Justice 2 Committee, 27 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Official Report 184KB pdf

---

Prisoner Escort and Court Custody Services Contract

The next item is consideration of the minister's statement on the prisoner escort and court custody services contract. Given recent events, I felt it appropriate to include the item on the agenda; however, it is obviously for the committee to decide what further action, if any, should be taken.

I have asked my clerks to give me sight of our timetable for the next few weeks and I must say that the word "tight" is a euphemism. It may be helpful for members to take that into account in their discussions. We have a very full committee schedule. Joint meetings with the Justice 1 Committee are coming up tomorrow and next week in our committee slot in connection with the budget process. There is another joint meeting the following week. We must also deal with our draft stage 1 report on the Tenements (Scotland) Bill. That takes us to 11 May. Beyond that, we must finalise the stage 1 report, and we have also penned in our youth justice inquiry, which will begin in early June and proceed thereafter. Stage 2 of the Tenements (Scotland) Bill will also take place in June. My aim is to provide members with an aide-mémoire of the current work load. Having given that initial guidance, I am open to suggestions from committee members.

I appreciate fully the fact that the timetable is tight and that if we decided to take action on this issue we would have to rejig something else. Let me make my opening gambit. Given that we will start our youth justice inquiry in June, I assume that we will come nowhere near finishing it before the summer recess. We may want to decide to commence the inquiry at the start of the new term rather than in June. That is one possible way of rejigging the timetable.

I hope that, now that the dust is beginning to settle on the issue of Reliance Secure Task Management Ltd, it would be worth while for the committee to consider some remaining issues. We should focus not on what happened when Reliance took over the contract but on the period before that. In particular, there is a need for us to consider the period of the negotiation of the contract, running up to the awarding of the contract. It strikes me that one aspect of the issue is still shrouded in confusion. We know that Reliance worked on an implementation plan that became part of the contract. The next thing that we know is that when the company took over the contract, it transpired that it had underestimated completely the scale of the task that it had to undertake. It is less clear how that was allowed to happen—to put the matter in simple terms. What controls were exercised and what involvement was there on the part of Scottish Executive officials and ministers or Scottish Prison Service officials? That area is very unclear to me.

It is important that we know what happens when such major contracts are awarded. Who is in charge? Who ensures that the company that gets the contract is prepared for the job that it must do? If we were to consider those questions, we might learn lessons not just about this case but about similar contracts that are awarded in future.

What do you have in mind? Are you suggesting that the committee conduct an inquiry?

Yes. Obviously, we would have to decide exactly what the scope and length of the inquiry should be. I believe strongly that someone must examine the period to which I have referred. If we do not conduct an inquiry, we will not know what happened. Reliance prepared and submitted its implementation plan at one end of the process, whereas at the other end it became clear that the company had completely underestimated the task. No one seems to know whose job it was to ensure that that did not happen.

Nicola Sturgeon has proposed that the committee should engage in some form of inquiry.

It is understandable that there has been considerable concern about what happened at Hamilton sheriff court and about the conduct of Reliance. People are still seeking assurances on that issue. Last week, the Minister for Justice was keen to answer members' questions on the matter. I am not sure whether at this point we need to conduct a full-scale inquiry. However, we should ask representatives of the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance to appear before the committee. Before we commit ourselves to holding an inquiry, we should hear from both organisations and have them deal with some of our questions and outstanding concerns. Once we have done that, we will be in a better position to make a judgment on whether we need to conduct a full-scale inquiry, especially given that the committee has already made a number of commitments and has a number of legislative obligations that it cannot push to one side.

Can you clarify the structure that you propose? Do you suggest that we slot a couple of evidence-taking sessions into a committee meeting?

Yes.

What do other members think?

I am sympathetic to both suggestions. I am not sure what the difference is between having an inquiry, as Nicola Sturgeon proposed, and bringing both groups before the committee, as Karen Whitefield suggested. Either way, we should hear from people from Reliance—if they will come—the Scottish Prison Service and perhaps the Minister for Justice or the Deputy Minister for Justice. Those are the three parties that are involved.

By way of general guidance—I am sure that members will correct me if I am wrong—the procedure for an inquiry is normally that we agree a remit, take evidence from a fairly wide-ranging group of witnesses and then prepare a formal report for publication. A committee would not normally anticipate concluding an inquiry in fewer than two or three meetings that would be entirely devoted to the matter. As I said earlier, we would have a slight timetabling problem if we wanted to do that. That would be the difference between the proposal that we hold an inquiry and Karen Whitefield's suggestion that we try to slot in some evidence-taking sessions so that we hear from two of the critical operators in the sectors that have been affected by recent events.

I support Karen Whitefield's proposal, because there is another subtle difference at play. Currently, people—in particular, the general public—want to be reassured that the contract is robust and that the problems that have been experienced since the start of the contract will not recur.

I understand Nicola Sturgeon's desire to consider the circumstances that led to the contract being awarded, but if we are to have any cognisance of what the public want, we should ensure that the existing contract is robust. A couple of evidence-taking sessions would meet that requirement and enable us to act swiftly.

