 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 12265, in the name of Polly McNeill, on Prison Officers Association campaign 68 is too late. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request of speaker buttons and I would advise members that I will be seeking to ensure that they all stick to their allocated time as they have signed up to and agreed to because we are resuming our business at 2pm and we must allow our staff to have sufficient time to clear the chamber in preparation for the start of the afternoon session and with that I call on Polly McNeill up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I was first asked to host the drop-in jointly with Orgy Nicolle, Maggie Chapman and Liam McArthur on the 68 is too late campaign, my reaction was that 68 is too late for everyone, but certainly for prison officers. If I may put on record, I did not manage to get to the women's demonstration today, but like everyone else here in the chamber I endorse their fight to continue for justice. When we think of the risks that prison officers manage on a day-to-day basis and the incredible physical courage and patience they have to display, it is clear to me that a 68-year-old prison officer is far too old to deal with the physical challenges of this nature, certainly in the main. Most prisons and custodial institutions are inherently violent places, but the skill and professionalism shown by prison officers is what limits the frequency and severity of incidents. In his 2001 review of public sector pensions, Lord Hartman of Farnest produced a list of uniform services that he proposed to protect from the state pension age rising to 68. Insisting that, for the armed forces, police and firefighters, the pension age has historically been lower to reflect the unique nature of their work, and therefore a pension age of 60 is appropriate. Prison officers are clearly a uniform service, but they were unfairly left off that list. If they fail their annual physical test, a prison officer is generally allowed to retire, but then they do not get their full pension. Hardly fair when the police and firefighters are able to retire almost a decade earlier. Of course, prison officers, unlike most public sector workers, cannot go and strike. They are prohibited from taking any form of industrial action. Given that, we need to make sure that the Government is not taking advantage of that restriction and underrewarding prison officers. The prison services' peer review body has continued to raise the pension age as a concern, arguing that it is far too old to cope with the physical and mental demands of being an operational front-line prison officer. The retention rate of newly recruited prison officers is very low. Violence or the threat of violence is always there. It is a difficult and unpredictable job, and that should be acknowledged by the retirement age. At the start of the year, the head of the Scottish Prison Service, Theresa Maythurst, said that Scotland's jails are too full and are reaching tipping point. Overcrowding creates all sorts of pressures inside jails. Andy Hodge, the governor, as Perth, has pointed out that the pressure of population is forcing us to put more people into one room. That is a real stretch to adult men into a room when you have one TV, one kettle, the intentions start to build, people start to fall out and violence amongst the residents start to go up. Prison officers have to deal with the fallout of these increasing pressures and tensions, and that is on top of officers having to deal with violence directed at themselves by inmates. Another pressure that prison officers have to deal with is the increasing number of prisoners suffering from acute mental health problems. There are high levels of self-harm, suicide and also drug deaths in our prisons, all of which are clearly challenging to deal with. However, are prison officers tasked with dealing with these incidents on a daily basis? The Prison Officers Association is extremely concerned about the impact and prolonged exposure to this environment has on front-line staff and particularly those who are required to continue working until age 68. It points out that they are relying on prison officers to work until age 68 results in high levels of sickness and abstinence rates across the service. Prison officers are critical to the rehabilitation of prisoners, and it is not in the interests of the prison as a whole of the workforce fuel that has been unfairly treated compared to other sectors. Prison officers are on the front line of the Kimmel justice system. They do a difficult and dangerous job. I do not believe that the retirement age of 68 for a prison officer is appropriate in the public interest. I ask the Scottish Government to have some discussions with the UK Government about how we can ensure fairness for prison officers. I congratulate Paul McNeill on securing crucial debating time for this important subject. Prison officers show the unique and demanding roles that necessitate that they keep order while functioning on occasion almost as social workers and educators to individuals many of whom are deemed too dangerous for the rest of society. The Prison Act of 1952 vests prison officers with and I quote, all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of police officers, yet despite this clear legal mandate that persists a glaring denial of prison officers' pension rights, indeed expecting prison officers to retire at 68, shamelessly disregard the realities of prison life for those on the services front line. It makes no sense to ask a 67-year-old