Although discussion of prison buildings might seem of little apparent interest to the churches, we are well aware of the interaction between such practical fabric issues and the more strategic questions, about resources and about what happens within buildings; buildings are often where our vision becomes reality or becomes frustrated. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) "vision statement" looks forward to the SPS being recognised as "the leader in prisons correctional work which helps reduce recidivism and therefore offers value for money for the taxpayer", and it is in that context that the Scottish Executive's current consultation on proposals for the future of the "Scottish Prison Estate" sets out three aims: "to provide enough places for the prisoner population; to end the practice of slopping out in our prisons as quickly as possible; and to find the option which represents the best value for money to the taxpayer".

This discussion of buildings could therefore be the context for the permanent change which Andrew McLellan called for in his reflection on his prison visits; and there are grounds to believe that decisions have not yet been cast in stone, so we could make a difference. Responses should be sent, by 12 June, to Estates Review Team, Scottish Prison Service Headquarters, Room 338, Calton House, 5 Redheughs Rigg, Edinburgh, EH12 9HW. This briefing sets out the main policy issues – numbers, conditions, privatisation, staffing, community relationships, and issues specific to particular prisons – and examines some of the criticisms already made of the proposals, as well as setting out a theological context for reflection.

"Slopping Out"

"As a first step towards creating a modern correctional agenda we need to replace the approximately 1900 prisoner places in Scotland that, during lock up periods, do not have access to toilet facilities other than chamber pots, buckets, or porta potties which have to be 'slopped out'" (Jim Wallace). No-one disputes the urgency of this (although the recent series of Moderatorial visits to Scottish prisons found other concerns about their conditions higher on prisoners' agendas), and the need to provide decent night sanitation is a key dimension of the case for new prison accommodation, since many older buildings cannot economically be converted to provide this.

Numbers

More controversial is the detailed case made in the document for provision for an increased prison population. Although crime is falling, prison numbers are increasing, by 30% over the past ten years, to around 6,200 people currently in prison (at 115 prisoners per 100,000 population, this is the third highest in the EU, though marginally less than England and Wales and well below America's 702). Custodial sentences are now around 13% of all sentences (7% in 1990), and average sentence lengths have increased by 40% since 1980; this comes primarily from sentencing policy aimed at public protection.

While various alternatives to prison sentences are currently being developed ("tagging", drug treatment and testing orders, etc), these are not expected to reverse this trend, and the review is based on a "prudent" and "impartial" projection of 7,200 as an average prison population (recent estimates are cited as ranging from 6,700 to 8,500). This would require an extra 3,300 places in the next ten years – 1,900 to end slopping out, 500 to replace sub-standard temporary buildings and 900 to increase capacity to the projected level. Of these, it is estimated that 1,100 places can be provided in extra blocks to be built in existing prisons; since a capacity of 700 is felt by SPS to be the optimum size, three new prisons are seen as required.

Accurate projection is clearly difficult, and much concern has been expressed about policy issues implied in the projected increase. George Reid contrasted Jim Wallace's election commitment to "cut prison numbers" with his "presiding over potentially the largest quantum jump in prisoner numbers in Scottish history", a debate which he argued was "fundamentally about the type of society we want to build"; Pauline McNeill, Convener of Parliament's Justice 2 Committee, stressed the need to debate policy as well as buildings; and SACRO and others have argued that restorative justice measures and other alternatives to custody could safely reduce prison numbers by over 2,000.

Accepting the need for three more prisons, the document looks at three options – a completely public model, a private, contractual model, and a "private build / public operate" model. Relying heavily on research commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers, it concludes that both cost and timescale for a public prison would be approximately double that for the private option: "the SPS Estates Review has now shown 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. There is no single reason for this". The mixed solution is seen as difficult to envisage as "no PPP model of this kind has yet been adopted in the prisons sector world-wide" (although there seem to be examples of this in France). Although the "private build / public operate" option is currently widely advocated for schools and hospitals, "the operational view from SPS is that delivery of this type of PPP model would present extreme difficulties since the facilities management work in a prison is inextricably linked to its operation". Hypothetical costings also suggest it would be more expensive than a completely private, contractual model, such as at the current private prison in Kilmarnock.

Although serious doubt has been expressed about the PwC figures, the Executive claim that they have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny without being undermined. An academic report has challenged both the impartiality of PwC (who are said to have a significant business interest in promoting the private sector options) and the basis of their costings (not least because they are based on places provided rather than used, and would commit the Executive for a 25 year period); other international research suggests much more marginal cost differences. While the detail of these costings is a specialised area, finance is not the only basis for decision; there are also important policy issues here, both in terms of a "moral" case against private prisons and of a practical assessment of experience of private prisons in Scotland and worldwide.

The proposals, if implemented, would result in 38% of Scotland's prisoners being in private jails, the highest proportion in the world. This contrasts even with fairly recent policy statements by Labour politicians like Henry McLeish ("there will be no more private prisons in Scotland"). Although the report recognises that "the way in which the public sector operates prisons is not the same as that of a private sector operator", it is satisfied that SPS objectives and accountability can be achieved by monitoring the contract – a view widely challenged, especially on the basis of evidence from Kilmarnock. Prison Inspectorate reports on Kilmarnock found several causes for concern, including staff numbers, instances of assault, and the failure to agree performance indicators two years into the contract; Harry Conaghan of the Aberlour Trust found that "overall, Kilmarnock is a place of containment – very little offending behaviour is addressed". More generally, there are questions as to whether contracts are an effective way of addressing specific objectives, or are "restrictive and inflexible" (as the Inspectorate found experience of the Kilmarnock contract).

