Chamber and committees

I thank members for their comments. Some very relevant and helpful points have been made across two key areas. First, there have been comments on the terms of the review and the report that led to the work that Gill Imery undertook. Secondly, some wider questions and concerns have understandably been raised about issues that are not specific to the report but are nonetheless important. I would include myself in the category of those who have such concerns. For example, what brings someone to the point where they become one of the statistics on deaths in custody? It is helpful that such questions have been asked.

I probably land with John Swinney and Rona Mackay in that I have taken some reassurance from the submissions that we received. In relation to Sharon Dowey’s point about pinning down the timescales, I acknowledge that that is missing from some of the correspondence.

I suggest to members—I will seek your agreement on this—that we follow up on the points that have been made and the requests for further information. It is obviously appropriate for us to keep the matter under review. I propose that we engage again with Gill Imery and seek an update on her current situation. In the correspondence from the cabinet secretary, we are made aware that she has engaged with Gill Imery. There is quite a bit for us to take away. The final thing is John Swinney’s point about some further correspondence with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Are members in agreement on that?

If my memory is right, some of those queries related to the number of trials that were undertaken in a virtual format.

Thank you, members, for those additional points. Katy and Pauline, you mentioned queries about the number of deaths, and clerks have, helpfully, had a wee look at that during our discussion. As Gill Imery also pointed out in committee, between 2012 and 2022, there were 350 deaths in Scottish prisons. About half of those were either drug related or as a result of suicide; the other half were a result of natural causes. That reflects the extent of the issue.

We will do some follow-up work on the points that were made today. Members are agreed that we will very much keep the issue under review, and we will communicate with the Crown Office and with Gill Imery in relation to her status, as has been suggested.

I am encouraged by a lot of what is going on. Different tasks in different areas of work take different lengths of time, obviously. I was particularly interested in the update that we asked for on the single court/judge model. There is a lot in that, but it was helpful to have it set out.

We will take away the points that have been raised, and I ask for members’ agreement that we continue to monitor the issue. It is highly appropriate that we do that.

Members indicated agreement.

In the Criminal Justice Committee’s evidence sessions, the opportunities around reform were covered, particularly in the context of the Scottish prison estate, where a big part of the capital budget supports the reform process in modernising the estate. That also applies to Police Scotland, which has an estate strategy and is looking to modernise and upgrade its estate.

That brings me on to my next question, which picks up on—

I have listened with great interest to the information that has been shared this morning. The cabinet secretary will know that I am convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, which has recently undertaken its pre-budget scrutiny. The evidence that we have heard during that process has reflected the significant challenges with which we are all familiar, particularly on the capital budget. That is particularly difficult for the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

In some of the evidence that we have heard, it has been indicated that yearly increases in the budget no longer meet the needs of parts of the sector, which brings risk to it. The week before last, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs gave evidence about the

“need, where possible, to have a longer-term spend-to-save vision”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 November 2023; c 27.]

Without hijacking the Finance and Public Administration Committee and turning it into a mini Criminal Justice Committee, in general terms, given the context of the fiscal framework review, is there any scope to start thinking about more of a spend-to-save approach? The cabinet secretary said that financial management arrangements are more sustainable on the back of the review, but the capital budget is still challenging and is not inflation proofed.

Thanks, convener. I have nothing to declare.

Thanks. What I was going to ask was in the context of the new fiscal framework. As part of parliamentary budget scrutiny, how should the new framework inform and perhaps change the way in which committees approach their budget scrutiny?

Before we move on to part 2 of the bill, I have a final question that relates to the British Transport Police, which sent in a written submission. In relation to parts 1 and 2, it questioned why the BTP was not considered to be a justice agency in the same way as Police Scotland is.

You will be aware that BTP representatives were in the Parliament just the other week. They spoke about a range of things, including the BTP’s railway guardian app, which enables travellers to report crimes and offences while travelling. In conversation with me, they were keen that the app be extended to women, and felt that it was relevant to safe travel for women.

Are there difficulties in and around that? If so, is the Scottish Government looking at ways to ensure that the BTP’s status, if you like, does not hinder the objectives of the bill?

We will move to part 3 of the bill, which is about the proposal to extend special measures to vulnerable witnesses in civil cases.

We received evidence from Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland arguing that the categories of witnesses who are deemed to be vulnerable should be broadened beyond what is in the bill and that special measures should be available automatically for those witnesses. Will the cabinet secretary consider amending part 3 of the bill in recognition of that evidence?