male or female to confront, subdue and control a physically agile 25-year-old where necessary, potentially armed with a bladed weapon often influenced by history of violence and drug abuse. In these situations, at the retirement age of 68, risks the safety of inmates, prison officers and, ultimately, the public. There were 900 recorded assaults against prison officers in the last three years, a number that is on an upward trend. Moreover, the behaviour of a residence is becoming harder to contain new types of crime and drug use evolve, combined with overcrowding. A recent study conducted by Richard Harris of the Leverhuming Research Centre for Forensic Science, based at Dundee University, revealed that vapes are being utilised in prisons now for drug trafficking and administration. That greatly risks an escalation of drug usage and gang affiliations within Scotland's prisons. The proliferation of mobile phones introduces security risks that acquire constant vigilance. An enormous source told The Guardian last year, and I quote, "'Prisoners are bigger due to steroids, spice turns inmates into zombies and the social media that might know where we live''. Managing these challenging circumstances places significant physical demands on younger staff members, little in those in their seventh decade, who may have dedicated nearly half a century of their lives to the roles in the prison system. Certainly there is no other profession which places such duties and expectations on staff. Pension ages for police officers, the fire service and the military stand at a dignified 60, less in certain circumstances, while prison officers are required to work an additional eight years. The Prisoners' Officers Association has rightly voiced concerns regarding the prolonged exposure of front-line staff in their sixties to this environment. First for PTSD UK indicates that UK prison officers face a significantly high risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder compared to most of their occupations. Burnout, characterised by emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and a diminished sense of personal accomplishment is also more prevalent among prison officers. Given the widely acknowledged risks faced by officers on the job, there is a clear need for increased support. A crucial aspect of this is ensuring timely and dignified retirement. Moreover, for Mark Fairhurst, chair of the PEO, that is a primary reason for the prison system's recruitment crisis. Fairhurst states that, for many 18-year-olds, the thought of working on the prison state for half a century to deter them from seeking to join the service. The PEOA has also found poorer time at prospects essential to their experience hemorrhage of long-serving and experienced officers lost to the service. Meanwhile, years of austerity and real-term pay cuts have intensified pressure on prison officers, resulting in overcrowding and understaffing. That can lead to prisons failing to meet minimum staffing requirements for a safe, fully operational establishment. It is imperative to acknowledge that the challenges faced by prison officers do not cease upon retirement. Many may carry physical injuries, mental scars or emotional burdens accumulated over years of service. They deserve the opportunity to retire at an age where they can enjoy the fruits of the labour, spend quality time with their families and pursue personal interests without the constraints of age-related limitations. I wholeheartedly support the 68 is too late campaign, as we cannot in good conscience allow the situation to persist. It is incumbent to prioritise the wellbeing of our prison officers both in the present and in the retirement. Let us not forget the years of service rendered to our communities. 68, retirement age, is an active profound injustice and disrespect. I support Pauline McNeill's motion. I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this debate to the chamber. I also thank her for bringing the Prison Officers Association to Holyrood at the end of March, where we heard from them directly on their campaign. The issue of retirement age for these dedicated professionals has sparked widespread concern, particularly in light of the challenging conditions that they face daily. The Scottish Conservatives understand the demanding nature of the work carried out by the prison officers, and we fully understand and appreciate the sentiment that 68 is too late for officers to be conducting front-line work. It is incredibly demanding work that is very physical and it takes a real toll. I have spoken with prison officers and recently visited HMP Kilmarnock, and I have great admiration for the work that prison officers do. The broader context is also important. The SNP Government's justice failures have seen crime levels spiral upwards, overcrowded prisons, delayed infrastructure projects and heightened risks within our prisons. In such a deteriorating environment, expecting officers to continue front-line duties until the age of 68 is asking too much. Prison officers are also faced with increasing gang violence, and new study by the SPS found that gang violence has been fuelled by steroids inhaled through vapes. These steroids were identified in every prison that the study looked at. With many premises overcapacity and understaffed, prison officers are often faced with terrifying situations. As highlighted to me by one of the POA campaigners, a situation has occurred where the ratio was 66 prisoners to two female prison officers, and at one point just one officer was left alone with the prisoners. The