Criminal Justice Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Official Report 719KB pdf

---

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Our next item of business is the conclusion of our evidence taking on pre-budget scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s forthcoming budget for 2023-24. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown; Neil Rennick, the Scottish Government’s director of justice; and Donald McGillivray, the director of safer communities.

To get us under way, I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement, and we will then move to questions.

As the committee will know, earlier this month, the Deputy First Minister, in his statement on the emergency budget review, set out clearly the nature of the financial challenge that we face. The drivers of that challenge are well known; they include Brexit, the on-going impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, rising energy prices and high rates of inflation, which is, I think, currently at a 41-year high. Those pressures are impacting on households and on our vital public services.

Many of those pressures were evident when the resource spending review and the update to the capital spending review were published in May, and they have become even more pronounced in the subsequent months. Inflation means that our budget has already fallen by 10 per cent in real terms between this year and last year, and the announcements in the United Kingdom autumn statement do very little to address the damage that that has done to the Scottish budget.

Despite those pressures, and the necessary realignment of our spending plans, we have, this year, worked to continue to support front-line justice services. That includes support for the on-going process of recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, with the number of outstanding trials reduced by more than 10,000 between January and September this year. In fact, the number has been reduced even further since then, by around 12,000, to around 31,000.

We are building on the success of the new digital approaches that were developed during the pandemic. For example, the new digital evidence-sharing capability will enable evidence to be shared more efficiently and swiftly, thereby helping cases to resolve earlier. We have continued to modernise the prison estate, with the opening of two new innovative community custody units for women in Glasgow and Dundee, which reflects our commitment to trauma-informed approaches to rehabilitation.

Crucially, in the context of the cost crisis, we are supporting justice organisations to offer pay settlements that are well above the levels that were projected when our budgets were set at the start of the year. That is significant and challenging for the justice portfolio in particular, given the high proportion of our portfolio spending—over 70 per cent—that is committed to staffing costs.

The resource spending review numbers for next year are not final budget allocations; those will be set out by the Deputy First Minister next month. However, it would not be honest or beneficial to our justice services to pretend that exceptionally difficult choices will not have to be made across all portfolios, including justice, in the final budget allocations.

The funding that the UK Government has outlined over the coming two years falls well short of the combined impact of Covid recovery, energy costs and inflation, so we will inevitably need to match our plans with the available resources. However, as far as possible, my aims for the budget process remain those that were set out in “The Vision for Justice in Scotland” document, which was published earlier this year.

Those aims are as follows. We will continue the progress of Covid recovery in our courts, in particular for the most serious cases in our solemn courts. We will ensure that there are trauma-informed approaches for victims and witnesses, drawing on innovative recommendations such as those that Lady Dorrian set out. We will support our police and fire services to continue to deliver vital public services as they modernise and adapt to changing demands. We will support the work of our legal professional and third sector services. We will invest in our prisons to support rehabilitation as well as effective community justice services, including alternatives to custodial sentences and remand.

Members of the committee will recognise, however, that we will need to respond to those priorities within an increasingly tight financial context that is likely to last for an extended period.

With that, I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has as part of its pre-budget scrutiny, and to consider those issues in the on-going budget process.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. As usual, I will open with a general question. You spoke about “exceptionally difficult choices” that will need to be made in the forthcoming year. Is there any scope for deviation from the totals that have been announced in the resource spending review and in the emergency budget? Have there been discussions about whether there is scope for some sort of deviation around the budget that has been allocated so far?

To clarify, convener, do you mean between different portfolios?

Within justice, potentially.

The resource spending review was based on information coming from the UK Government, and it was about trying to set out a path for the next few years to give some context. The budget itself is separate from, but related to, that process. Between and within portfolios, it is, naturally enough, possible to change those totals. That is part of the process that we are currently undergoing, in discussions with police, fire and the Scottish Prison Service. It is not fixed in stone as per the RSR.

Leading on from that, in addition to moving and adjusting figures, I am interested in opportunities for efficiency savings and new ways of working. Can you expand a little on what opportunities there are, within the constraints of a very difficult budget, for that to be very much part of individual portfolios’ thinking with regard to their budgets?

It will be different in different parts of the portfolio. I mentioned in my opening statement some of the digital innovations that we have developed and are looking to expand on. However, we will necessarily have to look to further public sector reform in order to try to fit in with those financial constraints that I have mentioned. I have had discussions with the chief constable of Police Scotland as recently as yesterday, and with other services, and I know that they are actively considering things that may help with public sector reform. Those things would be necessary anyway.

The experience of fire and police in particular is an excellent example of public sector reform. That was a difficult decision to take, around 10 years ago, and there were difficult periods afterwards; I am thinking about the establishment of the joint police and fire boards. In my view, however, having served on a joint police committee in a local authority, the level of scrutiny of the police is now far greater than ever before. Those services have already established substantial public sector reform, but there will be more to come, and they are actively considering that, perhaps in relation to how the three blue-light services can work more closely together, not least given the findings of the Grenfell inquiry. That will be happening.

I have a final question on capital budgets. I am interested in more commentary from you about the adequacy of those. According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, some of the figures that we have suggest that the resource spending review would mean a cut to capital spending of 3.1 per cent across the portfolio. Are there areas within that overall requirement that you, as cabinet secretary, consider to be ones in which it would be easier to effect cuts than in others?

We are not proposing a cut, although you could argue that that might end up being the case, depending on whether there is a real-terms increase. The difference between real terms, which accounts for inflation, and flat terms is an important distinction to make. However, there are some flexibilities between resource and capital that we are examining closely. One example is body-worn cameras. There is obviously a capital cost to those but there is also a substantial revenue cost and we are looking to see what we can do to maximise the capital contribution.

It seems to me that, especially after the early part of the previous decade, between 2010 and 2016—I know that that is going back in history somewhat—we regularly had better capital allocations than resource allocations from the UK Government. We also had fairly frequent allocations of financial transactions, which can be applied only in limited ways. However, now, there is a much greater tightening of the grip on capital provision.

I make the point that the indicative capital funding envelope has been maintained from the spending review that was published in February last year. That maintains essential capital funding for the core justice services. That will always be a priority over new initiatives. It includes core services such as estates, technology and fleet. We have also confirmed more than £500 million of capital for our prisons, including the modernisation of the prison estate, which has been on-going for some time.

It is true to say that the spending power of that capital budget has been eroded by inflation and now pays for significantly less as the cost of raw materials increases. However, we remain committed to substantial capital investment in the justice system. We have to keep it under review and how that is done will be part of our discussion and negotiation with the different parts of the portfolio.

I notice that you mentioned body-worn cameras in your reply. I will open questions up to members now and, if we have time, we can come back to that topic later.

Sticking with the theme of budgets, Katy Clark has a question.

I have a brief question on the capital budgets and the modernisation of the prison service. We have heard some evidence that, to put it crudely, newer prisons are cheaper than older prisons. Have you considered that? Is there a business case for capital investment in that it will help budgets in the future?

It is not a new idea that you can achieve efficiencies if you build something new according to modern standards and if you do it in the right way, not least because you can also make it much more efficient in terms of the climate change challenge. The proposed prison in the Highlands—the replacement for HMP Inverness—will be our first net zero prison, so yes, of course, we can make efficiencies. For a number of years, we have had a programme of renewing what is, in essence, a Victorian estate. We are going through that process. The business case is developed for each proposition that we have.

I have a question on net zero prisons. One of the things that I have regularly asked about is district heating systems in, for instance, the replacement for Barlinnie.

