Chamber and committees

That sounds worrying.

I want to touch on two local issues. The first is HMP Greenock. As Katy Clark mentioned, it is disappointing that there are no plans for a replacement for it. I understand that such things come at huge capital cost; we learned that the cost of HMP Highland has already nearly trebled and that costs will probably rise further. Such things tend to cost a lot more than was initially estimated, but it sounds nonetheless as though things are quite dire in Greenock. Do you have the power to shut it down? If you do not, which other agency has that power?

I will just add that, if the process is revised, it is unclear who the ultimate arbiter would be or what appeals process would be in place if, for example, organisers of such events felt that a decision had been made wrongly at local level. If there is no national consistency, how would that be presented at local level? Those issues need to be cleared up.

Good morning. Thank you for your written submission. I will start with a quotation from it, which backs up something that Teresa Medhurst told us last week. You say:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that”

a flat cash settlement—I am paraphrasing—could lead to a

“rapid deterioration of safety.”

Last week, Teresa Medhurst from the Scottish Prison Service said that it would

“impact on things such as violence and vulnerability.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 2 November 2022; c 46-47.]

What exactly do you mean by your comment? How would a flat cash settlement affect the volatility of a prison?

If you were not happy with what you saw, or you felt that shutting the prison down was the best option, would you recommend that it be shut down?

I think that Rona Mackay has covered it. I did have a question about your comment about having a separate prison for those with physical medical difficulties. We saw some of that in practice when we went to Saughton, where we saw how difficult it is and how the modifications that are needed in old buildings mean that a dedicated facility might serve that purpose better. However, if we are not building prisons in Dumfries or Greenock, it is hardly likely that we will start building for specific cohorts.

That is radical.

In what respect?

I will briefly recap an issue. The letter almost implies that £15 million is the settled amount, but the figure is nowhere near that, and nor is £51 million necessarily the end of it. At the end of her letter, the Solicitor General stresses that “proceedings remain live”; there might be other discussions and the £51 million is certainly not a cap on the liability.

On the financial side of things, it was helpful that the Crown Office made it clear last week that the money was not coming from its budget at a time when such budgets are under such pressure or are facing cuts. However, the question remains as to where the money is coming from. It is all very well saying that the Scottish Government will underwrite it, but which bit—which directorate—will do the underwriting? Does the Government take out insurance on such matters? At a time when ministers are keen to stress how difficult things are for it financially—which I totally understand—it is perfectly reasonable for us to ask where £50 million-plus of public taxpayer money will come from to subsidise the payment to the claimants.

Aside from the money—which is an important issue; it is actually a hell of a lot of money—there are other questions that lie alongside all this and which we have never really got to the bottom of. Why were the decisions taken in the first place? Why has no one ever been held to account? Russell Findlay mentioned that, too. A huge amount of taxpayer money has been spent, but, to my knowledge, no one has lost their job or properly apologised. A number of individuals have, rightly or wrongly, become overnight lottery winners as a result.

The Government must accept that, to restore trust in the Crown Office and its independent decision-making process, even with regard to historical decisions, some form of inquiry that is as independent as it can be must be held at some point. Whether that should happen in this parliamentary session or the next, I do not know, but I do not think that that faith can be restored until those questions are answered.

The problem is that much in the upgrades or improvements that those people are asking for costs money, and will require a capital budget that very few of them believe they will get. With all the good will in the world, an increase in the resource budget will keep people happy, but it will not necessarily be invested in the things that they need. That is the concern.

What are the consequences of sending people to England?