chief executive of the SPS also warned that officers are facing significant danger from organised crime gang members. While we agree that there should be action on the pension age, the Scottish Government also must look at what it can do for prison officers. It can ensure that prison officers are not subjected to such adverse work conditions. Measures such as providing body-worn cameras for officers' safety can be implemented, reversing recent setbacks, like the loss of these cameras when HNP Kilmarnock was nationalised by the SNP. In conclusion, I agree that 68 is too late. It is a long time to expect officers to work on the front-line, especially in such harsh and difficult conditions, but it is also important that the Scottish Government addresses the pressing and systemic issues facing our prison system. The wellbeing and safety of our prison officers must receive greater focus from the Government. I congratulate my colleague Pauline McNeill on securing this important debate. The age at which prison officers can retire from the service at present and collect their pension is set at 67 and is due to increase to 68. Whilst their retirement age continues to be linked to the UK pension age, prison officers also face the real prospect that this could be delayed even further. As it stands, 67 or 68 is too late and puts prison officers themselves, the colleagues for whom they provide backup support and the prisoners they look after all at unacceptable levels of risk. The admission of prison officers from the list of uniformed services for whom a pension age of 60 was agreed to be appropriate, recognising the unique toll that such professions take, was a significant error. As Pauline McNeill has said, the Hutton review in 2011 concluded that uniformed services where age was historically lower for pension to reflect the unique nature of the work should have had a pension age of 60 for prison officers. Of course, we must also appreciate that in other sectors, for example in psychiatric hospitals, the historically has also been lower pension ages. Five fighters, prison officers and the armed sources were all included in 2011, yet prison officers were excluded. The current retirement age fails to recognise the unique pressures on prison staff. It is abundantly clear from speaking to prison staff and reading the many responses that they provided to the Prison Officers Association, all members surveyed on the issue that the situation, as it stands, is untenable, untenable and unsafe. Over 90% of prison officer association members surveyed said that they believed that they will not be able to continue to work until the age of 68, with more than 95% fearing that they will need to leave their job before they reach this age due to the considerable physical and mental health challenges that they face during their work. In the words of one prison officer, by the time we reach 68, we will already be suffering from ill health, hip and knee issues and the stress that comes from working in the job. This includes strokes and heart attacks and high blood pressure. Most of us can barely live until our 70s. The Minister describes how they are already struggling to cope at the age of 49 and the injuries they frequently receive in the course of their duties are taking longer to heal from. Yet this officer will still be required to work a further 19 years of service before they are permitted to pick up their pension. It is clear that the mental and physical impact of carrying out these roles is incredibly high and, as has been said by Sharon Dowey, prison environment in which officers work is becoming increasingly dangerous. Prison officers work in an ever-expanding prison population responding to high levels of prisoner violence, often instigated by those high on psychotic substances. As has already been said in this debate, prisons are becoming more dangerous with the presence of drugs and indeed the increasing numbers of members of organised crime gangs. All of that is coupled with the Scottish Prison Service that is understaffed and overstretch. I urge the Scottish Government to meet with the Prison Officers Association to discuss those issues and thereafter to make appropriate recommendations to the UK Government. I would like to thank Pauline McNeill for her motion and securing this debate today. It was my pleasure to co-host along with Pauline and other cross-party colleagues a drop-in session in Parliament before the Easter recess with the Prison Officers Association. I know that many colleagues will have taken the chance to have a chat with prison officers about the work they do and the conditions in which they must do that work. In those conversations, I heard prison officers talk about the physically demanding nature of their role. Something that staff in their seventh decade, indeed approaching their eighth decade, should not be expected to undertake. Prisons may be controlled environments, but that does not mean that they are safe environments. We have heard already this afternoon and in many different debates in this chamber of the violence and abuse that takes place in our prisons. I would argue that such conditions alone are justification enough for a whole-scale review of our prison system, what and indeed who it is for, why we are still using a castrol system that has not fundamentally changed for decades if not injuries, but that is maybe a debate for another day. Today we have the chance to come together as a Parliament and stand in solidarity with workers who do a difficult and demanding job. We have the chance to make it clear, United