Would you consider doing that? I do not know all the technical details, but effectively you would be providing energy for the prison and, outwith it, for the community and even for industrial estates there. You would be generating income by operating a district heating system in that public building.

09:45  

As I have said, the intention is to have HMP Highland as the first net zero prison. Deciding to develop a district heating system for an individual institution is probably outwith the justice portfolio. It would require the cross-Government working with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport that I think you are hinting at. Your point is perhaps whether—especially in relation to Glasgow, which has our largest prison population—having such a system could produce wider benefits. We are still in the formative stages of the process on Barlinnie. Perhaps Donald McGillivray or Neil Rennick will want to say more about that.

I confirm that district heating is one of the options that has been considered for HMP Glasgow. As the cabinet secretary said, the overall design work on the prison is still in progress and will consider a range of possible opportunities for providing benefits for the local community. Ensuring that it is environmentally efficient is one of the top priorities on design for HMP Glasgow.

Good morning. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, told us that she thought there could be a time slip on delivery of the HMP Glasgow project because of budget restraints. Will you comment on that? Would the gap be filled, and do you have guarantees that the new prison will be ready for 2026?

We have seen that there have been delays on large-scale capital projects right across the UK. Brexit features prominently in the reasons for those. The pressures that it has caused for supply chains and costs are substantial.

Our intention is to complete the project on schedule, but of course that will depend on a number of factors. There have been delays before now. Pauline McNeill has previously asked me questions about delays caused by the change in the prospective site that was to be used and the choice of a new site. We must acknowledge that. As I have said from the start in relation to HMP Highland, we are to some extent at the mercy of external influences such as Brexit, supply chain issues and labour shortages. We are trying our best to withstand those very real pressures and keep to programme, but I cannot deny that they are there.

Expanding on that a wee bit, we have been reassured that the new women’s custody units will go ahead as planned, following on from the two that are already up and running. Is that the case?

We want to see how the existing ones are working first of all. They are absolutely ground breaking—nowhere else has done anything like that—so it is only right that we ensure that they are having the intended effects before we move on to a further roll-out. That roll-out is intended, but it will be based on our experience with the two units that have been up and running.

Great.

I add that the new national facility at HMP Stirling is on track for opening next year.

Great. That is good to know.

I have one more question, and I suspect that my colleagues will have further questions in the same area. I understand that the replacements for HMP Greenock and HMP Dumfries are not currently a priority in the capital budget. Will they be added anytime soon? I know that that is like asking, “How long is a piece of string?”, but are they still in the pipeline?

That will depend on future capital allocations. There are issues with the age of the institution at Greenock, so in the meantime we have carried out works to ensure that it is in a proper habitable condition. The possibility of replacements will depend on future capital allocations, which, as I have said, are currently as constrained as I can ever remember them being.

Thank you. I know that my colleagues will have further questions on that.

Pauline McNeill wants to come in with further questions on prisons, and then I will bring in Jamie Greene.

I have a supplementary question on prison budgets. I previously put this question to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service. You will know that, just by dint of the contract, the two private sector prisons are protected against inflation, which no one ever thought would reach double figures.

I put it to the chief executive of the SPS that she perhaps needs to have a discussion with the private sector prisons about sharing some of the pain. Have you thought about that? The issue might not be significant enough, but it seems unfair that two private prisons are protected financially when public sector prisons are not.

That relates more to Addiewell prison than to Kilmarnock prison, because the Addiewell contract has an indexation feature. To be perfectly blunt, I would not have signed that contract. In a different context, the local authority in my area, which is small, is now buckling under the pressure of its private finance initiative contracts for schools. As you said, when inflation is at a 41-year high, the impact that that can have is very serious—it is potentially about £4 million per year in this case. We are involved in discussions, but room for manoeuvre is extremely limited.

To go back to my point about schools, my local authority has tried very hard during the past number of years to renegotiate some of those contracts, but that has proven to be extremely difficult. Get-outs from such contracts can be very expensive in their own right.

To be fair to the people who signed the contract, they did it with indexing in mind, and perhaps they would argue that they did not expect to have a long period of low inflation. They managed the process during that time, and they would expect the cost of inflation to be covered in the payments that are made to them, because their overheads will also be rising.

There is limited scope, but the SPS has been looking at it.

I have wider questions on budgets but, as we are on the topic of prisons, I may as well carry on with that theme.

We heard stark evidence from HM Inspectorate of Prisons on Barlinnie and Greenock. The warning was clear that if, on the next inspection of Greenock, the inspectorate is unhappy, the prison faces the real potential of being closed due to health and safety. Some of the descriptions of it were disturbing.

From a budget point of view, Wendy Sinclair-Gieben made it clear that

“the cost of maintaining Greenock prison outweighs its value.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 09 November 2022; c 2.]

She also said that it costs a fortune to maintain Barlinnie because it is old, and that it is only a matter of time before the building collapses. Rather than look at that in the silo of this year’s budget, is it not part of a bigger picture of chronic underinvestment in the prison estate that has led to a situation in which they are expensive to run and therefore any factors such as rising energy prices affect them more?

That relates to the point that Katy Clark made, which is that, if we build new prisons, they can be made more efficient and savings can be made in that way. I acknowledge that, but we cannot get away from the hard fact of the Government’s capital allocations, which have to cover schools, plants, machinery, cars and other vehicles for various services. We have to live within the envelope that we have, and I would say that it is a false envelope, because it was originally based on the Maastricht criteria, if we want to go back to that—the UK wants to cap the total level of borrowing to that extent.

As you rightly say, borrowing to improve public facilities pays for itself in the long term; I agree with that, which is why we are replacing Barlinnie. Members know about the programme of replacements and improvements that we have in place across the prison estate, and we are trying to work our way through that, but we can go only at the pace at which the money allows. To repeat my earlier point, that money is going less and less far because inflation is eating into it. However, I accept that, if we can replace prisons such as Barlinnie, we will make savings in on-going costs.

In your opening comments, you said that this year you are looking at a real-terms budget cut of 10 per cent due to inflation. I want to probe you on those numbers and on how you came to that figure. My understanding is that the 2021-22 core block grant budget was £36.7 billion and that the 2022-23 block grant is £40.6 billion. That is roughly a 10 per cent increase, so although I understand that the effect of that might feel negated, I do not understand the 10 per cent cut. Could you explain the numbers?

First of all, we said that inflation is at 10 per cent and rising. The budget that we have for this year is worth around £1.7 billion less than it was when it was announced in December. At that time, as you know, inflation was around 4 per cent.

Over and above that, the extra budget pressures for the higher-rate pay settlements that reflect that cost inflation are at around £700 million so far, and deals have yet to be done with the Prison Service, teachers and nurses. According to my figures, that has reduced the value of our budget by 2.6 per cent, which goes up to 5.2 or 5.3 per cent, when inflation is taken into account.

Those figures are very real. We cannot strip out from our budget the effects of inflation. I do not know anyone who seriously contests the tightening of the budget. The Welsh Government and UK Government departments have referred to the pressures of inflation. More worryingly, we now seem to be embarking on a further phase of austerity, given the budgets that have been announced. The pressures are very real. The public accounts can be checked; however, those are my budget figures.

Perhaps we can ask our colleagues in SPICe to verify my figures versus the ones that you used, cabinet secretary. I am just trying to get to an understanding of how you came to the assumption that your budget is 10 per cent lower in value this year than it was last year, which is the opposite of the figures that I have and is notwithstanding the £16 billion-plus in Covid consequentials that was given to the Scottish Government, which has been spent on various issues.

