Chamber and committees

You have said that you like to think of having a workforce of 22,000. Is that by necessity? I wonder what the public think about that and what your view is. Given my role, I know that constituents want to see police officers protecting them from threat, harm and risk. In paragraph 24 of your submission, you say that you are

“working to establish a clear position on the right size”

of the police force. What does that amount to?

On police numbers, based on the modelling that you were asked to do, which you referred to in your submission, police numbers could be as low as 15,000. Would that mean that you would have to make police officers redundant?

That is noted. The committee is well aware of the relationship between poorly maintained buildings, poor environments and mental health, and a whole lot of other issues in relation to not having the modernisation that Sharon Dowey raised. Closing police offices makes savings in one sense, but communities and police officers are concerned about being out of operation while they have to travel much further back and forth. Your point is well made and it is noted.

I agree with Will Kerr, who has said that it is an embarrassment to Scotland that we do not have the full roll-out of body-worn cameras. As Martyn Evans outlined to the committee, there is a lot more to consider than simply the equipment, as it is also about the infrastructure that goes with it. I honestly thought that you were going to say to Sharon Dowey that the roll-out would be complete by May 2025, but you said that it is only going to begin in 2025. Can you give the committee an indication of what that means? What are the numbers? Will hundreds of officers have body-worn cameras? Can we follow a timeline so that we can see what the planned roll-out looks like? Will it be 200 or 300?

Thank you for the clarification. My final question is for DCC Jane Connors. I want to set the context for my line of questioning. I understand why you would want to talk about automation, and that you have to look at every possibility as there could be a very difficult budget outcome. However, I confess that automation fills me with dread, to some extent. I would like to know a bit more about what you mean by automation.

Many years ago, when all the call centres were set up, I had concerns that the public might lose out on the service that they used to get. If we put that to one side, would automation mean that when someone calls the central police number, they might not get to speak to a human being? What does automation mean and how will it impact the way in which the public get access to the police when they need them?

Cabinet secretary, you have announced a substantial change in prison policy with the release of short-term prisoners who are 40 per cent into their sentence. I am sure that you will agree—

—that that will concern victims unless it is addressed by Government investment in relation to reoffending rates. Fifty-seven out of the 477 prisoners who were released early in the summer are back in jail. What can the cabinet secretary say about whether further investment is to be made to ensure that the policy will not result in further reoffending cycles?

I welcome the Lord Advocate’s statement that the prosecution policy on violence against women and girls and on domestic violence will be as robust as it has been until now.

The Lord Advocate spoke about

“those who are held on remand, whose status may change on further review or through resolution”.

Will she elaborate on what that means?

One vital aspect of the criminal justice system is that summary justice is, indeed, summary, so it would be helpful to have some understanding of the success of the pilot. The Lord Advocate has said that the Crown will work proactively with the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association to resolve cases earlier. Will she indicate to Parliament which of the current barriers could be changed to ensure that summary justice is, indeed, summary?

I welcome the progress that has been made, but I remain concerned about the extension of the time limits and a number of other things in the SSI. I might have considered the national jurisdiction differently, but I accept that it all has to be in one SSI. I am concerned about the lack of information on the use of fiscal fines. I have a long-standing concern about that. I was concerned about it even when the previous Government was in place, because we must be clear about the range of offences that the fines are used for and how well they are used. I note that there has been a reduction in their use, which is interesting. I would have liked to know whether sheriffs are using £300 or £400 fines and what tariffs they are using for the fines. In the absence of that information, I cannot vote for the SSI.

I expressed my deep concern about the issue in meetings that I had with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service before the pandemic. As the cabinet secretary will recall, the Parliament took a lot of pride in the time limits that were established, which were unprecedented. We extended the time limits because we felt that they were far too tight. Now, they have been relaxed to such an extent that it is having an impact on the prison population, and particularly on the remand population. Sharon Dowey was quite right to make the point about the restrictions on what we can do with someone who is on remand while they are in prison, and the proposal would prolong their situation for another year. Katy Clark and I argued that time limits could have been extended case by case. Although that would have been more cumbersome, we felt that it would be a better alternative.

For those reasons, I cannot vote for the SSI.

That is fair enough. I presume that, when you lay the new bill before Parliament, you will let the committee see some detail on use of the maximum fine and what offences it has been used for. The problem is that we are being asked to accept something in the dark, because we do not really know how it is used.