called to the UK government, that we agree with the prison officers association's campaign that 68 is indeed too late. Pauline McNeill has mentioned, but I think it's worth reiterating that prison officers as a uniform service should have been included in the 2011 Furnace review of public service pensions. This review stated quite clearly that uniform services should have a pension age of 60 to reflect the unique nature of the work they do. Pauline McNeill outlined very clearly many of the increasing pressures on our prisons, all of which make a retirement age of 68 even less appropriate. Making prison officers work until they are 68 is risky and that lays the foundations for problems in the service in coming years. Experienced prison officers might decide to leave their roles in their 40s or 50s because they want to get another job before getting close to 60 when employment prospects will decline. This is not good for ensuring younger workers have experienced colleagues to support them as they get to grips with a job that many of us would probably want to do. It is not good for the service as a whole. It is also likely that sickness absence rates will increase, putting additional strain on remaining colleagues and potentially making prisons even more dangerous. This cannot be the future we want for the service. I do hope that we can all of us be clear in our commitment to ensure that prison officers are included in the list of uniform services with a retirement age of 60. I also urge the cabinet secretary in her closing to commit to engaging with the prison officers association and others so that we might explore what we can do to support prison officers until we get the change we need at Westminster. I will close with the words of a prison officer who took part in a survey undertaken by the POA earlier this year. I am aged 59 at the moment and have 30 years of experience in working in various establishments. The job that I am required to do has had a lasting mental and physical impact on me, in particular the latter years. The thought of having to go to 67 or 68 fills me with dread, as I feel that I will be less capable of doing what is demanded of me. It is not an environment for anybody over the age of 60. I am pleased to speak in this debate today and I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing it forward. I commend the 68. It is too late campaign that is seeking to address a long-standing anomaly for prison officers in the UK that are unable to access their pension until they are 68 years old. As a former emergency services worker, I recognise the strength of feeling and support behind the campaign. I am astounded at the appalling position taken by UK ministers who view 68 as an appropriate age for prison officers to retire on the grounds that a prison is a controlled environment, completely failing to understand the complexities and challenges of managing a changing 21st century prison population. The UK Government must bring about pension justice for our front-line prison staff and I lend my weight to the efforts to secure this change. I want to continue the theme of wellbeing and acknowledge the commitment of prison officers in Scotland. I highlighted at a recent event that I sponsored in the Parliament on behalf of Aidan Abett, a charity working with ex-prisoners. The event celebrated the publication of the Grud Prison Officer, a collection of reflections written by ex-prisoners, all now practitioners and educators in the criminal justice field. Their personal stories offer an insight into the importance of developing a rehabilitative culture in prison that derives from their empathy, compassion and respect that is shown by prison officers towards them, profoundly impacting their lives and in some cases probably saving their lives. They described what I would call discretionary effort, the lifeblood of every organisation, where staff go just above and beyond their role, day in, day out. If workers do not feel that that is recognised and acknowledged, they will eventually withdraw it. I want to pick up on that point in the context of today's debate. In a recent lecture entitled We Asked for Workers, We Got Humans, the former chief constable of Lancashire Constabulary, Andy Rhoads, set out a compelling argument for placing mental health and wellbeing at the forefront of every operational and organisational decision. The context was policing but this applies across other bodies of public facing workers and in particular prison staff. He spoke of the importance of embedding organisational justice so that a workforce is given the protection and support that it deserves and is better able to respond to the public in a competent and compassionate way. That ties closely with the survey findings in the 68 is too late report that highlights the impact prolonged exposure to the prison environment has on front-line staff, in particular those required to continue working to 67 and 68 years of age. The report includes some powerful quotes shared with the POA, including the one that Maggie Chapman used in her contribution, and I am going to repeat it now. I am aged 59 at the moment and have 30 years of experience in working in various establishments. The job that I am required to do has had a lasting mental and physical impact on me in particular the latter years. The thought of having to go to 67 or 68 fills me with dread as I feel that I will be less capable of doing what is demanded of me. It is not an environment for anybody over the age of 60. I would have felt exactly the same. To conclude, I wish the Prison Officers Association well in their campaign. I hope that today's debate shines a light on the injustice that is faced by prison staff in Scotland and the UK. As I begin my contribution, I also thank my colleague Pauline McNeill for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I know that she is a strong campaigner on these matters and will continue to stand firmly on the side of prison officers in Scotland. I was very privileged to have the opportunity to meet with the Prison Officers Association Scotland members in the Parliament just last month. I had some excellent discussions about what challenges are presented to both prison officers and service delivery as a result of retirement age remaining at 68. In setting out my position today, I start by firmly reiterating my support, as I did to the members for this campaign. 