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for that. The clerks are whispering in my ear about our timetable. We are presented with the outline that I gave earlier; if witnesses could attend, we might manage to have an evidence slot on Tuesday 25 May. At that meeting we will try to finalise our stage 1 report on the Tenements (Scotland) Bill, so there might be a little more space in the schedule.

The youth justice inquiry is scheduled for the first two meetings in June. I listened to Nicola Sturgeon's suggestion that, in effect, we consider postponing that inquiry—

Only if that were absolutely necessary.

The committee will undoubtedly be involved in the legislative programme that is anticipated for the autumn and I am slightly concerned that we might get too many ropes around our feet. I am just giving the committee a little factual information about the timetable that lies ahead.

I do not think that there is a great difference between my suggestion and Karen Whitefield's proposal. Given that I am suggesting that we consider the issues around the negotiation, awarding and detail of the contract, I cannot envisage that we would want to take evidence from anyone other than the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance—and the minister or Scottish Executive officials, who are part of that tripartite structure of responsibility, because the Scottish Executive is responsible for the Scottish Prison Service.

I take Jackie Baillie's point about public anxiety. I entirely understand and it is quite right that we should be procedurally locked into a static timetable. However, another escape—God forbid that that should happen—would tip the balance and push us towards holding a more formal inquiry. I hope that that will not happen, but I sense that it might be the catalyst that would oblige us to hold an inquiry into the matter.

The discussion is helpful. Are there any other comments?

I agree with Karen Whitefield. It is important that we find out what the relationship is between the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance and who was responsible for training Reliance staff. There seems to have been a mismatch between what one group expected and what the other group delivered.

I agree. I am not trying to make a political point, but when we get down to the nitty-gritty, it is equally important to establish the relationship between the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Executive. We must consider that arm of the matter.

Let me draw some strands together. Either the Justice 1 Committee or the Justice 2 Committee must be seen to be taking an interest in what happened, and the Justice 2 Committee has the first opportunity to do so. The issue was a significant development that deeply concerned persons working in the sectors affected—the Scottish Prison Service, the court system and the police force—and the public. I sense from members' comments that we would be content with an evidence slot, and there seems to be a consensus that the slot would involve Reliance and the Scottish Prison Service. I support Nicola Sturgeon's view. If we are to take evidence, it would seem a little strange not to have the Executive present, in the form of either the Minister for Justice or the deputy minister.

If I am correct, members agree that, as soon as we can, we will slot into a meeting evidence from the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance. I am less clear whether members agree that that slot should include either the Minister for Justice or the deputy minister. Is there any disagreement on that?

Are the minister or deputy minister the appropriate people, or should we speak to the civil servants who are responsible for the contract in the Executive?

We can anticipate that the minister would be attended by officials and advisers.

The minister has made clear her role in what happened. She has answered a number of questions on the subject on the record in the Parliament. My preference would be to reserve our position on whether either the minister or the deputy minister needs to appear before the committee. When we have heard from Tony Cameron, who is the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, and from Reliance, we may well have questions that still need to be answered, although I am not sure whether that will be the case. Initially, the most important groups from which to hear are the SPS and Reliance.

Nicola Sturgeon has indicated that she wants to speak. I do not want to dwell on the matter unnecessarily; I want to come to a decision.

I will be brief.

With the greatest of respect, even after the minister's statement last week, I still do not know what the Scottish Executive's role was during the negotiations on and awarding of the contract. I know what the minister's role has been since James McCormick made a bolt for freedom; I do not know what the Scottish Executive's position was, or should have been, prior to that. I am not trying to prejudge the issue, but there are legitimate questions that we need to ask the ministers and their civil servants, as well as questions for the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance. Even a shortened evidence-taking session would be incomplete without the Scottish Executive.

We must come to a decision. Do members agree that we should have an evidence slot comprising the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance?

Members indicated agreement.

We will organise that. We must now vote on whether the evidence slot should include the minister or deputy minister, accompanied by advisers. Does someone wish to propose that the minister be invited to participate in the evidence slot?

I will propose that.

Can I just clarify that Karen Whitefield's position is that there will be an opportunity to hear from the minister later if there are unanswered questions? We are not precluding hearing from the minister. The point is important.

We must try to deal with actualities. One actuality is that I know who two of the parties are who are coming to the evidence-taking session. I need to ascertain whether there is to be a third party, which Nicola Sturgeon proposes would be the Scottish Executive. I am just trying to sort out who is being invited and when a slot would be available.

The question is, that the committee agrees that the Minister for Justice should be invited to appear before the committee. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)

Abstentions

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)

The unanimous decision is that we will have an evidence slot at which the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance will appear. As I said, we are dependent on their availability. By majority decision of the committee, the Executive is not to be included in the invitation at this stage, although I understand—

There were three votes for and four abstentions.

I beg your pardon. I am so sorry; I thought that the abstentions were opposing views.

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 0, Abstentions 4. Therefore, all the witnesses will come to the evidence-taking session. Thank you for that.