Chamber and committees

Rona Mackay will know that, before starting the process for a bill, we have to go through a process of making sure that there is financial cover for its implications. As she has rightly said, those are substantial. A victims commissioner is one; a cost will be associated with specialist courts, too, if those are agreed; and a number of other recommendations will inevitably have costs associated with them. However, we have gone through the process to make sure that we have financial cover.

That does not mean that there is not still a challenge in making sure that we have those finances, but that has been taken into account and there is substantial progress on Lady Dorrian’s recommendations—both those that require legislation, some of which I have mentioned, and those that do not.

I am very mindful and do not deny the logic of that. Also, there is a need for more information on electronic monitoring and other aspects to be provided to the judiciary, because there is not always the level of awareness that there should be. I am not saying that that is the judiciary’s fault, and it is not for me—by any means—to educate the judiciary, but that is a need for more awareness of what is possible. However, you are right that, at the root of it, the judiciary must have confidence that that is a legitimate disposal. It will not be a political direction not to send people to prison, because, of course, that will be for the judiciary, but I do not dispute the logic that the member draws out. That is our direction of travel and what we believe in, and it underpins the ideas behind some of the legislation that we are taking through. The issue is how we continue to do that with the available resources.

I do not think that I have anything to add to the previous responses that the First Minister gave, except to reiterate the point that the cost of that will not fall directly on the justice portfolio but will be borne across the whole of Government. I cannot tell you what the ultimate cost will be, because it depends on factors that are outwith my control and, obviously, pre-dates my time in office. I do not know whether my colleagues who were in post when that became a live issue have anything to add, but I cannot add to what the First Minister said previously.

I have chopped some of the commentary that I was going to make because you have had a long morning and the SSI is not dissimilar to ones that the committee or its predecessors have considered in the past.

The draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2022 confers various legal immunities and privileges on the Inter-American Investment Corporation—IIC—and on persons associated with that organisation so far as that is within the devolved competence of the Parliament.

The order is limited to the issue of privileges and immunities. By way of background, I mention that the IIC is the main private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group—IDB—which lends to Governments and the IIC. The UK has opted to join the IIC, and the conferral of immunities and privileges to the IIC is required to ensure that the UK can fully comply with its obligations under article 7 of the IIC’s founding agreement. Joining the IIC offers the opportunity to be part of an important organisation in the Latin America and Caribbean region, which will support economic growth and leverage further private sector resources for development financing.

To assist the committee, I will say a little about the nature of the privileges and immunities involved. The conferral of legal capacity and privileges and immunities is necessary to ensure that the IIC can function as an international organisation in the UK. The order grants the IIC immunity from suit and legal process, inviolability of archives and premises and exemption from taxation. It also grants personal privileges to the IIC’s officers and employees: immunity from legal process with respect to official acts and exemption from income tax. The income tax exemption does not apply to British citizens.

The privileges and immunities conferred by the draft order are granted primarily on the basis of strict functional need. They are no greater in extent than those that are required to enable the IIC to function effectively.

So that the privileges and immunities are conferred in accordance with the agreement, the UK Government has introduced a statutory instrument through affirmative procedure, with the expectation that it will come into force late this year or early next year. The UK Government also laid its SI in Parliament on 11 October.

I welcome the opportunity to hear members’ views on the order and I commend it to the committee.

To clarify, convener, do you mean between different portfolios?

That relates to the point that Katy Clark made, which is that, if we build new prisons, they can be made more efficient and savings can be made in that way. I acknowledge that, but we cannot get away from the hard fact of the Government’s capital allocations, which have to cover schools, plants, machinery, cars and other vehicles for various services. We have to live within the envelope that we have, and I would say that it is a false envelope, because it was originally based on the Maastricht criteria, if we want to go back to that—the UK wants to cap the total level of borrowing to that extent.

As you rightly say, borrowing to improve public facilities pays for itself in the long term; I agree with that, which is why we are replacing Barlinnie. Members know about the programme of replacements and improvements that we have in place across the prison estate, and we are trying to work our way through that, but we can go only at the pace at which the money allows. To repeat my earlier point, that money is going less and less far because inflation is eating into it. However, I accept that, if we can replace prisons such as Barlinnie, we will make savings in on-going costs.

I do not know whether Willie Rennie was here earlier to hear the figure of more than £10 billion, which is the amount of funding for Police Scotland since the creation of the single force in 2013. I talk regularly to senior police officers and rank-and-file police officers, and they believe that the single force is a great development. It is one of the best examples of public sector reform that we have.

I do not simply wish away the issues that existed in the earlier years of the single force, but it is extremely effective. In support of that, I cite the way in which the police dealt with Covid, the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the death of the monarch. The police service in this country is excellent, and it has been well supported over the years, although, of course, I acknowledge that there are budgetary pressures because of the cuts from Westminster.

I hope that the member will allow me to check my diary before I make a commitment, but if it is possible for me to attend, I will certainly do so.

The member’s point about the reporting of such crimes is a matter to take up with the relevant authorities. We do not direct the authorities in relation to statistics. There might well be a very good case to be made for what the member suggests, and I am happy to write to him to tell him where it would be best to take up the issue in relation to the police and the UK Statistics Authority.

It is true that, over the 10-year period from 2012-13, there has been a 21 per cent decrease in the crime of motor vehicle theft, but there has been a 5 per cent increase in such crime in the most recent year. That might include theft of motorcycles.

I suggest that the member takes up the issue relating to the reporting of such incidents with the relevant authorities, once he has had confirmation from me of the best way to do so.

I agree with that. It seems obvious to me, not just for the Scottish Government but for public services in England and Wales, that when there is runaway inflation—caused, of course, by the Tories’ economic mismanagement—that needs to be acknowledged within year. We can surely recognise the additional pressures—whether on police pay or on paying for heating, lighting and feeding in hospitals, jails and police stations—that are caused by the cost of living crisis. There has not been one word from the Conservatives—or, as far as I know, Labour—to say, “You have to increase the funding available if you want to protect these public services.”

Just as we have done with the police, we will continue to protect all the public services in Scotland to the best of our ability with the resources that are available.

I do indeed praise that work in Stirling. “Ask for Angela” is of course one of several safety initiatives that have been promoted under the best bar none scheme, the administration of which is funded by the Scottish Government through the Scottish Business Resilience Centre. I certainly welcome and support the good work in Stirling and across the country, which is reflective of the co-ordinated approach that we will continue to promote as part of the Scottish Government round-table forum to tackle the abhorrent act of spiking.