68, as we have heard across the chamber today, is too late. The UK Government ministers must act and Scottish Government ministers must really redouble any efforts that is currently making to deliver this much-needed change in retirement age to 60. As the Prison Officers Association Scotland's report ahead of today's debate states, I quote, "...prison officers are manifestly a uniform service and, as such, it is clear to me, Presiding Officer, that they should be treated in the same manner as other uniformed services and see their retirement age return to 60 without detriment to their pension." Indeed, the report that we have all read acknowledges that this was previously the case and due to a 2011 review which admitted prison officers from uniformed services, they are now expected to work until 68. Prison officers have explained to me the mental and physical challenges associated with working in the prison setting until that age, and other members have described that well. I fully agree that it is totally unacceptable and indeed untenable to continue. In the report, the Prison Officers Association highlighted that over 90 per cent of those surveyed believed that 68 is too late, and indeed over 95 per cent have concerns that they will not be able to work until 68 due to the physical and mental demands associated with that extremely challenging job. Across the benches, we all agree that this is no way to treat our prison officers who deliver an absolutely essential service, and they must be treated with dignity as they reach their retirement age, and that they deserve to have that challenging profession treated in the same way as other professions in the way that we describe them as uniformed officers. It cannot be forgotten that prisons, as we have heard, can be very violent places, despite them being described as managed environments, and that officers are indeed expected to attend regularly incidents and often violent incidents. By their own admission, prison officers are rightly concerned about their ability to provide physical support to their other perhaps younger colleagues as they encounter situations as they start to approach their sixties, and that they have concerns for their safety and the safety of others. We really cannot continue to expect, or we hope that the UK Government can take a position where they understand that this is a risk to the physical and mental health of those officers and others. The UK Government must act, and it must listen to others who are lobbying them. I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to do that as constructively as it can to achieve progress. I thank Pauli McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber and also to all the other members who I know support this motion. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this vitally important debate, and I want to place on record my thanks to Pauli McNeill for tabling the motion and to the many speakers who have made a valuable contribution this afternoon. I also pay tribute to members who have worked together on a cross-party basis to support the POA Scotland in their quest. I very much agree that 68 is too late, and as members will expect, I do meet with the POA and will continue to do so. We all agree that prison officers play a vital role in our justice system, helping to ensure that our prisons are safe, secure and stable environments for prisoners and staff. They are very much hidden in plain sight. They are a hidden part of our criminal justice system, and I think that the more that we can do together to show the nature of their work, the nature of the challenges and the value of their work to the general population in Scotland, the better. In my time, my tenure as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I have taken the opportunity to visit every prison in Scotland and I have seen the dedication, professionalism and engagement from prison officers. Whether it was in my past as a prison-based social worker or my present as a justice secretary, I have seen them working in a way that is person-centred, inclusive, trauma informed, rights-based and every day that makes a difference to people's lives. I was always struck but not surprised by the words of an individual in custody in HNP Greenock quoted in a recent HMIPS report when they said that staff have been exceptional in helping me through my sentence. All the staff are wonderful and easy to speak with. This is my first time in prison and I have felt supported at each step of the way. Of course, Rodri Nicolle spoke to the work of the good prison officer project, where people with experience of incarceration spoke very powerfully in their personal testimonies about how prison officers have helped them to turn their life around. