Prisons
Before we move on to the main business of the morning, we will deal with a matter that ought to have been on the agenda as a convener's report. I feel that I must bring the issue to the committee's attention.
A matter was raised by Alex Salmond MP with regard to evidence that was given to the committee on 23 October by Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. Members should have a copy of that letter and a copy of the Official Report to which the letter refers. The letter deals with a serious issue regarding evidence to the committee and I seek members' guidance on what should be done about it.
The letter is dated 12 November and is written to me as the convener of the Justice 1 Committee. Referring to the Official Report of the 23 October meeting, it says:
"I write to you on a most serious matter after examining the minutes of the Justice 1 Committee hearing of 23 October 2001.
I have to tell you that Mr. Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service seriously misled your Committee at its hearing.
In column 2706 Mr. Cameron, in response to a question from Stewart Stevenson, claimed to have been present at a meeting between myself, the First Minister and the Justice Minister on the 26 January. He then went on to inform the Committee of his view of the commitments given or not given at that meeting and claimed to ‘remember the assurance well'.
In fact Mr. Cameron was NOT in attendance at the meeting and any comments he made about it seem more to do with his prejudices against Peterhead Prison than genuine information to be given to your committee. Nor could Mr. Cameron be confusing this with any other meeting since I have NEVER held a meeting about Peterhead with the First Minister at which Mr. Cameron was present.
I took notes of the key points of the meeting which I am sure would be confirmed by the official Executive minute. Mr. McLeish twice assured me that the quality of service would be a key factor in the consultation exercise and he readily agreed to me putting that fact in my press release following the meeting, a copy of which I also enclose with the hard copy of this letter.
A further key commitment at the same meeting which may be of interest to your Committee was from the Justice Minister who said that HMCIP (Mr. Fairweather) would have a key role in determining on the question of ‘total prison culture' which has been so important in the success of the Peterhead programmes.
I am sorry I have had to write to you with such a serious charge against a public official. Of course I stand ready to assist your Committee in any way I can, including giving further information or evidence if required.
In the meantime I leave the matter in your hands."
This matter is serious and I am seeking guidance from members of the committee. I will refer to the Official Report of the meeting. In column 2706, Stewart Stevenson asks:
"Does the assurance stand that the First Minister and the Minister for Justice gave to Alex Salmond when he met them on 26 January 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, if not in that building?"
Tony Cameron replies:
"I was at the meeting, so I remember the assurance well. It was also stated that the future of provision at Peterhead would be decided in the context of the estates review and that costs and alternatives would be considered."
Stewart Stevenson asks:
"Will consideration of them be secondary to quality?"
Tony Cameron replies:
"No undertaking was given that one feature would prevail over others. Ministers did not concede that."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 23 October 2001; c 2706.]
The Executive minutes of that meeting on 26 January show that Mr Cameron was not at that meeting. They show that only Alex Salmond, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and
W George Burgess, the civil servant who minuted the meeting, were present.
I raise this as a matter of concern because Peterhead prison was a contentious issue. I do not know whether members of the committee take the same view. I put two suggestions to the committee. We could write to Mr Cameron and ask him to respond in detail to this allegation or we could ask him to come before us and respond to the allegation. However, I am open to members' comments.
I have not heard about this issue before, so my view is in some ways off the cuff.
I do not know whether Westminster makes people pompous or what the problem is, but Alex Salmond's letter is full of upper case "NOT"s and "NEVER"s and serious charges. Tony Cameron might have said that he was at a meeting that he did not attend. That is quite possible. We might want to write to Tony Cameron to say that it has come to our attention that he has made a mistake and has claimed to be at a meeting that he did not attend. However, to turn this into a large affair involving serious charges against a public official would be a mistake. I do not know what Tony Cameron might tell us, but he might simply apologise for getting two meetings mixed up when he was answering questions. Initially, at least, the reaction seems to be over the top. If it turns out that Tony Cameron has deliberately misled the committee, that would be a serious matter, but I think that we are not yet at that stage, despite the tone of Mr Salmond's letter.
I subscribe to Gordon Jackson's view. You have said that this is a serious matter, convener, but we do not know that it is.
The allegation is serious. I make no prejudgments.
You have said that it is a matter of great concern and that it is a serious matter. Now you are saying that the allegation is serious. However, we have not received a response from Tony Cameron.
That is right.
If Mr Cameron said that he had attended a meeting when he had not, and we receive a response to that effect, that will be of great concern. However, we may receive a satisfactory reply. We should give Mr Cameron the same opportunity as anyone else to clarify his position.
Yes. I make it plain that I would not have raised this matter had I not also had the minutes of the Executive meeting. Because I have that information, I raise the matter as an allegation that has been made, which I do not prejudge. That is why I ask for the committee's guidance on how we should handle the matter. As Gordon Jackson suggested, no committee has been in this position before. I will take the committee's guidance.
I, too, support writing to Mr Cameron in the first instance to ask him to explain. We can take it from there.
I suggest that, with the clerk, I draft a letter and circulate it to the members who are present and those who are not—they will be able to read the Official Report of this discussion. If the committee is content with the letter, it will be sent. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I add that the reason that this matter was unfortunately not circulated to members in advance was to prevent any leaks or problems prior to the meeting. We have had problems previously and I felt that committee members had to handle this matter themselves.