The issue of pay rises is important. The financial problems that you face over the next few years are largely due to an expectation that the Government will have to increase pay across the public sector. We heard from Police Scotland witnesses, specifically, on the effect of that in numerical terms. They forecasted that even a 5 per cent pay rise per annum over the next four years would cost £220 million, and that paying for that would equate to the loss of around 4,500 officers. In other words, every 1 per cent that is awarded to the force equates to the loss of around 1,000 police officers to fund it. Is that of concern to you, and how will the Government approach the issue of pay rises, given that it is largely outside your control?

The approach to pay rises will, necessarily, have to take inflation into account. As you will know, the UK Government has projected the start of a significant fall in inflation during the middle of next year, if memory serves me correctly. Inevitably, the approach to pay rises will take into account the real cost of living.

Briefly, there is of course a correlation between the impact of pay rises, our ability to pay for them and the overall budget. I have mentioned that, in the justice portfolio, around 70 per cent of our costs are people costs—whether directly in salaries, in pensions or in other costs. Those costs are significant, and they squeeze out the opportunity to do other things.

When it comes to the pay settlement that we reached this year—I imagine that the same process will inform how we approach further pay rounds—we recognise that police officers, prison officers and firefighters face increases in the cost of living, including in energy costs. We are trying our best to reflect that within the budget.

Although I neither recognise nor agree with your figures, you mentioned a correlation between paying more for pay and a squeeze on other things. This year, as I have mentioned, there has been £700 million of additional pressure so far, but that has not caused the reduction in police officers. That reduction was caused by the fact that Tulliallan was being used for the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and because of the restrictions of Covid. However, Tulliallan has now gone back up to its regular intakes of 300.

However, there is no doubt that there is such a correlation. I do not think that any Government has projected what it will do on pay over the next three or four years. I also make the perhaps obvious point that a 5 per cent pay increase this year does not disappear next year but is built on, so the pressures will grow.

It is our job to make sure that the number of officers in the police service establishment does not fall below the level that we think—and, more importantly, that the chief constable thinks—is necessary to do the job.

Clearly, however, the loss of 4,500 officers would have a stark effect on Police Scotland’s ability to perform not just its statutory duties but its basic functions. We heard that the police simply would not turn up to certain types of crime—low-level crime, as it is often called—and would respond only to the most serious of events, due simply to being short of bodies, or boots on the ground. Clearly, that will be of concern to the public.

Therefore, the issue that the Government faces is that it must either concede to the demands for pay rises or simply say that there is a cap on how much money is available and accept the consequences. Those consequences could be industrial action, as we have seen already, officers leaving the force or, indeed, firefighters and other public service workers looking elsewhere for employment. How will the Government approach those negotiations, given that it is under substantial pressure to concede to the demands of not just the unions but others, too?

10:00  

I am grateful that you acknowledge the pressures. You mentioned the idea of a cap. There is a cap—there is a cap on all that we do in the sense that we have the block grant, added to by whatever tax that we raise here and other sources of income. Therefore, that cap exists and has always been there. You are right that the question is how to marry things up within those pressures. I have no intention of overseeing a budget for the police force that results in 4,000 officers leaving. Despite press reports to the contrary, we have a very stable workforce in the police in Scotland—much more so than is the case in other parts of the UK—and there is real interest in applying for senior positions in the police force here.

On the point about situations where the police do not turn up for things, that has happened in many communities south of the border. In some communities south of the border, there has been no investigation of burglaries and other crimes for over a year and there is no intention to hold those investigations. We do not intend to oversee such a situation. However, I know from the discussions that I have had with the Scottish Police Authority and the police that they want to ensure that their model of policing is up to date and fit for going forward, rather than always looking back.

It is worth pointing out that the police start from a very strong basis. A police constable in Scotland gets about £5,000 more per year when they start than those elsewhere, and every rank up to assistant chief constable is paid higher in Scotland than elsewhere. We also have some of the lowest-ever recorded levels of crime. Therefore, the police start from a strong position and they do not intend to yield that position.

Based on the discussions that I have had, I think that there will be reprioritisation. Cybercrime is a real challenge, and the police will want to do more on that. There might also be a reconfiguration with regard to how the police want to deal with violence against women and girls. The position will develop over time, but the police will not have that level of fall-off in officer numbers—at least, there will not be a net fall-off of 4,000 officers. We do not intend to see that happen at all.

I am happy to finish there.

Russell Findlay will return to the issue of prisons in his questions, and we will pick up questions on policing after that.

The more that the cabinet secretary talks, the more questions I have, but I will try to remain focused. I will begin with a budget question. The evidence that the committee has heard in the past few weeks has been nothing short of shocking. The police, fire, courts and prison services have all given pretty stark warnings about what might happen as a result of the proposed cuts. We do not yet know the exact details of next year’s block grant, but we know that there will be an additional £1.5 billion that has been generated by health and education spending elsewhere in the UK. Given what we have heard about the situation that the justice system faces, will you ask your First Minister and the Government whether some of that money can be used to head off some of the crisis that the justice system faces?

There will be substantial calls on the Government to do many things. Those calls will come not least from your party, which will demand, as ever, that health consequentials are passed directly to health and that, as they say, we do not pass go. I concede that it is the Government’s priority to ensure that health consequentials go to health services.

You mentioned the sum of £1.5 billion over two years. I have just mentioned the additional cost of £1.7 billion that we face this year due to the erosion of value caused by inflation. Therefore, there is no question of that money being a bonanza that we can expect to resolve the pressures in our portfolios. However, I will fight my corner for the justice budget and for the police, firefighters, prisons and others. I will fight my corner for the court service, where we are doing tremendous work, with the astonishing reduction in the backlog of summary cases of 12,000 in one year. Of course I will do that.

You used the word “shocking”, and I think that the budget that we have had from Westminster is certainly shocking. Many Government departments, as well as Scotland and Wales, have said that the pressures that we are facing this year are extraordinary. I am sure that you know the situation: the Scottish Government cannot change taxes during the year, and we cannot increase borrowing to cover pay. To have a £1.7 billion diminution in our budget and for that not to be recognised is shocking, I think, and that is the source of many of the pressures that we currently face. My job is to ensure that justice is well served by the budget process and that we maintain and improve the public services that we have under the justice portfolio.

Instead of blaming the UK Government for all Scotland’s ills, let us get it on the record that the UK block grant is a record £40.6 billion. It is entirely up to your Government, cabinet secretary, how it chooses to spend that money.

We have heard dire warnings from across the justice system about failures to spend money, not just this year but in many years gone by, and we have heard about fire stations in a state of serious disrepair, putting firefighters at risk. There are courts needing work done to them. In the time since Police Scotland’s creation, 140 police stations have been shut down. We need to be a little bit more honest with people about the choices that your Government has made.

Turning to the issue of prisons, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, as well as issuing warnings about the state of Greenock prison—Jamie Greene touched on the possibility of calls for it to be shut down—said that the transfer of HMP Kilmarnock from private to public ownership should be paused. She suggested that the reason for that happening was ideological on the part of your Government. Do you have any response to what the chief inspector said about that?

