Prisoner Escort and Court Custody Services Contract
The next item of business is a statement by Cathy Jamieson, Minister for Justice, on the prisoner escort and court custody services contract. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement and there should be no interventions.
I am grateful for this early opportunity to make a statement on prisoner escorts. Many in Parliament and beyond will share my anger and concern at the events of the past two weeks.
In this statement I will inform Parliament on three matters: first, I will outline the chronology of the prisoner escort and court custody contract and explain why that reform is, and remains, necessary; secondly, I will say what measures are now in place to ensure that public safety is maximised and that the courts receive the service that they need; and thirdly, I will deal with some wider points on which I have instructed further action.
The new prisoner escort and court custody service is essential for modernising the criminal justice service, but the new service needs to deliver. Its introduction in Glasgow has been poor; public confidence has been damaged and the company has rightly apologised.
There are about 150,000 movements of prisoners between courts, prisons and police cells each year in Scotland. For many years, those have been handled separately by the eight Scottish police forces and the Scottish Prison Service. That has tied up hundreds of police and prison officers and takes them away from other front-line duties that are focused on tackling crime and reducing reoffending, and it is also not the best use of public money. Sometimes half-empty police and prison service vans pass each other on the way in and out of court buildings.
Let me be clear: the current service that we are renewing and modernising is far from error-free and there are inconsistencies and gaps in the way in which information is recorded. Many members will know of the frustration that that causes for police and prison officers.
Colleagues on the Justice 1 Committee were told by staff from Glenochil prison in May 2002 that
"escorting prisoners to court takes valuable resources away from the core work of the prison."
That concern was shared by the then chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, who stated in his annual report for 2000-01:
"The escorting of persons in custody between police stations, courts and prison, coupled with court security duties is a significant use of police resources. HMIC consider this is not core business for police forces."
My predecessor as Minister for Justice responded to those concerns on 21 January 2002. He announced that ministers had instructed the Scottish Prison Service to lead a multi-agency team to put in place a central contract for prisoner escort and court custody services in Scotland.
The SPS-led team put the work out to tender in September 2002 and received responses from bidders in December of that year. The timetable was extended to allow a more detailed and thorough comparison of bidders' responses with the costs of providing the then current system. Reliance Secure Task Management Ltd became the preferred bidder based on its proposals, which complied with the operational and commercial requirements, and its track record in providing escort services in the south-west of England.
In his statement to Parliament on the budget on 11 September 2003, the Minister for Finance and Public Services made it clear that ministers were willing to invest to secure the benefits of the new contract, which include the freeing up of police officers for other front-line duties. Contract negotiations were concluded and a contract was signed on 3 November between the SPS, on behalf of the criminal justice agencies, and Reliance.
There have been calls for the contract between the SPS and Reliance to be published. I want to make it clear that it will be published as soon as is practicable and consistent with the principles of freedom of information and contract law. Those principles include safeguards that cover information relating to law enforcement, prisoner security and commercial interests.
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was represented on the multi-agency team which put the new contract in place. It has since re-emphasised the importance that it attaches to the new contract. ACPOS recently stated:
"Once established, the new arrangements will provide, for the first time, a tailor-made, coordinated service for all prisoner movements across Scotland, reducing duplication and providing savings for the police and prison service to utilise in their core functions.
ACPOS wholeheartedly welcomes this move, particularly since, once the transitional period is over and the new arrangements have settled in, it is anticipated that up to 300 police officers will in due course be released from these duties for re-deployment to core policing duties. The police will of course continue to provide a presence in court buildings to maintain public order."
Reliance had been working on its implementation plan for some time before contract signature, drawing on lessons that it learned from its experience of providing escort services in other parts of the United Kingdom. Reliance itself proposed that the service should be phased in, starting with the courts in west-central Scotland. Reliance saw that area as offering a comprehensive test of its policies and procedures in a relatively compact geographical area. The timing, at the beginning of the new operational year and during the relatively quiet Easter break, was also part of Reliance's proposal. Reliance's proposed implementation plan was subsequently included in the contract.
