“The 2004/05 audit of the Scottish Prison Service”
Agenda item 3 is consideration of responses to "The 2004/05 audit of the Scottish Prison Service". Members will recall that we asked for responses from the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Executive following the report. We have, in response to our requests for information, received letters from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Tony Cameron, and Robert Gordon, who is head of the Scottish Executive Justice Department, which we will consider.
Members will recall that we asked for information about the timeline for delivery of two new prisons. Tony Cameron's letter covers that issue. The planning application for a prison at Bishopbriggs was made in July 2003 but was not fully processed until August 2005. The application was rejected. However, the application for a prison at Addiewell was made some six months later, in December 2003, and was processed by June 2004. Planning permission was granted for that prison, on which Tony Cameron's letter states:
"Final negotiations are in-progress with a view to awarding a contract in due course."
We are therefore not a great deal further forward in knowing what the completion date for the prison at Addiewell will be. The application for a prison at Bishopbriggs is subject to a planning appeal, so a decision on whether its construction will go ahead is even further away than we might have hoped.
On Robert Gordon's letter, members will probably find the most helpful information—on workshops, Executive guidance and so on—on its second page.
I invite members to comment on the letters and to say whether they wish to take action other than simply to respond to Robert Gordon and Tony Cameron by sending them copies of the Official Report of the meeting, which will include our comments on their letters.
The Scottish Prison Service's response was that one new prison has no completion date until the contract is awarded "in due course", and that one new prison is now under the planning appeal process, which could take some considerable time. When I ally that to the fact that the SPS has reduced the contingent liability for possible court cases, I am led to wonder whether that is sensible financial planning, given the further delays. Is £68 million reasonable, given the on-going situation and possible court costs, and will the alternative dispute resolution system, if it is introduced, be effective?
Scottish ministers have proposed a scheme for settling personal injury cases out of court, but is that alternative system mandatory or optional, and who would choose? What is the strategy behind it? I am also concerned about the Scottish Executive's reply, which states that matters are in the process of development by the SPS regarding the preferred option of alternative dispute resolution, but will that not also be a prisoner's option? That leads me to question whether the financial contingency is adequate. The Scottish Executive's action consists of one workshop having been completed and one that is planned for next year, and it is offering guidance on procurement contracts.
I wonder, too, about the research mediation project—following the English example—which has a working group that is due to report "sometime in 2008", and will hold roadshows over the next few weeks. To my mind, that is an admission that more needs to be done. I am concerned about whether the action has been adequate and I think that the matter should be explored further.
The letter from Robert Gordon makes it quite clear that he and his officials are quite happy to come to the committee if we want more information on ADR. Having heard Andrew Welsh's comments, I think that it would benefit us to have such a discussion with Robert Gordon and/or his officials.
However, on the two new prisons, there can obviously be no discussion on Addiewell because of commercial confidentiality, and the Bishopbriggs situation is now subject to an appeal, so I do not think that we or the SPS could comment on it. The SPS is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea—it cannot move forward on any of its developments, because doing so is not in its gift.
Although I appreciate the concerns that Andrew Welsh and Margaret Jamieson have voiced, I remind members that we agreed not to take evidence or to produce a report on those matters. I say that because we have, given the schedule for our future meetings, probably lost the window of opportunity to have done that, simply because of the time that it takes to get witnesses to come before us. We would be in great difficulty with regard to Audit Scotland's publication schedule and other reports that I am pretty certain members will want to take up. I wanted to remind members of that background. Although concerns spring from the responses, we need to think about the best way to address them. Robert Gordon's letter explains that he would be pleased to provide further information, so we need to think carefully and, perhaps, take a step back before deciding whether to call witnesses. If more information is required, let us consider how we can access it.
As you say, there are clearly questions and concerns raised by the responses. It is right and proper that we note those concerns, but I do not think that it follows that we should pursue the matters further at this time.
I am conscious that these issues, which we have only touched on, are part of a much wider picture. They are important in the on-going debates about the future of the Scottish Prison Service, the prison estate and a host of related matters. It is appropriate for the Parliament to continue to keep a close watch on those important matters, but I am not convinced that this committee is best placed to do that. I confess that I do not know the work programmes of other committees and what they are doing with regard to the Scottish Prison Service. I sincerely hope that one of our justice committees, for example, has the SPS on its agenda. It might be more effective for us to relay our considerations and concerns to the appropriate policy committee so that it can weave our thoughts into its thinking on the broader issue of the SPS and its future operation.
I can help you there. We have been copying both justice committees' clerks into our requests for information and the responses that we have received. We will certainly keep them informed of any action that is decided today. We are practicing what we preach by using joined-up thinking and action.
Although I am disappointed by Tony Cameron's letter, I am more disappointed that we are not yet clear about what is happening in Addiewell and do not know when there will be closure on the subject. However, the position in Bishopbriggs is beyond the SPS's determination because the process is slowing development down. I had hoped that we could have had more information about Addiewell; the committee might want to know when a decision on it is taken so that it can be noted.
I get the sense from Robert Gordon's letter that the Executive recognises that ADR has benefits that can be shared; it is finding those benefits itself and is trying to roll them out. I wonder whether doing anything further would be asking it to run before it can walk. That is not to undermine Andrew Welsh's important question about contingent liability. Rather than the committee doing some sort of accounting test, an eye has to be kept on that to see whether the amount is right. We were all shocked with the original amount, and we will now want to see that the current liability is deliverable in its reduced form.
Mediation is the chosen strategy, but it is obviously in early development. I am concerned that the original problem will remain in the meantime. I refer to the fact that the SPS has reduced contingent liability from £112 million to £24 million. I would like assurances, perhaps in writing, as to what will happen while the SPS solves the original problem.
That approach would be more conducive to the committee's getting closure on the issue. The committee is also concerned not to end up in permanent correspondence—I suggest that members think about that. In the meantime, would the Auditor General or any of his team like to comment on the responses?
The matter was first raised in my report to the committee in which we drew attention to the provisions and contingent liabilities. We will monitor those through the audit process, and the committee will have the opportunity to revisit the matter next year and thereafter.
I suggest that we copy Tony Cameron into the record of our discussion and ask that we be informed when decisions about the awarding of a contract and resolution of the planning issue are known. Is that sufficient?
Perhaps we should also be assured that the contingent liability sum is adequate for the purpose.
I was going to mention that separately. Is the suggestion about Tony Cameron's letter fine? In regard to contingent liability, is it most appropriate for correspondence to go to Tony Cameron or to Robert Gordon?
Such correspondence would go to the Justice Department.
Okay—we can draft those letters and issue them accordingly with the Official Report.
Meeting suspended until 12:00 and thereafter continued in private until 12:21.