.

We estimate that of the current total of about 4,600 SPS staff, about 670 would be likely to be affected by reduction in the size of Barlinnie and the closure of Low Moss and Peterhead. However, the SPS has given a commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies and no cuts in cash pay for any staff as a result of the estates review. I endorse that commitment. Prison closures will inevitably take time to implement, which will provide the time to deal with staffing issues at the affected sites.

I will conclude. The key principles that underlie our proposals are: that the estate should have the capacity and the flexibility to cope with the projected number of prisoners; that slopping out must be ended and a definite timetable set that accelerates progress; that the prison estate must be modernised to provide secure prisons that facilitate effective rehabilitation through high-quality programmes; and that the estate must meet the requirements of best value.

The public sector will retain the leading role in our prison system, with elements of best practice being identified and spread throughout the estate, regardless of where it comes from. Our commitment to rehabilitation will be a key part of contracts with the private sector.

That approach is reflected in the proposals that we publish today for consultation. I look forward to what I am sure will be a constructive public debate on a crucial issue.