It was always part of the implementation plan to retain police officers on escort and custody duties to shadow the Reliance officers for about four to six weeks. That was a lesson that was learned from the experience of introducing such services in England and Wales. That shadowing will now continue until the SPS, on my behalf, and Strathclyde police are absolutely satisfied that Reliance is providing a secure and efficient operation in all the courts. As I will make clear later in my statement, the separate question of maintaining public order and safety in the courts is and remains the responsibility of the police.
I turn to the events of the first two weeks of the new service. It is now abundantly clear that Reliance seriously underestimated the challenge that it would face in bringing in phase 1 of the new service. Reliance accepts that. Courts that were covered by the first phase were affected on the first morning by the late arrival of vans and the late delivery of prisoners to the courts. Glasgow sheriff court was particularly badly affected. The Glasgow summary custody courts ran more slowly than usual and sat late into the evening.
The late arrival of prisoners continued to impact on the running of those criminal courts throughout the first week. One reason for that is that Reliance has, compared with the previous service, adopted more robust arrangements for loading and unloading vans and for transferring prisoners into court buildings. The system whereby prisoners are transported in cell units within vans and transferred one prisoner to one Reliance officer at a time is very secure, but has proved to be slow, so it is currently taking longer than expected to process prisoners. That has contributed to early time pressures in the courts.
Problems have also resulted from failures to transfer information effectively from one agency to another. That problem does not result directly from the Reliance contract or from our drive to modernise the criminal justice service. Indeed, it is yet another argument in support of the reform programme that I lead.
Individuals who should have been held to answer other charges have walked free from court. A number of documented cases have come to light because of the scrutiny that is being focused on the operation of the contract with Reliance. For example, earlier this week a woman who had been on remand in Cornton Vale prison was liberated in error after appearing on a minor shoplifting charge. Like other incidents that involved outstanding charges during the past week, that should not have happened. That case and others like it require further investigation and action. The lessons of the past two weeks must be learned in order to ensure a better service in the weeks and months to come.
As soon as those operational problems became evident, the Scottish Prison Service took action to ensure that Reliance improved its service delivery. That was the right way in which to proceed. The responsibility for delivering the service to the standards that are set out in the contract rests with Reliance and responsibility for ensuring that Reliance meets its contractual commitments in full rests with the Scottish Prison Service, which is answerable to me for its discharge of that responsibility. When problems in delivering the contract affect the operation of the wider criminal justice system, that becomes a matter for ministers and goes beyond operation of the contract. That is why I acted quickly and decisively. In the past 15 days, I have gone out to see the problems on the ground for myself by visiting the affected courts, convening two top-level meetings involving the SPS, Reliance and others and speaking to front-line staff, managers, the chief constable of Strathclyde police, Sheriff Principal Bowen and the Sheriffs Association. Most important, I have ensured that action followed each of those meetings.
I would like to deal now with the events of Thursday 8 April. Those events went well beyond early teething problems in the operation of the contract. A convicted murderer, James McCormick, was ordered to appear in Hamilton sheriff court for breach of a probation order, but was mistakenly released. That was inexcusable: it put the safety of the public at risk, added to the suffering of his victim's family and undermined the credibility of the criminal justice service.
James McCormick should have been transported from Hamilton sheriff court back to HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont. Members will be aware that reports have suggested that an element of collusion and an exchange of identities with another prisoner feature in why he was released. Those matters are now the subject of police investigations—clearly, those investigations will deal with all the circumstances of the case. It is, however, quite clear that Reliance was at fault and the company has accepted that.
Immediately it became clear that McCormick had been released, the SPS and Reliance took action to review and strengthen identification procedures. Specifically, action has been taken to ensure that all information sources, including photo identification, are checked at each stage of the escort process, with checks being signed off by a senior custody officer.
That, however, provides little comfort to the family of McCormick's victim. The Loughery family have acted with great dignity throughout. They have already suffered at McCormick's hands and I am sure that everyone in Parliament has sympathy with what they have had to endure. The incident has added to their grief and I want today to express my deep regret to them for that. Their present ordeal will end only when McCormick is back where he belongs, which is behind bars.
