Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

That would not be ideal.

Indeed. There are two privately run prisons in the estate. What is your general view of the privately run prisons versus the publicly run prisons?

You will be aware that the Government has chosen to take HMP Kilmarnock back into—presumably—public service. We have struggled to get any justification for that decision, and the argument seems to be around cost. However, you said that we might not have full sight of all the detail that we need. Would you say that HMP Kilmarnock is currently good value for money? What is the situation there?

I understand, but when you go in there—in your independent neutral role—to inspect the prisons, what do you see when you go into HMP Addiewell or HMP Kilmarnock compared with what you see in other prisons?

The cost will be in the tens of millions. I am sure that the committee will discuss that in more detail, and with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans.

My final point is about women in prisons. In the submission, you said:

“Women in particular are at the extreme end of the waiting times and if requiring high secure in-patient treatment are transferred to England”.

Is that a capacity problem in Scotland?

Does that mean that there are facilities in Scotland, but they are full, or that there are no facilities?

Why do you think the Government would want to take HMP Kilmarnock back in-house to SPS?

I am not, but I would love to know.