Chamber and committees

That was a helpful contribution from Jamie Greene. I start from the viewpoint that the commission’s central purpose is a good one in principle. However, if it achieves what it wants to do, it will have wide-reaching implications, especially in indemnifying anyone against criminal prosecution and, as we have heard, civil proceedings.

I am clear in my own mind now, having read the DPLR Committee’s report and listened to the cabinet secretary. That committee noted that

“There is no requirement in the Bill that the UK Ministers obtain or seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers in the Bill within the Scottish Parliament’s devolved competence.”

It is important to uphold the principle that Westminster should seek the consent of this Parliament when seeking to do something on a UK-wide basis that is within the competence of the devolved Parliaments, such as criminal legislation. That principle needs to be upheld.

There is a lot to consider in all this. There are a number of substantial issues and, for that reason, I would like us to take more time. I am sympathetic to the Government’s position, now that I have heard it, but I would like us to take time over it in order to balance the overall objectives against some of the principles. However, it is really hard to overlook that principle because, at the end of the day, if we were to give up the powers of independence of the Lord Advocate, we should seek Parliament’s consent to do so.

It is important to pursue an update on that, because it is a case of “Maybe aye, maybe no,” depending on the local area. We wanted progress to be made and we wanted an acknowledgement that, if we really want to tackle the wider issue of released prisoners getting medication, which, in many cases, they need for five days, because they cannot get to their GP, we must monitor that. Given that we have started something, we should pursue the issue vigorously and see whether we can get some real action to be taken.

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

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

My question is on the police budget.

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 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?

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 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?

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.