I turn now to the other immediate actions that have been taken to tighten security arrangements, to speed up delivery of prisoners and to improve handling arrangements within the courts. It was made clear to me by Sheriff Principal Bowen, among others, that there were not enough Reliance staff on the ground. Reliance has responded by bringing in a number of experienced managers and staff from its escorting services elsewhere in the United Kingdom. They will remain here. That has made significant improvements in operations.
In addition, in the course of the week, extra staff have been deployed. Reliance has now deployed about 150 staff and a further 50 staff are in training at present. Also, in response to comments by sheriffs and others, Reliance will enhance its training to ensure that escorting staff are given a better grounding in court procedures as well as in security, where the more obvious emphasis is. Reliance has brought in an additional experienced manager to take overall charge of scheduling in order to ensure efficient deployment and movement of its vehicles.
Those measures have begun to produce improvements. For example, by last Wednesday, at Glasgow sheriff court the majority of the transport vans from the prisons and from the police stations were arriving by 10.30 am. On 15 April, Glasgow sheriff court completed its business just after 4 o'clock. By the end of the week, most courts were reporting improvements.
I am very aware that others—the police, and court and prison service staff—have all done their bit, and more, over the past two weeks to ensure that no cases have fallen during the transitional period. I am grateful that sheriffs, procurators fiscal and defence agents have shown patience and understanding as the new processes bed in.
I turn now to three further matters on which I have instructed action in the light of recent events. First, I have made it clear to the SPS that roll-out of phase 2 of the contract should be delayed. It will not take place unless and until the SPS is satisfied that Reliance is ready to deliver a satisfactory service day in and day out. The SPS is answerable to me for that judgment and knows that I want it to be made based on evidence and in the best interests of public safety and the criminal justice service. Reliance has accepted that that is the right way forward. I will also ensure that there is continuing dialogue with those who are most involved, including the sheriffs principal.
Secondly, it is clear that we need to look urgently at the effectiveness of communication within the system in relation to outstanding warrants. It is not acceptable that persons with outstanding warrants are released in error, but it is right that those who are responsible within the justice service should be given responsibility for advising me on improvements that need to be taken—improvements to meet my objective that there be an integrated and effective criminal justice service that puts public safety first. Therefore, today I am asking ACPOS to head a multi-agency investigation into the problems in the current system, and to come back within 12 weeks with a report on possible solutions. I expect the recommendations to result in fewer unnecessary repeat appearances in court, especially for serious offenders and, therefore, fewer opportunities for liberations in error.
Sheriff Principal McInnes's report on the summary justice system stresses the importance of reforming the system to reduce the risk of delay and opportunities for error. We are currently consulting on those proposals and we will take action quickly where there is consensus on commonsense proposals for improvements.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that people appear in court only when necessary. We need to end once and for all the practice whereby a sentenced offender is escorted from prison to court, unless it is absolutely necessary in the interests of justice. The Scottish Court Service and the Scottish Prison Service have trialled a closed-circuit television link between HM Prison Barlinnie and Glasgow sheriff court. I announce today that that will be rolled out to cover Hamilton, Paisley and Airdrie sheriff courts. That will increase public safety by ensuring that offenders—especially serious offenders—have to travel to court only when it is necessary that they appear in person.
I want to offer members reassurances on two more points. First, some people have expressed to me concerns about vetting of Reliance staff. I reassure Parliament that enhanced vetting checks on new staff must be completed before they can take up their duties, and that those are also double-checked by Scottish Prison Service management. The contract requires that. It is happening already and will continue to happen. Disclosure Scotland is continuing to process new cases quickly but rigorously. That is important, because we will not compromise on safety in speeding up the recruitment process.
Secondly, I know that there has been concern in recent days about public order and safety in courtrooms. Those are understandable concerns, but I make it clear that the contract for prisoner escort and court custody does not cover public order in the courts. That is now, and will remain, a matter for the police and the courts themselves. I discussed that point with the chief constable of Strathclyde police, who has responded with a statement that I believe will allay concerns on that point: He said:
"Public order and public reassurance within the environs of the Courts remain the responsibility of Strathclyde Police. The introduction of this contract will not see court security compromised."
