Chamber and committees

I understand. I am thinking of a scenario that I know about, in which some prisoners from London Road police station, let us say, have to go to the sheriff court on first appearance, whereas previously they would have taken all the prisoners to one place. That answer was helpful.

You have mentioned reforms with regard to Lady Dorrian’s review, including single-judge trials and a number of other innovations in that respect. These particular proposals are about trying to reduce delays and help recovery; indeed, that is the Lord Advocate’s position. There are so many women and children victims waiting for their cases to be heard in court, and such an approach would allow you to make progress. However, how can the committee judge whether such reforms are not simply being done on the basis of financial savings? You can see where I am coming from. It is all very well putting in place innovations to make the system more efficient, but I would be deeply concerned if we were making reforms just to save money in a way that was not in the interests of justice.

You have answered some questions to help us to understand the innovations and reforms. Some of those will require legislative change. Some are controversial and they may not see the light of day, but that is a matter for another day.

I will be honest. I am slightly clutching at straws in asking you this question, but it is in my mind. It seems obvious to me that, if the Government put a bit more money up front now, some of the changes, at least, could bring savings even without staff reductions, or with no compulsory redundancies. Is any modelling being done on the figures in that regard? Let us say that you asked the Government to give you X million pounds so that you could front load some changes and you said that you could then deliver savings in future years. Is that discussion taking place?

The reason why I ask that question is that, should we decide to say that we are concerned and suggest something to the Government, we will be required to say where the money would come from. That is the trick in the question that we have to answer. Can you provide any modelling on savings in future years?

When I read that, it made me think about how challenging it is to get an appointment with a GP within five days these days. My concern is that, if the approach is rigid, some people will fall by the wayside. What happens also depends on what day people are released from prison and what system their GP has. I wonder whether there is some flexibility around the five days.

Good morning. I read in the notes that you have provided that

“Approximately 21% of the SPS Resource budget is for payments to the private sector for the provision of 2 private prison establishments”.

That seems to be quite a high figure, but you go on to say that the

“contracts have contractual built in Inflation mechanisms based on CPI and RPI increases.”

The two private prisons are getting an increase of 11.4 per cent. It seems to be grossly unfair that the public sector prisons must operate within a budget that is being reduced by 7.8 per cent, but private prisons under the service will benefit by 11.4 per cent. Is that right?

It must be acknowledged that no one thought in 2008 that inflation would reach double figures, but it has. Is there any scope for going back on the contracts, given the extraordinary circumstances that we are all living in, and notwithstanding the line of questioning of my colleague Russell Findlay about the cost of energy, let alone of running the estate? Is there any scope for asking whether we really want to put such extraordinary pressure on the public sector when the private sector is not feeling pain that the public sector is feeling.

So even in the best scenario, in which you would save £22 million by 2026-27, shutting courts is not going to take you far.

Based on what you have said, then, is it fair to say that, in making reforms, you quite often need to spend money at the beginning to save money at the end? Is that something that the Government should consider? I know that there is the £50 million for the recovery programme, but would you say that reforms could receive funding at the beginning of all this if it could be demonstrated that savings would come towards 2026 or 2027? Is that fair?

What the cabinet secretary said is constructive, because Scottish Labour has asked for that to be in the bill. I am pleased about that.

Does the cabinet secretary also agree that it is important to have clarity about the Government’s position and the law? Some people have asked why the Scottish Government will argue in court that a GRC changes sex under the Equality Act 2010 for the purpose of appointments to public boards. That seems to be at odds with what the cabinet secretary has said to Parliament. There seems to be a contradiction. It would be very helpful if the cabinet secretary could clear that up.

In your last sentence, you said that you are monitoring police officers leaving and coming back as civilians. Are you suggesting that they would not be able to do that because it is encouraging them to take retirement if they come back as civilians? Is that what you meant?