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service fully recognise that prison officers work in very challenging environments and, at times, put themselves in danger and at risk. We have a high and rising prison population and, behind the numbers, as members have accurately reflected, there is increasing complexity. Whether that is the increasing numbers in custody with links to serious and organised crimes, challenges around drugs and psychoactive substances and increased demands for social care due to an ageing prison population. The Scottish Government and partners across the justice sector, including the SPS, are fully committed to tackling those issues and reducing the impact and harm that are caused. You will be relieved, Presiding Officer. I will not repeat the content of the two previous statements that have been made to Parliament on those matters, but I very much recognise that prison officers carry out front-line operational duties, including controlling restraint, until the state pension age, which is due to rise to 68. That is hugely challenging and carries with it significant stresses and strains. Of course, the Scottish Prison Service takes the safety and security of its staff extremely seriously. It is a matter that I discuss with the SPS on a regular basis in terms of staff well-being. The SPS provides support to staff to remain at work in meaningful employment when they cannot undertake full contractual role, including workplace adjustments and redeployment to alternative roles across the organisation, and every effort will be made to accommodate requests for a change or adjustment where the request is evidence-based. However, that does not in any way detract from the point of principle that prison officers deserve parity with other uniformed services, because it is well-established. First, I apologise to Pauline McNeill for missing the opening minute of her speech. She was a bit of a lunch stampede. It was hard to get back on the chamber, but I have been listening with the great intent of the debate. It is an area of interest to me and a formal role in this place, and I have to say that I am very sympathetic to what has been said and concur with a lot of what has been said. On the issue of parity with other uniformed services, one of the big push-backs over the years that this has been rumbling on in Westminster is that various Government ministers have said that the reason they are able to reduce the pension age for police officers is that they up front have been all along paying higher contributions to their pension as employees during the course of their career. Is it the case in Scotland that police officers here do have to pay higher contributions to allow them to retire early? Will that have to be the case for prison officers as well? It is more of a technical question rather than a policy intended one. I am happy to write to Mr Greene on that matter, because it is indeed a technical matter. In terms of prison officers, they do not have a separate pension scheme. They are part of that UK-wide civil service pension scheme that all devolved civil servants are part of. I would say that it was deeply regrettable that the Hutton review, in my opinion, what it did not take account of was the 1952 prisons act that said that prison officers should have equal protection and privileges and rights and authorities as that of police officers, but there was no account taken of that. It is of course well established, and many members have articulated it, that some occupations are restricted by capacity and age due to the physical demands of those roles, making it untenable to expect them to their duties to be carried out until state pension age. That was recognised by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which at that time set the age for 60 for firefighters, police officers and armed forces. Prison officers, as I said, do not have their own dedicated pension scheme. They are part of that wider UK civil service pension scheme. Over the years, the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Government have strongly supported the position of POA Scotland on this issue. We oppose the changes to public pensions following the Hutton inquiry, and in particular the requirement that prison officers should have the normal retirement age of 68. Successive cabinet secretaries for justice have made representations to the UK Government. We will continue to do so, raising concerns around the physical demands of the prison officer role. The UK Government has consistently maintained its position that there is not a sufficiently strong case to make an on-going special provision for operational prison staff. However, the testimony and the contributions of members across the chamber today would, I politely stay, beg to differ. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I know time is pressing. I very much want to acknowledge the work of POA Scotland on behalf of its members. I would like to point out that prison officers in Scotland have the right to strike, unlike England and Wales. They have a very constructive partnership agreement with the Scottish Prison Service. That has been in operation for over 20 years. I am very much welcome to the POA's support in bringing HMP Kilmarnock into the Scottish Prison Service family. I will end by reiterating the great value that we place in the work that prison officers do to keep our prisons safe and stable. Their commitment and dedication make a difference to people's lives every day, and I want to put in record yet again just how much I appreciate everything that they do.