I began my statement by saying that members will share my anger and concern about the events of the past few days. The new escort service is an important and necessary improvement, but its introduction has been marred by real problems of delay and confusion in our courts. Worse than the delays and confusion, there has been an inexcusable lapse in security—one that has appalled every single one of us working in the justice service.
There is no doubt that those events have undermined confidence in the new arrangements. I will work tirelessly to rebuild that confidence. Everyone who is involved in that work knows what I expect and what requires to be done. Some people, in the face of problems, may be tempted to step back from reform while others step forward and tackle the challenge head-on. I am certain that the reform programme that Scottish ministers are leading is the right programme to build a safer and stronger Scotland with a criminal justice service that puts public safety first. I assure members that I will continue to take the necessary steps to deliver a criminal justice service that is worthy of the public's trust.
The minister will now take questions on issues that have been raised in her statement. I intend to allow 25 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members pressed their request-to-speak buttons. Most of you have done that already, but I say now that you will certainly not all be called.
I say at the outset how comforted I was to hear from the minister today that Reliance had been working on its implementation plan for some time. Goodness only knows what might have happened had that not been the case. This on-going fiasco is further proof that running public services for private profit is a recipe for disaster.
The minister has said a great deal in recent days about the Scottish Prison Service's responsibility, but I remind her of her responsibility. Paragraph 1.2 of the SPS framework document states:
"the Scottish Ministers are responsible for the SPS."
In the light of that responsibility, will the minister explain why the assurances that she has rightly been demanding since the release of James McCormick—which amounts to closing the cell door after the prisoner has bolted—were not demanded before the commencement of the Reliance contract on 5 April? Why did she fail to ensure that Reliance did not, as she put it, underestimate the challenges that it faced?
Will the minister outline what involvement she had in the negotiation and sign-off of the contract, which, given that it is worth £126 million of public money, should be in the public domain now? What steps did she take in the lead-up to privatisation to ensure that public safety would be protected? What obligations does the contract impose on Reliance with respect to staff numbers, staff training and the penalties that are payable by Reliance for the breaches of contract to date, and what options does the minister have to terminate the contract in the case of further breaches of security? Lastly, and above all else, will the minister guarantee the Scottish people that, from here on in, her guiding principle will be public safety, not privatisation?
I will start by answering that last comment. I have made it clear that the guiding principle of everything that the Scottish Executive does is to improve the quality of services that we provide. Ensuring public safety and improving the criminal justice service are a vital part of that.
Presiding Officer, I would have to seek a considerable amount of indulgence from you if I were to try to answer every point that Nicola Sturgeon raised and I probably would not get it. However, I want to be clear that the responsibility for negotiating the Reliance contract and ensuring that the correct procedures were in place lay with the Scottish Prison Service. Of course, it is the minister's job to be responsible. When things are not going well and there are problems that affect the wider criminal justice system, it is the minister's responsibility to step in, to show leadership, to act and to ensure that things happen, which is what I have done in the past two weeks. However, the Scottish Prison Service, Reliance and other agencies also have responsibilities. I expect them to fulfil those responsibilities and I believe that they will do so.
I have made it clear that we will publish the contract in due course, but for the avoidance of doubt, I say that I will not put anything into the public domain that would further compromise public safety. The contract contains operational matters and I am simply not prepared to publish on a website or elsewhere anything that would be tantamount to a charter for criminals who wanted to use the information for their own ends. I will not do that.
I thank the minister for providing a copy of her statement.
Recent events have dented public confidence in our justice system and gravely prejudiced public safety, which is a matter of profound regret. I see from page 9 of the minister's statement that she does not dispute the concept of ministerial responsibility. That may not be comfortable for her, but it is certainly helpful for the rest of us.