To respond to your first point, I did not actually say that we blamed the UK Government for all the problems in Scotland, but I will put the matter in context. It is not just Scotland or the Scottish Government that is saying this. The Welsh Government is also saying it, and UK Government departments are saying it. It is impossible to meet increasing demands and the huge rise in inflation due to the economic incompetence of the Government that you support. We cannot wish away those costs and try to pretend. You argued for honesty, so let us be honest about the source of the pressure. Everybody else knows where the main pressure comes from. Let us have that honesty, at least. Let us also have the honesty that says that, against that background, arguing for increases in budgets in virtually every activity of government is not honest. I think that we all know that.

Returning to the point about Kilmarnock, we stood on a manifesto in 2007 saying that we believed that it was fundamentally the case that prisons, given their nature and the service that they provide, should be within the public sector. Decisions on Kilmarnock and Addiewell were taken before this Government came into office. It is no surprise, and we have made it clear, that we intend to take Kilmarnock back into the public sector, which is where we believe it should be.

With the current financial situation and the pressures of inflation, which are of course a worldwide problem, as I am sure the cabinet secretary would acknowledge—given those extreme global circumstances regarding inflation—is it not worth looking again at the Kilmarnock transfer?

The SPS has been engaged in discussions with the main subcontractor, Serco. That is really around the transfer being effected in a way that looks after the interests of the staff while looking after the safety of prisoners, too. The SPS is embarked on that process.

The member rightly mentions the costs of inflation. On the idea that we would somehow avoid those costs of inflation were we to go back to or maintain the private contractor, I do not know any private contractor that would want to bid for a contract that did not recognise the costs of inflation. I referred to that in the exchange that I had with Pauline McNeill on Addiewell.

You should bear it in mind that the Kilmarnock iteration of PFI came many years—nine years, I think—before the deal was done for Addiewell, by which time contractors were keen to ensure that the inflation costs were part of the bid that they made. I am not sure that there would be the savings that have been hinted at by trying to ignore inflation. In any event, as regards this Government’s position, we believe that prisons should be in the public sector.

I will try to stay on the theme of prisons, and I will bring in Pauline McNeill. We can then move on to another area of questioning.

My question is on the police budget.

I beg your pardon. Are there any other questions on prisons before we move on?

I want to touch on the evidence that Wendy Sinclair-Gieben gave. She mentioned the contract for GEOAmey for the transportation of prisoners to and forth. You touched on that, cabinet secretary, in relation to improving digital and information technology—through online court appearances, for instance. I believe that that is—or was—a 10-year contract. With regard to making efficiency savings, have you considered reducing transport provision, given that it is not fit for purpose?

We have seen a substantial reduction in that over time as a result of Covid restrictions and a lessening of the need to appear in person for many of those practices. I have had extensive discussions with Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, and it is evident that the biggest problem that GEOAmey has is staffing. We have had a couple of suggestions about how it might best address that situation. The SPS is working closely with it to try to deliver a prisoner transport system that supports the justice system and protects the public. It is developing quite creative modelling to lessen the impact of the staffing issues, including scheduled weekly meetings to develop short, medium and long-term plans to improve the contractual delivery.

I might ask Neil Rennick to confirm the length of the contract. However, as per the contract, performance levels are monitored by the SPS, and any service failures are managed within the terms of the contract. We are aware that GEOAmey is about 70 staff short of the requirements needed to meet its prisoner escorting contractual agreement. Therefore, those things must be managed.

To be perfectly clear, we do not think that GEOAmey is at it. We know about the pressures with regard to getting staff, and we are trying to work our way through that issue.

Neil, do you know how long the contract is?

I cannot remember, but we will confirm that.

I will continue on the issue of prisons. The committee had two evidence sessions on prisons—one with the Scottish Prison Service and one with HMIP. We heard evidence that, if the current forecast for the budget comes to fruition, it might result in a situation in which prisons have to revert to Covid-like lockdown scenarios. That was described as a situation in which prisoners would be held in their cells for much or all of the day and in which there would be a cancellation of purposeful activity and third sector organisations coming into prisons. There would also be a reduction in rehabilitation, mental health and addiction treatment services. HMIP described that as a scenario in which people would leave prison more angry than when they went in. Clearly, that would be in no one’s interests, least of all in relation to public safety. How do you respond to those warnings?

We have no intention of having a situation in which the SPS sees it as necessary to resort to such restrictions. I am delighted to put on record my thanks to prison staff who managed during the pandemic when those restrictions were in place. There was always the potential for substantial unrest because of those restrictions, and yet the requirements were met successfully by prison staff, who did a tremendous job. We have no intention of needing to apply such restrictions.

I imagine that we might get into the issue of mobile phones for prisoners, but that and a number of other innovations were designed to ensure that that pressure was not felt and that, where restrictions were put in place, prisoners could still communicate with their families. Our whole approach is to avoid that sort of restriction, which would unnecessarily exacerbate the situation in prisons.

I will give the committee one anecdote. Part of the prior experience of a colleague who has recently joined the Scottish Government was visiting prisons in the south-east of England and the midlands. He said that there is a marked contrast between those prisons and prisons here. He commented on the calmness that he observed when he visited Perth prison in particular. That is a testament to both the Scottish Prison Service and the way that we have tried to organise things.

We would not want to do what has been suggested, and I acknowledge that it is our responsibility to ensure that the SPS does not feel that it has to do that. However, we do not want to do that, because the consequences of substantial unrest in prisons would be, apart from anything else, substantially more expensive than some of the things that we are doing. I know that there is that pressure but, for that reason, we do not intend to see those restrictions being introduced.

10:15  

The restrictions would be introduced as a by-product of financial restrictions. The inspectorate stated quite clearly that the SPS cannot

“manage against a flat cash budget without significant adverse impact”.

I know that it is difficult to pre-empt what your final budgets will look like, but do you expect to move money from other areas of the justice directorate budget towards the Scottish Prison Service to avoid that scenario, or will you ask the finance secretary for money from other Government departments to fund it? If you are making that commitment today—that is one of a number of commitments that you have made on what you do not want to happen—it is clear that more money is needed.

You asked about whether there would be 4,000 fewer police officers. That is not what I intend to see. I also do not intend to see Prison Service restrictions of the nature that you have described resulting from financial pressures—although who knows what will happen in future pandemics?

I accept that I have to be accountable for the statements that I have made, but members will know that I cannot pre-empt the budget. There are two steps that are significant. The first step is what we can manage to get for the justice budget, which is partly my responsibility, as distinct from the indications of the resource spending review. The second stage is how that budget is used within the justice portfolio to make sure that those things do not happen. If they did happen, I would accept my part of the responsibility for that. However, my intention is to make sure that, with those two phases—the position of the justice budget when the DFM makes those decisions and how we manage that budget—we live within that budget, whatever else is said, to make sure that those things do not happen.

If there are no more questions on prisons, we will move on to policing. I bring Pauline McNeill back in.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have said to Jamie Greene twice that you have no intention of presiding over a drop of 4,500 officers. I am pleased to hear that.

I want to drill down a bit on the discussions that you are having with the Deputy First Minister about the issue. I am sure that you have shared the same concerns that the committee and I have. Police Scotland’s submission said—and the chief constable has said this openly—that it is not only the drop in numbers that is a big concern. As we have discussed many times, the Scottish police service is special in the UK and internationally because of the type of policing that we have here. It is not only the 101 service that is special. Perhaps only 26 or 28 per cent of calls are crime related. The police are very much the line of last resort. You know that, and you have heard that in many exchanges that we have had.

