Justice 1 Committee, 05 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 5, 2001

Official Report 299KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Item 3 is the convener's report. I refer members to paper J1/01/33/7, which is a copy of a letter from Tony Cameron to me about the committee's meeting on 23 October. Committee members have the letter, which is important. I take this opportunity to read it out so that it is included in the Official Report. It says:

"Dear Ms Grahame,

Thank you for your letter of 21 November affording me the opportunity of looking at the records which I did not have with me when I met the Committee on 23 October.

I can confirm that I was not present at the meeting on 26 January to which Mr Stevenson referred. I was mistaken in recalling that I was at that meeting. I was at the briefing and debrief for that meeting with Ministers but not at the meeting itself. I also had in my mind discussions between the Deputy First Minister and Mr Salmond on 16 February at which I was present.

May I take this opportunity to comment on what Mr Stevenson is recorded as saying that Ministers had given the assurance that the quality of service at Peterhead would be the determining factor in making a decision on the future of the prison service in that location and I am recorded as saying that Ministers had also stated that the future provision at Peterhead would be decided in the context of the Estates Review and that costs and alternatives would be considered and that no undertaking was given that one feature would prevail over others.

I see from examining the record of the Minister's meeting to which you refer that Ministers stressed ‘that the consultation would recognise the qualitative aspects as well as well as the quantitative aspects and that the qualitative "cultural" aspects would be included in the consultation on the Estates Review'.

Though my recollection of being at that particular meeting was mistaken, I think that my response to Mr Stevenson accurately recalled the views that Ministers gave to Mr Salmond at that meeting and which was repeated on 16 February.

I am copying this letter to the Deputy First Minister.

Yours sincerely,

TONY CAMERON".

Now that we have received that response, I ask members what they wish to do, bearing in mind the context in which the matter was first raised. That letter was copied to the person who was first referred to—Alex Salmond MP—and I have not yet received from him a response to it. Any such response might also be interesting.

If it is important to find out what was said at that meeting, we cannot get that evidence from Mr Cameron, because he did not attend it. We must ask the ministers who were present and Mr Salmond for their recollections of the meeting.

Can I take it that the committee wishes to call the Minister for Justice, Mr Henry McLeish and Mr Alex Salmond before it in relation to the matter?

A letter to them would be appropriate, rather than bringing them before the committee to give evidence.

Do you want a written response in relation to what was said at the meeting?

Yes.

The only problem that I have with that—I am not trying to be difficult—is that the way in which things are said at meetings is important. We have minutes and so on, and I accept that what Mr Cameron said at the meeting was recorded, but the way in which things are said and the emphasis that is put on them are at the bottom of the matter. The crux is whether an undertaking was given and it might be difficult to get to the heart of the matter through correspondence instead of asking people directly. That is why I made my suggestion.

To be fair, we have asked Tony Cameron to respond in writing; I think that Alex Salmond and Henry McLeish should be given a similar opportunity. Thereafter, we could consider whether to call them before us.

I accept Paul Martin's guidance. In the first instance, we will ask for a response and comments. Then, if we wish further to press the matter, we can leave ourselves the possibility of determining whether any undertaking was given and whether any emphasis was placed on Peterhead prison. We do not want to lose sight of the point.

Members indicated agreement.

As a matter of general practice, civil servants always keep minutes of meetings. Such minutes are always invaluable. When people's recollections are being asked for on the spur of the moment, those are not as conclusive as the minute, which is usually typed out on the day following the meeting. I think that it would be perfectly permissible to ask for a copy of that minute, because the facts in this case have been under question.

The minute of the meeting that is under discussion was among our papers for our previous meeting. I am content with Lord James's comments about minutes although, as we know, minutes are often skeletal compared to the detail of everything that was said.

I accept Paul Martin's guidance. In the first instance, we will write requesting responses from those who attended the meeting and we will make progress from there.