The part of the minister's statement to which I was drawn is headed "Immediate remedial action", which is on page 11. The minister lists four specific issues on which she considers intervention on her part was appropriate and necessary. If it was necessary in the past 14 days to listen to the concerns of Sheriff Principal Bowen and for Reliance to employ 200 extra staff—if we include the 50 staff in training—and if it was necessary for Reliance to enhance its training and to introduce additional experienced managerial support, why did the minister not attend to, or at least observe, those matters before placement of the contract? It is regrettable that the minister decided to act only when disaster descended.
I have a reason for that question. On 7 October, approximately a month before the contract was signed, I convened a joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee. At that meeting I was asked, on behalf of committee members who had visited Glasgow sheriff court and listened to Sheriff Principal Bowen, to raise with the minister, at the first opportunity, concerns about security in the criminal courts. I said to the minister at that meeting that we—committee members—had confirmed that we would put the matter to her, and highlight the real concern that exists, certainly in Glasgow sheriff court, about whether the necessary security for the criminal courts would be prejudiced by the new arrangements. Given the minister's response to Nicola Sturgeon, I ask her whether she had any discussions with Reliance during, or prior to, the placement of that contract.
I thank Annabel Goldie for raising a number of useful points. The contract negotiations with Reliance are, quite rightly, carried out by the Scottish Prison Service. However, as Annabel Goldie has reminded Parliament, she and I have discussed the matter. At that point, I responded to her that, following a visit to Glasgow sheriff court, I had been made aware of a number of concerns. Those matters were raised, which is why I made it very clear in my statement that the police continue to have overall responsibility for court security. That particular issue was raised at the time by the Sheriffs Association and the sheriff principal. That has not changed and it will not change. I have made that very clear today.
I remind members that many members wish to speak, and request that they stick to a question.
I agree with the direct, hands-on approach that the Minister for Justice has taken so far in this serious situation. Will she confirm that the objective in this case, rather than being one of profit, was one of public policy and that that policy was to free up officers for the front line? In her investigation, will she examine why Reliance, a company that boasted experience about what it could produce under the contract, failed properly to prepare for the Scottish courts? Why did it think that Scotland would be so different? Will the minister assure Parliament that she will continue her tough stance in her approach to restoring public confidence, even if it means, in extremity, that she has to use her powers to consider cancelling the contract, if that is necessary? Does she envisage a role for HM inspectorate of prisons in relation to the contract?
I hope that I have indicated today that I have no intention of shifting from what has been a tough stance. I intend to continue that, and I intend to ensure that people who are responsible, in various agencies, do their jobs. They are accountable to me for that, and I am accountable to the Parliament. I am perfectly prepared to take on that responsibility.
Pauline McNeill's first point was absolutely right. The purpose of the exercise was to ensure that we had an efficient system that allowed police officers to return to front-line duty. That is the result that the Executive wants; in the context of retaining police officers in the courts, that is very important.
Pauline McNeill asked whether we will continue investigations into why Reliance was not adequately prepared. The important point is that Reliance gets its act together, as it has been beginning to do over the past two weeks. It has taken a very direct approach to ensure that that happens; I am not particularly happy about that—I do not think that anyone is happy about that—but, nonetheless, when action has to be taken, and someone has to take that action, I am prepared to do it. Let no one be in any doubt that that action will include, if the delivery is not appropriate, that the contract will not roll out. There is an option to cancel the contract if Reliance does not deliver.
Pauline McNeill's final point related to the role of the prison inspector. Although the inspector would not have responsibility for reviewing the contract, he would certainly have an interest in the management of prisoners while they are being escorted to and from the courts.
I thank the minister for a comprehensive statement. The Liberal Democrats continue to offer their support for the ethos behind relieving pressure on police officers, but it is clear that the standard must be improved or the contract must be cancelled.
In her statement, the minister touched on the question of vetting. My understanding is that, following legislation that was passed in 2001, guards who escort prisoners in England and Wales face tough licensing and vetting procedures by the Security Industry Authority and that the Scottish Executive has said in the past that it would undertake to get a legislative slot at Westminster to ensure that the SIA would cover Scotland, too. Obviously, that has not happened.
Do we have a question, Miss Smith?