What discussions are you having in the Cabinet and with the Deputy First Minister about how we can avoid that drop in officer numbers? It seems to me that, even if you could find money in the budget, given the period ahead, it is important to protect and preserve that model of policing for the future. Are you getting that across to the Deputy First Minister? We are not talking about just a straight flat cut and a cut in numbers; we could lose that model of policing for ever because, when things are changed, they do not come back to where they were.

I will not go into the detail of the discussions that I have had with the DFM up to this week and in the period before the budget, but those points are being made.

I very much agree with Pauline McNeill. The way in which Police Scotland dealt with Covid, COP26 and operation unicorn is an extraordinary record of achievement. Not many other police forces could have achieved that. That has registered with other police forces around the world. Policing by consent and the model that we have compared with other models, such as those in some parts of the United States, have registered. There is a lot of interest in how Police Scotland conducted itself during those very pressured times.

Covid is the key example in relation to the point that you have raised, because the police moved into a space that is often to do with health. That the police were seen as the first point of contact is a symbol of the trust that people in Scotland have in the police. I think that you are right. That has meant that they now have an expanded role, which the chief constable has always wanted, in relation to wellbeing and safety for the environment rather than only law enforcement for the population.

Crucially, when there is a health-related issue, we have to get better at the hand-off to health authorities. I mentioned some of the further iterations of reform that might come about in call handling and more liaison between the blue-light services.

You are right that the police have absorbed an additional pressure. I am involved in discussions about how we can better manage that. The classic example involves a person who is in severe mental heath distress. The police will often have to attend. It is fair enough that they attend, but they should ensure that a professional is put in place as quickly as possible rather than a police officer being there for an extended period of time. I concede that that is a challenge that we have to meet, and it features in the discussions within the Cabinet. It will do in the run-up to the budget, as well.

I am not asking you to disclose the details of the discussions but, given what you have said, I would like some reassurance that you want to protect police numbers and the police model. The only way in which that can be done is by having some kind of plan that is not the current one. Can you reassure us that there is a plan that the Cabinet supports? How far can you go?

That is exactly the nature of the process. The plan specifically in relation to policing has to acknowledge the central role of the chief constable and the SPA. As recently as yesterday afternoon, there have been extensive discussions on those issues with the chair of the SPA and the chief constable. The intention is to ensure that the Cabinet, the Government and, I hope, the Parliament can support that plan in due course. Live issues very much along the lines that you have described are being discussed.

I have a final question. There are many areas of the budget that you could look to and find savings in. The area that always comes up is court time for police officers, who have to give up their rest days and all the rest of it. To what extent is that being resolved by the ingenuity of technology? How far down the road are we with that? Can technology assist with that?

That is a very good point. Obviously, members have been talking to the police. The police will tell members about the frustrations that they feel about the time that is tied up in court, sometimes for cases that do not happen.

Neil Rennick can say more about the current pilot in Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley. As the need to address that issue is so urgent, we have said that, at the very earliest point at which we see promising outcomes from that to do with the way that cases are managed, we want to roll those out across Scotland. That is part of the discussions that we have had with the chief constable. It might be worth hearing a bit more about the detail of that from Neil Rennick.

A lot of those issues are discussed collaboratively through the criminal justice board, which the Crown Agent and the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service have spoken about.

A number of different actions specifically on police officer time are being looked at to try to respond to that. One of those is the continuing work that we are doing to deal with the Covid backlog and work that down. The more we can move through that, the more that will help to reduce the number of police witnesses who have to come forward over time.

As the cabinet secretary said, there has been a reduction of more than 12,000 in those cases this year. The aim is to have the backlog of summary cases resolved by March 2024. Many courts are well ahead of that. That will reduce the number of summary court hearings that have to be held.

The second element that we are looking at is the development of remote witness police officers so that they can provide their witness statements to the court remotely from police offices, and they do not have to wait in the court.

As the Crown Agent and the court service chief executive have said, the pilots that are being taken forward offer real potential for resolving cases more quickly and at an earlier stage, and for reducing the number of police officers who have to be cited for court evidence. The intention is to run the pilots and, given the positive evidence that has come from them so far, to try to roll them out across other courts fairly quickly so that the impact is felt during 2023-24.

During the passage of the Covid legislation, I raised a question about what I thought were pretty dreadful remote working circumstances in the sheriff courts, because the sound quality was so poor. I am delighted that the Government acted on that such that that approach will now be only for restricted purposes and not for full custody hearings. However, is that something that you are able to address—yes or no? I do not have an issue with things being done remotely, but there is no point in that if the quality of the connection is so poor that it undermines the whole idea of it. I have an issue with that.

The police remote witnesses are a different issue from the wider question around virtual hearings. Obviously, we have had years of experience of witnesses—particularly vulnerable witnesses—providing evidence remotely from the witness suite. The court service is already experienced in that.

[Inaudible.]—the IT, then?

During the Covid pandemic, we provided extra capital resource to the court service specifically to assist it with remote witnesses. I highlight that as being one of the tragic circumstances of Covid, but the justice organisations innovated with things such as the remote jury centres and learned how to use technology remotely. Therefore, there are benefits that we are ensuring that we are not losing from the circumstances of Covid.

I have an issue to raise on that point, so my question ties in nicely with Pauline McNeill’s line of questioning.

I have had contact from local police officers this morning. They know about this evidence session and they made what was almost a plea. They know that resources are tight and that things will be difficult, but they are making a plea in relation to going to court; they think that the effect of the pilot could be massive due to the amount of time that they spend in court being “huge”—that was the exact word used in the text. I suppose that it is a plea about the pilot somehow being sped up and improved, which the officers on the ground think could be game changing in respect of freeing up resources.

The police officers asked me to raise two specific issues; the other issue is not quite as related to Pauline’s point but also relates to police time. They feel that they are spending a lot of time covering for the ambulance service just now. We know the pressures that it is facing.

Those are the issues that I was asked to raise today. I appreciate that the point about time in court has already been answered, so I do not need a further response on that. It is more a plea—if we could get the pilot sped up, it could be good for everybody in the justice system as a whole.

That is the point that we are making in relation to the pilot. The normal course of a pilot would be to conduct it, analyse it, see its impact and benefits and then, if that is the decision, roll it out. We are not doing so in this case because of the pressures that Fulton MacGregor has mentioned.

I hear the same from police officers; they are frustrated at having to spend time sitting in court or in anterooms at the courthouse for cases that are sometimes not even called when they could be doing other police work. The chief constable has made that point to me. The pilot will be rolled out in advance of the longer time period that we normally have for pilots.

On the second point, I think that I have already mentioned a couple of times that closer working between the blue-light services was, apart from anything else, one of the outputs from the Grenfell inquiry. However, it is obviously the case that more can be done there. We are giving active consideration to how we can make that working more efficient in a country of Scotland’s size, not just between the ambulance service and the police but with the fire service.

I have a question about body-worn cameras for the police. Police Scotland has told us that funding would ensure only 500 body-worn cameras, that specialist police arms officers in Scotland would have them and that a flat rate settlement would inhibit their roll-out.

As the cabinet secretary knows, in England and Wales, police officers already have that kit—and, indeed, are moving on to the second generation. Will you outline where you are on that issue, what discussions are taking place and whether you are looking at something beyond 500 and ensuring that the whole force is equipped?

It is probably important to say that—as I am sure that Katy Clark knows—body-worn cameras incur both a capital and a revenue cost. Where the information that is gathered by the body-worn camera goes is an important consideration, too, as are the logistics behind that, which also has impacts for both the capital and revenue budgets. The ultimate decision rests with the chief constable, but I acknowledge that it will depend on the resources that he has.

