Chamber and committees

The first and usual caveat has to be, as Neil Rennick has said, that the courts and prosecution authorities decide on that; we do not. People get very nervous when politicians try to tell the courts what to do—other than through legislation, as we are entitled to do.

I am happy to look at that particular case and come back to Fulton MacGregor.

One problem during the pandemic—I do not know whether it relates to that case—was that cases that involved more than one person were substantially delayed because of the Covid implications of getting numbers of accused into one room. Even if the court system gave priority to certain types of case, that was sometimes limited. The situation is better now than it was, because we have more capacity. However, it may account for what has happened. In any event, I am happy to come back to Fulton MacGregor on that individual case if I have not already done so or if there is anything that I can add in the light of his questions.

I will let Neil Rennick answer that, but it is worth pointing out first that, to have carried on with some of the disposals would have been a Covid threat. I reiterate the point that the decisions that were made—not solely by me, although I imagine that I voted for them, as perhaps we all did—were made in the knowledge that we were trying to balance the different risks.

I do not know whether Neil Rennick wants to answer the specific question, although I imagine that the answer is no.

I would be happy to hear from that individual about those issues. It would be useful to get that information.

I think that we do not have information on that because, perhaps surprisingly, the funding comes from the equalities portfolio. I think that the £5 million that was to be allocated in the first 100 days has been allocated. Obviously, justice has an interest in the issue, but the allocation was handled by equalities ministers.

Yes, although, as I said, the former Lord Advocate expressed concerns because of the interrelationship with his functions. However, if the code of conduct is sufficient—we have had an assurance about that from the UK Government, and it will come back to us in future—and if the final version reflects what is in the draft, it should not be an issue for us.

On what we are doing, the committee did an investigation into that in 2018. Since then, we have put another £117 million into community justice services each year, plus a further £550,000 to incentivise bail supervision services—bail obviously being the flip side of remand. We have also put in another £1.5 million for bail support for women each year.

I reiterate the important point that this is not just about legislation. I think—I imagine that the committee will know this better than I do—that there is also cultural adaptation, as well the legislation, that we have to consider.

As we go through the questions, we will cover in more depth some of the victims’ issues that the member quite rightly raises. If he is aware that parts of the system do not ensure that a statement is sought, I will be happy to look at the information that he provides. It is possible that we should look in more depth at why it would be the case that more people do not request that. Obviously, a different authority is involved and we have to respect that, but I am happy to look at the issue, find more information about it and share that with the member.

Scotland’s prosecution system is, of course, a matter for the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate is head of the systems for the prosecution of crime in Scotland and exercises those functions independently of any other person.

The Scottish Government has committed an additional £50 million in this year’s budget to support recovery across the justice system, including increased funding to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which reflects our strong support for the vital services that are delivered through those offices. That is in addition to the increased funding that has been provided to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in recent years through the annual budget process.

I am happy to come to the chamber at any time to give updates on the extent of the situation in the courts and the impact that that might be having on victims. Members can, of course, propose questions, motions and debates in the Parliament for that.

I acknowledge that remand, in particular, has been an issue because of the backlogs that we have seen. That causes concern and we want to take early initiatives to address that, in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned. However, I am happy to answer future questions on the subject from Pauline McNeill.

To be perfectly honest, I want to get a bit more information about the specific question that Pauline McNeill asked and to find out from those at the front end of the system what their experience has been. However, I am happy to work with Pauline McNeill on those issues.

We remain committed to having the greater number of police officers that I mentioned, which is more than 17,000. That commitment is shared by the chief constable. I am not sure whether the member is suggesting that the chief constable should be instructed to move police officers around the country on the basis of what we think is the best solution. We do not agree with that approach—it is a matter for the chief constable.

It is also worth mentioning that some of the divisional officers that Dean Lockhart referred to have gone on to look at national priorities, such that the division in Fife, along with divisions in other parts of the country, can call on those national facilities, amenities and resources when it is necessary for them to do so. That is the chief constable’s responsibility.

There are more than 12,000 police officers in our local divisions, and, as I mentioned, there are more than 17,000 in Scotland. In Scotland, we have around 32 officers per 10,000 of the population, compared with 22 officers—10 fewer—per 10,000 of the population in England and Wales. As has been the case since we came into office, we will continue to have more officers and to pay them at a higher rate than officers elsewhere in the United Kingdom are paid.