Justice 2 Committee, 06 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Official Report 132KB pdf

---

Prisoner Escort and Court Custody Services Contract

Item 2 is on the prisoner escort and court custody services contract. Members have a note by the clerk and the post-implementation review of the contract.

I have a few comments. I missed the committee's initial consideration of this issue, but when I was reading the note a number of questions came to mind. I was taken by the point in paragraph 5 that Reliance is currently in negotiations to vary the existing contract. That raises a number of issues, particularly regarding the basis of the projected numbers on which the contract was originally based. The note suggests that Reliance is dealing with a great deal more prisoner movements than was anticipated.

That raises questions about the contract, which was meant to be worth £126 million over seven years. Given that a balancing payment is made at the end of the year, the contract could be worth considerably more than that. Given that a variation is being considered, why was there such a significant underestimating of the number of prisoner movements that Reliance would deal with? How much is the balancing payment that Reliance receives at the end of the year for the number of prisoner movements in which it is involved and does that payment increase significantly the overall value of the contract?

The Scottish information commissioner made a number of points about the confidentiality clauses in the contract, which he does not believe represent best practice in public contracts. In the negotiations that the SPS is having with Reliance about the variation to the contract, will it ensure that the variation is not subject to the same confidentiality clause that the information commissioner criticised? Is it negotiating to have some of the areas exempted from the confidentiality clauses that were originally in the contract, for which the commissioner criticised Reliance? I thought that it would be worth flagging up those points, which merit further consideration.

On the latter point, I support what has been said, not least because the information commissioner is clear that he would expect the disclosure for private contracts in the delivery of public services to be of the same standard that we would expect from public services. I assume that, when a private contractor undertakes a service for the Executive, the performance reporting requirements are a matter of public record. Anything else would be the exception rather than the rule. However, we need to test that assumption with the Executive. If we test the general point, that will cover us for the future.

I share the concerns that Michael Matheson and Jackie Baillie expressed. Jackie Baillie mentioned the point that is made in paragraph 20 of the clerk's paper:

"The Commissioner commented that private companies delivering public services should be scrutinised to the same level as public services."

There is no valid argument against that. We should test the point and raise the outstanding issues in writing with the minister and/or the SPS, as appropriate. It would worry me if the variation that is sought increased the area that is covered by confidentiality. That area should be diminishing, and confidentiality should be the exception, not the rule. I agree with Michael Matheson and Jackie Baillie about that.

For information, I understand that some of the terms of the contract variation will be placed on the SPS's website when the negotiations are concluded. However, I am not sure how detailed that information will be.

Given that it is late in the parliamentary session and that we are talking about the Executive's procedures, it is my view that we should write to the SPS and the minister to get clarity on the points that have been raised. We should ask for a progress report on what is on the table for discussion—in general terms, as Jackie Baillie put it—and the principles of the contracting system.

This might be an aside, but for a long time I have been asking the Executive to consider using video links between prisons and the courts instead of having an escort service transport people who appear on remand between the prison and the court. I do not know whether it is appropriate to mention that in our deliberations on reviewing the contract, but it is important to consider other ways in which prisoners can engage with the courts. There have been pilots of video links elsewhere and the system has been used in Northern Ireland. It would be a particular benefit in rural situations.

Apart from the costs, obviously, there is the issue of security for certain prisoners.

I do not know why pilots have not been rolled out.

Does the committee agree to mention that in our letter?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their clear comments. Any information that we get can be included in our legacy paper. A future justice committee can continue with the work, but at least the initial work will have been done. Do members agree that we should include the matter in our legacy paper?

Members indicated agreement.