10:30  

You have drawn a comparison with south of the border. We are a bit different in Scotland, in so far as the proportion of the police budget that is spent on people is substantially higher in Scotland, which puts pressure on the remainder of the budget and what else can be done with it.

We have had representations from the Scottish Police Federation and others. The federation said that its priority, as one stakeholder, was the pay and conditions of officers, such was the pressure that they had been under, and taking into account the impact of the cost of living. We have responded to that. It is also true to say that we cannot spend the money twice. I acknowledge the financial constraints.

I am a supporter of body-worn cameras, which I think can achieve savings in the longer term, for various reasons—which you will be aware of—but we have to live within the resources that we have. Ultimately, however, a decision on further roll-out will be for the chief constable to take.

Some pilot schemes have been run for what is almost a mental health emergency response team. Would that alleviate the need for attendance by police officers or other emergency services? I have spoken to some of our local police officers, and they have said that they often have to attend to people with mental health problems who are in complete distress. Are you actively talking with the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care about how that could alleviate the strain on Police Scotland and about how and when that is likely to be rolled out?

Yes, that discussion continues. I have had discussions with the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care, which have also related to how we can better deal with some of the issues in prisons. It is probably important to acknowledge some of the pressures that the police feel, first of all when a call comes in, as to whether that call is better passed on to somebody with a mental health background. It is sometimes the case, however, that people go to the police because they think that that is where they need to go, and the police can sometimes get to places more quickly in an emergency situation.

What is of more concern—at least as has been expressed to me by the police—is how long officers then have to stay with a case before being able to hand it to somebody with mental health expertise. That issue, call handling and how quickly a mental health professional gets involved are the main areas that we are considering now, and they all form part of the cross-portfolio discussions.

I have an additional question on that. Have triage cars been able to attend directly, rather than putting the onus on the police?

With mental health professionals attending directly?

Yes.

I am not aware of that happening, but perhaps Donald McGillivray will know.

I am aware that mental health professionals have been put into police call centres to help with triage at the call centre point. There might be some local initiatives, which is what you might be referring to, but I am certainly not aware of a national scheme for that. I can find out more from the police, and I can let the committee know, if that would be helpful.

Thank you.

I think that Russell Findlay has some further police questions.

Indeed.

Everyone in Scotland benefits to the tune of £2,000 per head in additional public spending compared with others in the UK, which I am sure that the cabinet secretary is very grateful for. That presumably helps to pay our police officers more than they get paid elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Despite that, and as we have heard from evidence over the past few weeks, Police Scotland—uniquely—does not have body-worn cameras, as Katy Clark has already pointed out. They are used in every force in England and Wales. Some officers there have second-generation cameras. David Page says that they would have massive benefits and that they are supported by 81 per cent of the public. The cost of them is estimated to be about £25 million. Is it a priority to get those as a matter of urgency in order to protect officers and the public?

I think that you perhaps covered that in your previous answer, cabinet secretary, but I am happy for you to follow it up, if you wish.

Perhaps I could ask it differently.

I am sure that you understand what the question is, cabinet secretary.

On the first point, about resources, I am not going to rehearse our differences of opinion about the munificence or otherwise of the UK Government. What I will say is that Governments of whichever colour, whatever resources they have, have to attach a priority. We have attached a priority to the fact that a constable will get £5,000 more if they start in Scotland, and every rank in the police, up to assistant chief constable, will get more. However, the decision on equipment and operational requirements is for the chief constable. I am not running away from the fact that he has to live within a financial envelope, which we have discussed previously.

I agree with the member about the benefits of body-worn cameras. For example, it might well be the case that, if officers have body-worn cameras that can provide a level of evidence, we can potentially avoid a huge public inquiry where there is a contested account of what actually happened. I do not doubt the benefits of body-worn cameras, but I think that it was Aneurin Bevan who said that politics is “the language of priorities”.

We have to decide on priorities, as does the chief constable. We have prioritised the pay and conditions of our police officers because we think that they are worth it. Beyond that, we have unavoidable pressures, but it will ultimately be a decision for the chief constable.

With regard to the £2,000 per head, those are Scottish Government figures—they are not open for debate or discussion unless you disagree with them.

I go back to body-worn cameras. The Scottish Government has set aside £20 million for constitutional matters next year. Now that a referendum is not likely to happen as a result of the ruling in court today, could that money be used for body-worn cameras?

The option of getting out from underneath an utterly incompetent Westminster Government, which has presided over record inflation, a national debt that sits at £1.5 trillion—that can be compared with a country of Scotland’s size, Norway, which has an oil fund of more than £1 trillion—and the record levels of taxation that the Tories—

My question was about body-worn cameras.

You asked a question about the UK Government. I am saying that, given the incompetence over which the UK Government has presided, whether it is in tax, inflation or public debt, the opportunity to do things in a different and much more sensible and mature way than, for example, the Kwasi Kwarteng budget is a very valuable option for the people of Scotland. We also want to fulfil our manifesto promise, which was to offer that referendum.

Will you answer the question, please?

I think that the cabinet secretary has answered your question, Mr Findlay. In the spirit of moving things on, I bring in Jamie Greene.

Cabinet secretary, it is interesting that you said that these are operational matters for the police. Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr told the SPA in a meeting a couple of weeks ago that he was “professionally embarrassed” by the slow roll-out of cameras, which he described as a

“very basic bit of kit”.

It sounds as though those cameras are not nice add-ons but are must-haves, so I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on his comments on the matter.

Speaking of incompetence, we have learned through freedom of information requests over the past couple of years that nearly 2 million calls to the 101 service have either gone unanswered by operators or the caller has hung up. We had a frank and robust discussion about the state of the 101 service in this committee, and evidence was given to us. Is the cabinet secretary content and happy that that service is working well, to its full extent? Can he commit to it remaining in operation for the foreseeable future?

Yes, I think that it will remain in operation, and no, of course I am not happy when there has been a service failure. Those failures have been well publicised, and I have raised them with both the SPA and the chief constable when they have happened.

However, the contact assessment model that is now used is very effective when it is used properly. That is probably borne out by the fact that in Scotland—I think that I am right in saying—the number of calls that are answered within 10 seconds is around 10 per cent higher than it is elsewhere in the UK. The rate for the proportion of calls that are answered in under 10 seconds currently sits at around 79.9 per cent, in comparison with 68.3 per cent for the rest of the UK. That should not be the only bar, however, and we acknowledge that the rate has to be higher. Nonetheless, the rest of the UK is a useful comparison, because many of the same pressures apply.

We have had the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland assurance review into the contact assessment model for call handling. I do not deny that it identifies issues, but it also identifies a number of real successes. We welcome Police Scotland’s plans to introduce the new digital contact platform, which will help to strengthen both the 101 and 999 services. Once again, I highlight that those are operational matters for the chief constable, and oversight of them is provided by the Scottish Police Authority.

If it is all going so swimmingly, why are people hanging up? Are they waiting for too long? Are the calls not being answered? Is there a lack of resource in the call centre? Is it anything to do with the centralisation of the service? What is the Government doing to get underneath the root of the problem? So many calls are being lost.

People phone not for the sake of it but because there is an issue. Often, they are unsure as to whether they should call 101 or 999. We are trying to alleviate pressure on 999 calls; clearly, that is the point of the 101 service. People are not phoning for fun. If they are hanging up, or simply not getting through to someone, that is a matter of concern. We all know of the grave repercussions when call handling goes wrong. We have had that debate in the Parliament many times.