Can the minister tell us when, or if, that will be done? In the interim, can she do anything to speed up the Disclosure Scotland delays of about nine or 10 weeks?
I reassure Margaret Smith that when I checked with the police service at the weekend, my understanding was that no outstanding or delayed applications in relation to people who wish to work for Reliance were sitting with Disclosure Scotland. Clearly, as the company moves to recruit additional staff, additional requests will be made. As I said in my statement, it is important to recognise that that is the enhanced disclosure and that the SPS has an oversight of that. It is also worth remembering that a training programme is in place. I want that to improve, because I believe that it can be better. However, that training programme is accredited by the SPS. Of course we can make improvements. As Margaret Smith pointed out, rightly, people will support the policy if they believe that they will get the delivery. I am now firmly focused on the delivery.
The minister stated that Reliance seriously underestimated the challenge of delivering its service. Given that a number of public agencies are now having to assist Reliance in delivering its service, will the minister confirm whether Reliance will be held financially accountable for the additional resources that the public agencies are having to deploy? Will she also confirm whether the SPS has had to sanction overtime payments for prison officer staff in prisons such as Barlinnie because of the delay in the transfer of prisoners from prisons to courts and from courts back to prisons? If the SPS is having to sanction such overtime payments, will the minister ensure that Reliance is held financially accountable for that and pays up for the public purse?
So that people are absolutely clear, it is important to state again that there was always an expectation—it was part of the process—that there would be a cross-over period during which the police and others would be able to support the introduction of the new contract and would have contingency plans.
One of the reasons why it was felt appropriate for the west central Scotland area, including Glasgow, to be a suitable place to begin the contract was that, in the event of difficulties, that is the area in which we would most easily be able to draw on prison officers or police officers, if that action was required. Further, there are provisions in the contract to enable costs to be recouped, in certain circumstances, if the SPS or the police have to step in. Again, let me be clear: I expect the SPS, which is monitoring the contract, to look at every detail and to ensure that, at every stage at which financial penalties ought to be taken against Reliance, they will be taken. I am in no doubt about that.
I welcome the minister's statement and agree that we cannot excuse the fact that Reliance was unprepared to comply with its contract. However, does the fact that a prisoner was accidentally released from Greenock sheriff court on Friday as the result of an administrative mix-up, rather than because of Reliance, not undermine the argument that everything in the criminal justice garden was rosy until Reliance became involved? Of course, two wrongs do not make a right. However, will the minister assure me that the poor performance of one company will not be allowed to derail the broader objective of getting police officers patrolling our streets instead of sitting in the back of vans with shoplifters?
Like most MSPs, I am very aware of the desire of people in local communities to see police officers on front-line duties. As I have said time and again, our policy is about ensuring that police officers can be freed up for duties other than those that they previously undertook in relation to prisoners.
Duncan McNeil is right. As I said in my statement, the previous system was not error-free. What has happened over the past couple of weeks is that, as a result of the much closer scrutiny of the new system, a number of areas have emerged—they have been clearly highlighted in the public domain—in which I believe there are gaps, which I intend to close. As I outlined earlier, that is why I have instructed that solutions be brought forward quickly by a working group.
How would it threaten public safety to reveal the terms of the contract now, but not at a later date? If the minister is insistent on not disclosing to us now the full terms of the contract, will she tell us what penalties have already been imposed on Reliance for wrongly releasing prisoners? How many prisoners have to escape before the contract is cancelled?
It is not a matter of how many prisoners have to escape before the contract is cancelled; we are talking about delivery of the whole contract. Any amount of failure to deliver would allow the SPS to impose penalties at various stages. For that reason, I cannot and will not say today how many penalties have already been accrued because the SPS will be examining work on delays and a range of other issues.
I am happy to put into the public domain under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 the details of the contract that can safely be in the public domain. However, I will not put into the public domain an entire contract that includes operational duties until the SPS, the police and I are absolutely sure that it will in no way give rise to security breaches.
The minister will recall that, when the Parliament was dealing with the relevant enabling legislation, namely the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, her deputy gave assurances that the new system would not be implemented until it was "secure and efficient."
