Justice 1 Committee, 16 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2002

Official Report 297KB pdf

---

Prison Estates Review

We have before us copies of the prison estates review consultation document. With the agreement of the committee, I will write to the Minister for Justice to ask that more copies are published as a matter of urgency to ensure that as many people as possible can access the document.

Members may wish to consider the correspondence that we have from Alex Salmond and Jim Wallace in regard to what was said on record about a meeting at Peterhead prison on 26 January 2001. I will read out both letters. On 3 January, Jim Wallace wrote to me saying:

"As you indicate, Tony Cameron has now confirmed that he did not attend the meeting on 26 January between Henry McLeish, Alex Salmond and myself. As I said in the course of the SNP debate on 12 December no one is accusing Tony Cameron of showing bad faith in the evidence he gave to the Committee. Such an accusation would be very serious and I rebut it completely. It was simply a mix-up about dates of and attendance at meetings and I hope we can now let the matter rest.

You ask that I expand on the points to which Tony Cameron refers from the record of the meeting. I have to say that although obviously a verbatim note was not taken, the quote from the record of the meeting sums up the issue fairly well. Throughout this process, we have said that the Estates Review will be looking at options that provide the best value for money to the taxpayer, which is of course an evaluation of both cost and quality.

In the case of Peterhead, therefore, it means the options will be considered not only in terms of the costs (although these cannot be ignored) but also in terms of their ability to secure the delivery of programmes (particularly STOP 2000) for all sex offenders in the long term. I would hope that the Committee would agree with such an approach."

It is important that I read Alex Salmond's response to that letter because it deals with the emphasis on cost and quality. On 13 January, Alex Salmond wrote to me to say:

"Thank you for your letter of 12 December.

I note that Mr Cameron now accepts that he was not present at the meeting on 26 January 2001. I find it difficult to understand how he could have confused a meeting in Edinburgh with the then First Minister with a visit to Peterhead Prison involving the Justice Minister.

The importance of the matter is this. Throughout this long delayed exercise, I had found it difficult, as the constituency MSP for Peterhead, to pin down Mr Cameron on the criteria to be employed in the estates review i.e. whether it was a pure bricks and mortar exercise or whether the QUALITY of provision was to be taken into account and at what stage.

I was very satisfied with the meeting on 26 January precisely because the then First Minister twice went out of his way to emphasise that these qualitative aspects would be recognised in the consultation exercise. I know that Committee members will understand that at any meeting with Ministers the way in which a point is made can be of considerable importance.

I felt reassured by the manner in which the then First Minister dealt with the issue and the fact that he readily agreed to the point being stressed in my press release from the meeting a copy of which I have already sent to the Committee.

Finally let me raise two other related matters.

I was encouraged that at the same meeting the Justice Minister said that, on the critical question of the importance of the ‘total culture' of the prison environment in running successful programmes for sex offenders, he would seek the advice of HMCIP, Mr. Fairweather. I would hope that this commitment still applies within Mr. Fairweather's remaining tenure in post.

I also understand that the Justice Minister has now indicated that the qualitative aspects of delivery of programmes are included in the Estates Review itself and not only in the consultation exercise. I would think that is also to be welcomed, although it has never previously been made clear to me in any meeting that I have had with Mr. Cameron on the issue.

I hope these remarks are of use to the Committee and I would be pleased to discuss them further at any stage …

ALEX SALMOND MP."

What does the committee want to do in the light of that letter? It relates to evidence that was given by Mr Cameron at the meeting on 23 October.

Do we have to do anything?

That is a matter for the committee to decide. It is a fairly important matter when the First Minister apparently expresses the view that the quality of the provision at Peterhead will be as important as the bricks-and-mortar exercise. We may want to consider that. We could ask the former First Minister to give evidence on his view at the time. There are a lot of options open to us. I am asking whether the committee wants to do that, on a fairly crucial matter regarding Peterhead prison.

Surely the point is that the Minister for Justice and the former First Minister indicated the importance of the qualitative aspects of the delivery of programmes. I do not think that there would be any harm in our sending a two-sentence letter to the First Minister and the Minister for Justice, saying that that is our understanding and that we are proceeding on that basis. There should be no criticism of Tony Cameron. In the heat of the moment, when a lot of issues are being discussed, wording can be given that does not necessarily reflect exactly the words of the First Minister.

I am interested in the emphasis—it was not an undertaking—that was attributed at that meeting to the former First Minister. We might want to ask the present First Minister whether he endorses the views of his predecessor.

We might invite him to endorse the views of his predecessor.

You are always gentlemanly and tactful, James, unlike me. We will write to Jack McConnell and Jim Wallace in the same terms, to clarify the position.

I hope that there will not be any criticism of Tony Cameron.

No. We will simply ask for confirmation of the apparent position that is stated in the letter that we have seen and in the Official Report of the meeting of 23 October. Members may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that the review mentions the quality of provision. There is a deadly silence in the committee.

I do not recall seeing anything about quality.

I concur with Michael Matheson. There is a clear focus on the finance, although there are also issues about the numbers. The amount of space and the consideration given to quality and the reduction of reoffending in the report and the supporting papers is virtually nil.

I was just reading appendix C of the review. On the delivery of sex offender programmes, it says:

"Scottish Prison Service welcomes and endorses the view of Professor W L Marshall Ph.D., FRSC, a leading international authority on the treatment of sex offenders, that the work being done with sex offenders is of a high standard and represents a significant achievement for the SPS and its staff."

The issue of quality is therefore not absent from the review.

I agree that there is a note on it, but it is not part of the evaluation. That is the point that is being made, Maureen. The issue of quality is commented on but is not costed in any way. Rather than develop a debate on the subject, I suggest that it is the first point that we can raise. We will have an opportunity to discuss the subject later.

We should move on. The report is a difficult one for us. Members have received a copy of paper J1/02/11/1, on the appointment of a committee adviser on the prison estates review. Do members of the committee feel that they need an adviser? I know that I need one. First, I invite members to agree in principle to the appointment of an adviser, if that is what we need. Secondly, I invite members to comment on the role of the adviser and the specification for the appointment.

When you say adviser, will that person advise on the financial aspects of the review?

That would be part of the role. I was thinking not only of the financial aspects of the role, but that we should seek an adviser who could comment on private sector prisons versus public sector prisons—if we can find such a person—as we need to know something of the history and workings of prisons elsewhere.

I am unsure about how we could find an individual who is a financial expert and who also has detailed knowledge of the prison system and who can make a comparison between public and private.

The note sets out that the focus of the role is to brief us on the financial aspects of the review that are to be considered. To do so would also involve making comparison of costings between private and public. We will not be making comparisons between apples and apples.

It would be helpful if the adviser's role focused primarily on the financial aspect of the review. It would also be helpful to have someone with previous academic experience of considering those sorts of issues, perhaps in England where there are a number of private prisons. I find it difficult to imagine finding someone who has detailed knowledge of the prison system and who has financial expertise.

I may have misled members. When I said financial, I meant the consideration and evaluation of private and public and an examination of the costings that are involved. We know that certain things that are included in the costings for public prisons are not included in the costings for the private sector.

In that case, we are looking for someone who has a track record, possibly from an academic point of view, who can examine the issue of public and private partnerships vis-à-vis public sector investment.

As we have to deal with this item pretty quick smart, do members agree to the appointment of an adviser to assist with the financial aspects of the prison estates review and to lead us by the hand through that? Some of us need that.

That would be helpful.

Members indicated agreement.