What exactly has the Government done to find out why so many 101 calls are not being answered, and what exactly is being done to improve on that? Just a broad commitment that it will get better is probably not good enough.

I acknowledge that, if somebody’s call goes unanswered, that is a failure of service. I am not wishing that away.

My point is that, according to the Home Office, Police Scotland was well above average in July. It answered 79.9 per cent of calls in less than 10 seconds. I do not use the word “swimmingly”, but that is an example, notwithstanding the pressures, of Police Scotland performing better than average.

In addition, to get under some of the issues in your point, Police Scotland, as I have said before, has been the first point of call for many things that are not its responsibility. That is reflected in those calls. We have looked at the nature of the calls. Some should be directed towards other services, and we are trying to ensure that that can be done. That goes back to my previous point about an increase in the necessary reform in call handling and better liaison between the police, the other blue-light services and other services. If they can alleviate call pressure by ensuring that calls are directed correctly in the first place, that will help to improve a performance that is already above average, such that we can drive out any failure to answer calls.

It is better than average, just now. It has to be better, and work to make it better is continuing.

People call the police because they are desperate. They phone for an ambulance and are told to wait for hours, so they phone for the police to take them to hospital. They phone the police because they have phoned local authority social work departments that are closed out of hours. They phone the police because other public services have let them down. That is why people call 101 when they should not do so—because they are desperate, and the police are the first and last point of contact.

We have heard evidence from numerous officers, and from the SPA and the Scottish Police Federation, that the police have become a catch-all service. That simply adds to the pressures, and it is directly down to a failure to deliver the other vital public services that people need in an emergency. What conversations have you had with your Cabinet colleagues about relieving those pressures on the police?

Discussions with Cabinet colleagues about public services often centre on the fact that, after 12 years of austerity, more money should be invested in public services. I acknowledge that. We should invest more money in public services. However, almost uniquely, the UK Government has decided on a programme of austerity, which has lasted for 12 years.

This has nothing to do with austerity and the UK Government; I am asking about your operational decisions—

—and I am answering—

—in how you manage Government and how you and your colleagues manage public services. I know that you are keen to divert attention to England and Wales, but I am not. This is the Scottish Parliament, it is a Scottish committee and you are the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans in Scotland. If we could keep our focus on the budget, that would be great.

If it is possible to answer without being interrupted, I will try to answer your question. The idea is not honest that anyone can talk sensibly about public services while excluding from consideration the financing for which, currently, we have to rely on the UK Government. We have to acknowledge the main driver. Most other people in the country realise that we have had 12 years of austerity-suppressed budgets for public services, and I do not deny that that has had an impact.

I have mentioned the fact that we are looking at the issue, so that we can alleviate the pressure on the police, through calls going to the right place in the first place. That would reduce the number and volume of calls.

However, despite that, and notwithstanding those pressures, which apply across the UK, Police Scotland is above average.

I am watching the clock. We have 15 or 20 minutes left, and I know that members would like to come in on other issues—one of which is the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Jamie Greene, would you like to open the questioning on that?

No, I will let others come in. I have had a good run.

In that case, I call Russell Findlay.

Eleven fire stations do not have a water supply; more than 100 have no rest or canteen facilities; more than 150 do not have sufficient showering facilities; 100 do not have the minimum toilet provision; 125 do not have dedicated locker rooms; more than 100 do not have dedicated drying facilities; 282 do not have dignified changing areas; and no fire station has a first aid room or space for nursing mothers. That has nothing to do with inflation, Brexit or the UK Government.

10:45  

According to the evidence that the interim chief officer gave to the committee, more than “£482 million” has been removed

“from the cost base of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service over the past 10 years.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 26 October 2022; c 46.]

That is due entirely to the amount of money that is provided to the fire service by the Scottish Government. Will you address those concerns and the concerns of firefighters about those extremely poor facilities?

First, of course, the fire service has to comply with the stringency of the requirements on it, and there is no suggestion from the SFRS that the equipment is unsafe. I hate to correct the member, but I think that the backlog that he talked about was £492 million, rather than £482 million, according to the SFRS. However, we acknowledge the challenges.

The desperate attempt to pretend that this has nothing to do with settlements from the UK Government does not register with people out there. They know what the situation is, and what austerity has meant over the past 12 years—both in resource and in capital backlog. There is a backlog not in maintenance but in investment in the estate structure. That has been reviewed previously, and it is being reviewed again.

It is also true to say that many of the fire stations were built in a previous era, to provide fire cover for industries and housing that, in some cases, are no longer there. That is an opportunity to review the estate and to make savings through its rationalisation. In turn, that should allow additional investment in the remaining fire stations.

As you might have heard in evidence from the SFRS, it has developed a detailed community risk index model, which identifies the risks in individual communities across Scotland. That enables it to base on evidence its decisions on resources. We will continue to work through those issues with the SFRS, not least through the budgetary process that I mentioned previously.

Rona Mackay has some questions about gender-based abuse.

My question relates to the courts and prosecution services. Before I ask it, I note that it is interesting and important that Conservative committee members have been asking overtly political questions—and, when the cabinet secretary responds with straightforward and honest answers, they do not like it.

Cabinet secretary, I will be interested to know about something that you touched on in your opening statement: the priority for funding to be given to Lady Dorrian’s review, the prosecution of rape and sex offences, and the work of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Covid unit. I turn first to Lady Dorrian’s review. Will budgetary implications affect that?

Rona Mackay will know that, before starting the process for a bill, we have to go through a process of making sure that there is financial cover for its implications. As she has rightly said, those are substantial. A victims commissioner is one; a cost will be associated with specialist courts, too, if those are agreed; and a number of other recommendations will inevitably have costs associated with them. However, we have gone through the process to make sure that we have financial cover.

That does not mean that there is not still a challenge in making sure that we have those finances, but that has been taken into account and there is substantial progress on Lady Dorrian’s recommendations—both those that require legislation, some of which I have mentioned, and those that do not.

It is good to know that it is still very much on track.

I turn to the effect of court backlogs on the victims of domestic abuse. I understand that, because of the specific nature of those cases, they will take priority when it comes to clearing the backlog.

My colleague Neil Rennick may be able to say more about the figures, but the extent to which that has been a priority throughout the pandemic is evident when we look at the balance of cases. To clarify, the success that I mentioned relates to summary courts. There has been a reduction of 12,000 cases—from 44,000 to 31,000, more or less. That is proceeding well. However, we do not see the same level of progress when it comes to solemn courts, so a change has been made by the court service to switch resources in order to effect a similar reduction in the solemn side of things—which may include some of the cases that Rona Mackay was talking about.

It might be worth hearing from Neil Rennick about domestic abuse cases.

The cabinet secretary has covered the matter well. Throughout the Covid period, the courts service has been publishing monthly statistics on the scale of cases and the progress that is being made with the backlog. The updates on that have confirmed the priority given to domestic abuse cases throughout the Covid period despite the challenges and pressures. That continues now.

As the cabinet secretary says, in the High Court, in particular, a very high proportion of those cases will be sexual offences cases or the most serious domestic abuse cases. Last week, the court service announced the intention to establish two new High Courts and six new sheriff and jury courts spread across a number of locations, to try to speed up the process of dealing with the backlog in the solemn cases.

That is really encouraging to know.

I have questions about an area that we have not touched on a lot but that deserves some of our time, which is the effect of the budget on community justice.