What steps did the minister take and what system checks were put in place prior to the implementation of the contract to ensure that the new contract would be secure and efficient?
In advance of the signing of the contract and since then, a number of groups, including the Scottish Court Service, the police, Reliance and all the agencies involved, have worked to try to put in place a plan that would ensure that everything would work on the day. However, that is simply not what happened and there is no point in my pretending otherwise. We need to resolve the problems and move on. We need to ensure that the performance improves and, if it does not, I have the power, which we can exercise, to terminate the contract.
We should be absolutely clear what the policy was intended to achieve. I know that Bill Aitken supports the policy intention, because he has told me so often enough. The policy is about ensuring that police officers are carrying out duties on the front line rather than escorting people to prison. The policy is correct but the delivery has, so far, not been anywhere near good enough; it will have to improve or there will be further consequences.
The minister will be aware that Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland has raised concerns about the welfare of prisoners being escorted from prisons to court. Can she give us an outline of any role or responsibility that the chief inspector of prisons should have to ensure that the highest standards are met and that any difficulties are identified early on and steps taken to ensure that they do not continue to occur?
I indicated earlier that it is clear that the chief inspector of prisons has a role to play in relation to looking after the welfare of prisoners during their time in prison and during the process by which they are escorted to and from the courts. During the normal course of his work, he inspects various services. I have every confidence that he will comment appropriately and will listen to the views of prisoners, prison officers and others involved as he goes about his normal business of inspecting and reporting to us.
I have received information that, from October of this year, Reliance will assume responsibility for the transfer of prisoners who have a psychiatric disorder. Can the minister confirm that? If that is the case, how can its staff conceivably be given the appropriate training to do that task in that timescale?
With regard to the minister's comments that the negotiations between SPS and Reliance were nothing to do with her, is she suggesting that she did not approve the terms of the contract with Reliance? Assuming that she approved the contract, does it contain a clause that entitles Reliance to protect its commercial interests—that is the phrase that was used in the statement—and to refuse publication of that contract? If so, how can that be consistent with the need to ensure that there is proper public scrutiny where public money and public safety are concerned?
Again, let me be clear. At no time have I tried to suggest that matters that are my responsibility are not my responsibility—far from it. I have stepped towards the problems, taken that responsibility and, frankly, ensured that others accept their responsibilities. I have made it clear today that the contract will be published, in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, to ensure that there is nothing in it that further compromises public safety.
Fergus Ewing asked a specific question. I have made it clear today that there will be no roll-out of the contract unless and until the Scottish Prison Service can give me a categorical assurance that Reliance is fit and able to deliver it. The member is shaking his head, but I make it clear that that includes the point that he raised about prisoners with a psychiatric problem.
I wonder whether the minister is aware that it is possible to get a Reliance job advert from the jobcentre on the web. The problems do not seem much of a mystery when we see that jobs are being advertised at £6.70 to £7.00 per hour, that the person specification includes a 10-year work history—
Question.
This is a question.
All that an applicant needs is to be good with people and to have a D1 or public service vehicle driving licence. Given that only six weeks' training is available—
Can we have a question please, Ms Leckie?
Is it any wonder that having those people in charge of convicted murderers leads to convicted murderers being on the loose? Does the minister agree that this privatisation debacle is similar to the one in the health service, in which cleaning has been privatised and we have superbugs on the loose?
Ms Leckie, will you stick to your question please?
Now we have convicted murderers on the loose. If the minister is not prepared to distance herself from this privatisation debacle, will she resign if she cannot persuade the Executive to cancel the contract now?
During my visits to the courts and prisons last week, I met a number of the front-line staff who work for Reliance. I met people who come from all walks of life; I met ex-police officers and people who have worked in the prison service, in a range of industries, in other parts of the public sector and in the private sector. The one thing that came across to me from all those people at the front line is that they were mortally embarrassed by what had happened because they, as workers, want to do a good job. If Carolyn Leckie is seriously saying to me that I should, at the stroke of a pen, put 150 workers out of a job, I am frankly astonished.
I am afraid that I must move to the next item of business. I apologise to those members who were not called.