We move to item 3 and I invite the Auditor General to give us a briefing on the section 22 report entitled "The 2005/06 Audit of the Scottish Prison Service".
I am sure that committee members will recall that in both 2003-04 and 2004-05 I issued reports on the accounts of the Scottish Prison Service to inform Parliament on the provision and the contingent liability arising from the potential costs of settling court cases relating to prison conditions.
I seek a point of clarification in relation to the letter of 20 December 2005 from the chief executive of the SPS, Tony Cameron, in which he indicated that there would be a further update. I would like to know whether we have had anything since then. As we have heard from the Auditor General, significant issues have been made public since the committee raised them in 2005, so the least that we could have expected is a letter from the chief executive to keep us up to date, given that the SPS was aware that the Auditor General would be issuing a section 22 report.
We did receive a letter from Tony Cameron, but we have not received anything since then.
I am thinking not only about the contingent liability aspects but about the progress that has been made at Addiewell, Polmont and Peterhead. It would have been helpful if we had had that information today. Perhaps we could gently remind Mr Cameron of his obligations.
I am obliged to members of the committee for allowing me to attend today's meeting.
I suspect that my answer will not fully satisfy Mr Stevenson, but our understanding is that the auditors have looked at the way in which the Scottish Prison Service has used its developing knowledge about the likely scale of claims, and the likelihood of those claims turning into liabilities, in making the split between the provision and the contingent liability. The auditors are content both with the process that the Scottish Prison Service has gone through and with the resulting statement in its accounts. The purpose of the Auditor General's report is to update the committee on progress in that area. You will see that the figures are still changing, but at a slower rate than before, which we understand relates to the growing certainty about what the final cost to the Prison Service and to the public purse is likely to be. However, it is still founded on some uncertainty and the situation will continue to evolve.
Caroline Gardner has mentioned the cost to the public purse. Will the introduction of the alternative dispute resolution process mean a reduction only in the cost to the Scottish Prison Service? I understand that legal aid costs fall due to the Scottish Prison Service only if it loses a case. Given that the alternative dispute resolution process will mean that no court case will be found against the Scottish Prison Service, will that in effect transfer the costs from the Scottish Prison Service budget to the Scottish Legal Aid Board budget? Therefore, will any savings that might be made be rather less than would appear just by looking at the SPS accounts?
We would need to look again at the overall figures on which the section 22 report is based to be able to answer that properly. However, I think that the answer in broad terms is that the use of alternative dispute resolution has the potential to reduce the cost both to the public purse as a whole and to the Scottish Prison Service by reducing the amount of legal aid costs that might be imposed against the service in a successful claim by a prisoner. However, we can look again at the matter if desired and provide in writing a bit more information and background.
I broadly accept that the approach that is being taken is likely to reduce costs, but it would be useful to receive that information in writing. Has Audit Scotland formed a view as to whether the new approach will make a substantial reduction in the legal costs that are associated with such claims, especially those that fall to the litigant rather than the defender? If it has not formed a view, does it intend to do so? Clearly, the settlements are likely to be more modest than they might otherwise have been.
It is certainly true to say that, in the initial Napier case, the SPS incurred significant costs of up to £1.5 million, which included almost £1 million in respect of the legal aid that Mr Napier received in bringing his action. There must be a very strong prospect that the total cost to the public purse will be reduced by the alternative dispute resolution procedure.
Has the SPS given any indication as to the scale of the reduction? Clearly, £58 million represents a quarter of the direct running costs of the service and 17 per cent of the overall cost. If, per misadventure, the contingent liability were to crystallise as a true cost, those proportions would rise.
The answer to that question would depend on key assumptions about the number of prisoners and former prisoners who would be likely to make claims under the procedure. It would be speculative for me to answer that. I suggest that the question would be more appropriately answered by the Scottish Prison Service.
Thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Black.
I seek clarity on some of the timescales. In paragraph 9 of the section 22 report, the Auditor General summarises the progress that has been made in improving conditions and reminds us that the practice of slopping out has been eliminated except at Peterhead and in one hall at Polmont. Is the Auditor General in a position to clarify when we might expect to see that position change? Do we know when the new accommodation at Polmont will be provided?
I suggest that those questions would be best answered by the Scottish Prison Service, which has undertaken to update the committee from time to time on these matters. The best that I can offer the committee is to say that we have been advised by the service that the new accommodation at Polmont that is mentioned in the letter of 20 December should be completed and available by the end of this year. The future of Peterhead prison will be influenced by the outcome of the consultation exercise on prisons in the north-east of Scotland that is under way. We have no information on how long that is expected to last.
I have great difficulty clarifying what we know as opposed to what we do not know. You say:
If the committee wishes to pursue these matters, I would encourage it to obtain the most up-to-date and reliable information that it can, the source of which must be the Scottish Prison Service.
I remind members that, under item 9, we will discuss our response to the report, so it will be possible for members to propose that we write to Tony Cameron.
I have difficulty clarifying what is happening. It appears to me that public money is being spent through legal aid to chase the consequent spending of public money. Court decisions are awaited, but the problem will not be solved until the new prisons are built. The situation seems to be an absolute mess.
I do not think that the Auditor General can add to what he has already said.
I just want to make the committee aware that it is my understanding that last week the SPS wrote to the community justice authorities, which came into being only on 1 September, about the north-east prisons consultation. The purpose of the letter was not to consult the community justice authorities—the local authority criminal justice and social work departments had already responded to the consultation—but to seek their views on a timescale to November for the implementation of any recommendations that derived from the consultation. The community justice authorities are not being consulted formally. The committee may wish to confirm that this Opposition member's statement is correct in every detail and take its own view, but that is my understanding of the situation.
Thank you for that briefing.