There were a large number of submissions on community justice, although it did not feature as highly in our oral evidence sessions, given the prominence that the police, the fire service, the courts and the prison service generally have. The committee does not, perhaps, spend enough time on community justice and social work delivery at a local authority level, so I will ask some questions about that.

Unsurprisingly, we received warnings in the evidence, particularly from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Community Justice Scotland and Social Work Scotland, about the real-terms budget forecast for those organisations and the effect that it would have on their ability to deliver adequate, robust and fair community justice services. To be frank, those services would be put at risk.

What could be done to ensure that local authorities and people in the voluntary or paid justice sector are able to carry out their functions, given the tight forecast?

I do not want to go back to the previous back-and-forward about budgets, but we need to acknowledge that we are in a different budget environment from last year.

Last year, in that different context, we awarded an additional £15 million for the reasons that you mentioned. We are aware that courts across the country do not all have the same level of confidence in community disposals. That additional £15 million, which was in addition to, I think, £119 million of continuing funding, was intended to effect change so that the courts would have confidence, wherever they were in Scotland, that a community disposal would be effective and properly monitored.

That gives our intention—our direction of travel—but you are right to say that we are now looking at a different budget environment and we have to consider it against other options. The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill is a fundamental part of our approach. It will not work if we do not have proper community justice disposals.

That is our intention. We have budget pressures to consider as we go forward, and we hear what the sector said. We have had discussions with it. A new national plan for community justice, which seeks to do what we intend, has just come out as well.

The additional moneys that we provided in the current year were provided sensitively such that the local authorities that had been well served by their community justice infrastructure were not punished by money just going to authorities that had not, because that would be like punishing success. We managed to provide money to authorities that really need to invest more and to produce more money for other authorities.

That is the intention, but the matter will have to be decided as a priority in the budget process.

If the political direction of travel is to send fewer people to prison and offer alternatives, that policy will rely on the adequacy of those alternatives and on there being not just public faith but judicial faith and confidence in them. We have heard from sheriffs and judges who do not trust that those sentences will be carried out or delivered properly. Therefore, that leaves them with little alternative but to send people to prison. We cannot simply divert people from prison if there is nothing to divert them to; otherwise, we will absolutely lose public confidence in the service. Are you mindful of that as well?

I am very mindful and do not deny the logic of that. Also, there is a need for more information on electronic monitoring and other aspects to be provided to the judiciary, because there is not always the level of awareness that there should be. I am not saying that that is the judiciary’s fault, and it is not for me—by any means—to educate the judiciary, but that is a need for more awareness of what is possible. However, you are right that, at the root of it, the judiciary must have confidence that that is a legitimate disposal. It will not be a political direction not to send people to prison, because, of course, that will be for the judiciary, but I do not dispute the logic that the member draws out. That is our direction of travel and what we believe in, and it underpins the ideas behind some of the legislation that we are taking through. The issue is how we continue to do that with the available resources.

Thank you.

Cabinet secretary, your Government has written what is effectively a blank cheque to cover the cost of the Rangers malicious prosecution scandal. We have been told that the amount has now reached £51 million, which, incidentally, is double the amount that it would cost to give every police officer in Scotland a body-worn camera. Can you give us any idea as to what the total amount might be in the end? Who do you think is responsible for that? Will there be any consequences for that absolutely shocking state of affairs?

I do not think that I have anything to add to the previous responses that the First Minister gave, except to reiterate the point that the cost of that will not fall directly on the justice portfolio but will be borne across the whole of Government. I cannot tell you what the ultimate cost will be, because it depends on factors that are outwith my control and, obviously, pre-dates my time in office. I do not know whether my colleagues who were in post when that became a live issue have anything to add, but I cannot add to what the First Minister said previously.

Do you think that people would be surprised that £51 million has been paid out through incompetence or wrongdoing but no one has been held to account?

I think that you know about the processes for accountability that are in train, and I have nothing to add to that.

Pauline McNeill, I think that you wanted to come in on that.

I did not know that this issue was going to be raised, but it has been. Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that, at the moment, effectively, no one can say anything about the case because it is a live issue, so I will not press you on that.

However, Russell Findlay is right about accountability. A Lord Advocate took a decision some years ago that has massively impacted on the credibility of the Crown Office, not to mention the huge sums of money that are involved. When everything has been settled, what scope do you have as cabinet secretary to satisfy yourself that there will be accountability? I hope that you agree that, at least, somebody has to hold the Crown Office to account for that decision. A former Lord Advocate took that decision, and I do not think that that can be allowed just to dwindle out once the court case is finished. Surely, that cannot be allowed to happen again.

I understand the point that Pauline McNeill is making, but she also started her comments by saying that she knows that I cannot comment on some of those things. Whatever else it was, the decision was taken by an independent Crown Office, so she knows the constraints around what I can say, but she also knows the process for accountability that is in train for that. If there is a subsequent inquiry, that will also be independent. That is the reason why I am not able to say more at this stage.

Therefore, the inquiry will hold the Crown Office to account over those decisions.

If there is a public inquiry, some people would term that as a process of accountability.

You said “if”, but I want to be clear. Is there going to be an inquiry?

That has been established in the First Minister’s responses in the chamber on a number of occasions.

Before I bring things to a close, I will go back to the emergency budget review, and I have a quick question in relation to the UK-wide emergency services mobile communication programme. Obviously, the most recent update from the review was that the Scottish Government will cut £14.2 million from a

“projected saving on the Scottish Government contribution towards”

the programme. Can you expand a little on what is being reduced and what impact that might have on Police Scotland and Scottish Fire and Rescue? Will the roll-out of the new radio systems for police officers be affected?

11:00  

After I have made a couple of comments, I will ask Donald McGillivray to come in. This project is a bit like high-speed rail—it has been going on for many years. As I said, I was involved in a joint police board on the roll-out of Airwave, which was complicated. I have many concerns over this project, which I have registered with the UK Government, and the Welsh Government has also registered concerns. The budget changes over time, and the spend does not match the profile as we would expect. That is the basic underlying situation, but Don is very heavily involved in that, which I am sure he enjoys.

The change in the emergency budget review is very simple. The UK Government Home Office gives us projections at the start of the year as to how much our share of the spending on the UK programme will be for that year. It updates those projections at various points through the year, and it updated those projections for Scotland to reduce our contribution this year by around £10 million. We have also agreed with the Home Office to switch some capital to revenue, which represents the balance that was announced in the emergency budget review. It is largely about the pace of progress and spend on the UK programme and what that means for our share of the contribution to the bills that the programme pays.

Thank you. Is there any indication around timescales? I do not want to stray off budget, but that obviously correlates with budget, as you have just said.

The programme regularly updates its programme deployment dates. I will check the latest deployment date for Scotland and confirm that.

As the cabinet secretary said, one of our key concerns is that the deployment date for the system has changed on a regular basis and has been significantly delayed over a number of years. We—and the cabinet secretary—are looking for the programme to commit to dates that it can stick to and keep to, so that the police and other emergency services can have faith and trust that those dates will actually be delivered. That is the dialogue that goes on between us and the programme on a very regular basis.

Can we take it from that that, although there are a lot of questions, ultimately, the roll-out would not be affected?

The programme has not changed its deployment dates. However, I am afraid that the history of the project tells us that that does not mean that the dates will not be subject to review at some point in the future.

Thank you very much indeed.

I will bring this evidence session to a close. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending this morning. As usual, if members have any follow-up questions, we will pick those up in writing. We will have a short suspension to allow for a change of officials.

11:03 Meeting suspended.  

11:09 On resuming—