Chamber and committees

That work took place over a period both before and after the introduction of the bill. I will not repeat myself on the oversight and governance arrangements in the implementation of Dame Elish Angiolini’s recommendations. However, there are forums such as the Scottish police consultative forum, in which we engage with partners, and there is engagement outwith this jurisdiction—for example, with the Metropolitan Police, bearing in mind its experiences and the path that it has trodden, and with the Home Office.

Yes.

Some of the information that is required for the calculations comes from justice partner organisations—it does not come from the Government. There was key information that we were relying on Police Scotland and other partners to provide.

I will bring in officials in a moment.

We have increased the budget for this financial year to prioritise front-line policing. Obviously, Police Scotland has operational responsibility for training. Part of its costs relate to abstraction of officers when they undertake training, as would be the case for any training.

My view and my understanding of that is that we took the information that we were given. Where we were given specific information, particularly where the source was operational organisations, it was placed in the financial memorandum. However, I have had a close look at the Official Report as well as the correspondence from the committee, and I note and take seriously the committee’s remarks.

I ask Mr McGillivray—or Mr Bunch, if need be—to say a wee bit more about the aspect of material costs.

I have closely read the committee’s more general observations and frustrations. I think that financial memorandums have improved over time, not only because they are lengthier: that improvement is as much about quality of information as it is about quantity.

You referred to a stakeholder who said that the estimates were woefully inadequate.

There are a number of processes. I will not repeat the points about the on-going engagement that we have had on the bill to implement Dame Elish Angiolini’s specific recommendations.

By the time a financial memorandum comes to me, it has been through a number of internal processes in the civil service, and there is a Cabinet sub-committee clearing process for the policy memorandum, the financial memorandum, the bill and other associated documents.

If Mr Marra would like more information, we can follow up in writing. Is there anything else of substance that would be helpful here, Mr McGillivray?

As I said to Ms Smith, once Police Scotland had informed the Scottish Government of the precise nature of its evidence to the committee, there was a period of regular discussion and exploration. Given the financial constraints that we all operate within, you will understand that we do not simply accept it when people say that something will cost £X as opposed to £Y. We have a responsibility to scrutinise that.

The training of new police officers and the on-going training of existing police officers and staff is not a frivolous matter. It is, of course, an operational matter, so I need to be respectful of boundaries here. Training is entirely an operational matter for Police Scotland. I am, of course, well within my rights to test information that I am presented with by Police Scotland, but I accept that we should continue to invest in the training of new and existing police officers and staff.

I am supportive of reducing the use of floating trials. I very much recognise that they can cause anxiety and uncertainty. I must also recognise that delays cause trauma and anxiety to complainers, victims and witnesses. I am conscious that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has a different perspective from the view that has been expressed by the Lord Advocate and victims groups. As I say, I would very much like to see a reduction in the use of floating trial diets. The sexual offences court will have the opportunity to set its own rules, so that will be a matter for it to consider.

Colleagues will be aware that, in the past week, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service wrote to the committee to set out evidence that 97 per cent of trials call within the float period. It provided information that showed that, if floating diets were to be banned altogether, that would add 22 weeks to the process. We therefore need to take some care in that area. An outright ban might have other consequences, particularly while the court recovery programme continues. That is another example of why the use of pre-recorded evidence is important. I appreciate that it is a live issue, with people having different views.

It would be wrong of me to portray those as a tool—a lever or a button—that can increase conviction rates.

I am on record expressing deep concern about conviction rates. We know that, over a five-year period, conviction rates for rape and attempted rape are at 46 per cent, compared to about 84 per cent for other crimes. When we disaggregate different types of rape cases, the conviction rate for acquaintance rape is, according to the Lord Advocate, around 20 or 25 per cent. There is a difference in conviction rates depending on whether the victim is an adult or a child. From memory, in relation to children, where there has been an offence under, I think, section 18 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, the conviction rate is higher, at more than 70 per cent; in relation to adults, where the offence is prosecuted under section 1 of that act, the rate is about 35 per cent.

I cannot be unconcerned about those rates. I must respect the independence of the courts and judiciary—indeed, I am under a legal obligation to do so—but I want to find the right way to tackle the issue and I want to look at the evidence without prejudging, because we cannot ignore those conviction rates.