However, concerns about cost and timescale are not easily dismissed. If private finance could end slopping out in half the time that the SPS would take, that must be attractive; but why is this so? Richard Simpson has indicated his view as Deputy Justice Minister that "the issue is not just about one side being cheap and the other being expensive. The gap between the two is almost beyond belief and must be examined closely". The SPS doubt whether they could ever match the costs of the private sector, but do consider that "the cost gap can be very significantly reduced".

Further contentious issues surround proposals for Peterhead: "HMP Peterhead has a long history and in recent years has delivered excellent work with sex offenders. It is however not well located to carry this work on and the buildings are at the end of their useful life. The prison should close and the work be transferred to prison(s) elsewhere in central Scotland without loss of effectiveness".

The STOP programme pioneered with serious sex offenders at Peterhead has an international reputation ("one of the top three prisons of its type in the world") and appears to be delivering a significant impact on reoffending: "Since the [STOP] programme commenced in 1993, it has had a total of 244 participants. One hundred and sixty-two of those prisoners have been liberated, 69 are still in custody, 173 prisoners completed the programme and 71 failed to finish it. Six have been reconvicted of a sexual offence and four have been recalled because of a breach of licence conditions". This success is not in dispute; nor is the state of the buildings there, which appear beyond conversion to acceptable night sanitation conditions. The report considers, and rejects, the case for a new block at Peterhead. Although there is room for a block to house 500 prisoners, this would overstretch the current infrastructure and leave current building problems untouched. The main argument against on-site replacement is that of location, far from the central belt and therefore far from prisoners' family links (only 15% of Peterhead prisoners are from the north-east or Highlands), causing problems of maintaining contact while prisoners are in Peterhead and of delivering throughcare on release. However, this has been challenged on the grounds that a high proportion of offences are committed within the family, and distance may therefore be no drawback for many.

The core of the debate is the question of how readily the achievements at Peterhead could be transferred to another prison (possibly Glenochill). Giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee about such a move, former Governor Bill Rattray said "we don't know how it would be managed and what the outcome will be". However, the Executive believe that the programme could be delivered even more effectively in better buildings, situated more centrally and without major staffing problems. There are concerns that the high level of community support in Peterhead might not be matched by another community faced with headlines about sex offenders in their midst (however misleading such headlines might be). Staff feel that the positive ethos might be lost in a move and prisoners have also petitioned the Parliament for retention of Peterhead, citing both the location and the culture of the prison, as well as the STOP programme, as making a positive impact. The Inspector's most recent report found that "prisoners said that the positive, challenging environment at Peterhead was far preferable to the fear and intimidation that would be experienced in Central Belt prisons".

Interwoven in the debate are staffing issues – many of them familiar ones from other debates about privatisation. Guarantees have been given by the Executive about no compulsory redundancies, and refused about pension rights, but the central questions are whether the economies apparently offered by the private option come from "private sector expertise" and more effective management or from cutting back on staff numbers, pay and skills.

The obvious starting point is in Christ's challenge to encounter Him in prison, even (or especially) when people feel, and buildings seem, God-forsaken. That is the basis of our engagement with this debate, and of our involvement through chaplaincy, prison visiting and other forms of support.

Our recent Briefing "Whose Justice" explored the significance of a theological understanding of justice for a perspective on criminal justice today, suggesting the value of a Biblical orientation towards "restorative justice" (which church representatives recently explored in a meeting with the Deputy Justice Minister). That discussion is, at root, about redemption and the power of God to make a decisive difference in the lives of all his children, including those labelled "monsters". Redemption cannot just be about trivial, easily pardoned "sins", but how does God's power to make folk new relate to what goes on "inside"? That must be the background to the debate about prisons, although it does not offer ready-made answers to the issues in the current consultation.

Nor is there an obvious clear-cut ethical perspective on privatisation. A recent Church of Scotland report suggested three theological issues regarding PFI schemes: "(a) is PFI compatible with our view of Christian stewardship? (b) does the advent of PFI lead to an increase in the public good, the common weal? Who are the winners and who are the losers with the introduction of PFI?". These all seem relevant to the discussion of private prisons, but there are also particular issues around imprisonment; do we agree that "it is morally unacceptable for the private sector to undertake the incarceration of those whom the state has decided need to be imprisoned" (Jack Straw)? While these are clearly matters of political controversy, they also get to the heart of how we see ourselves.

There is, running through this debate, a background sense of powerlessness – felt in different ways by politicians, staff and others with a personal involvement in the prison system, and the public – about the impact of crime, and some frustration about getting alternatives to custody working effectively; and there are media pressures that constrain sensible debate. A careful contribution from the churches might encourage debate beyond slogans or soundbites.

Executive policies which aim at

• creating a safer Scotland,
• securing best value for public money,
• ending unacceptable prison conditions,
• providing secure prisons able to cope with projected numbers of prisoners in ways that facilitate effective rehabilitation,
• extending the range of alternatives to prison available to the courts, and
• ensuring that prisoners are less likely to offend

seem to be in tune with much of what churches and church groups have said about criminal justice. But within these policy aims, there are difficult judgements to be made, about how to secure real value for the high cost of imprisonment, and about what works and how to deliver it, ensuring that addressing offending behaviour and providing effective throughcare do not become peripheral.

We need to look hard behind words like "best value" (in Executive vocabulary), "correctional excellence" (in the SPS vocabulary and even "justice" and "forgiveness" (in our theological vocabulary) for ways forward. And we will be helped by the experience of prison chaplains, whose contribution needs to be recognised, supported, secured and developed, in whatever regime emerge