Chamber and committees

That is exactly the nature of the process. The plan specifically in relation to policing has to acknowledge the central role of the chief constable and the SPA. As recently as yesterday afternoon, there have been extensive discussions on those issues with the chair of the SPA and the chief constable. The intention is to ensure that the Cabinet, the Government and, I hope, the Parliament can support that plan in due course. Live issues very much along the lines that you have described are being discussed.

With mental health professionals attending directly?

It is probably important to say that—as I am sure that Katy Clark knows—body-worn cameras incur both a capital and a revenue cost. Where the information that is gathered by the body-worn camera goes is an important consideration, too, as are the logistics behind that, which also has impacts for both the capital and revenue budgets. The ultimate decision rests with the chief constable, but I acknowledge that it will depend on the resources that he has.

You have drawn a comparison with south of the border. We are a bit different in Scotland, in so far as the proportion of the police budget that is spent on people is substantially higher in Scotland, which puts pressure on the remainder of the budget and what else can be done with it.

We have had representations from the Scottish Police Federation and others. The federation said that its priority, as one stakeholder, was the pay and conditions of officers, such was the pressure that they had been under, and taking into account the impact of the cost of living. We have responded to that. It is also true to say that we cannot spend the money twice. I acknowledge the financial constraints.

I am a supporter of body-worn cameras, which I think can achieve savings in the longer term, for various reasons—which you will be aware of—but we have to live within the resources that we have. Ultimately, however, a decision on further roll-out will be for the chief constable to take.

My colleague Neil Rennick may be able to say more about the figures, but the extent to which that has been a priority throughout the pandemic is evident when we look at the balance of cases. To clarify, the success that I mentioned relates to summary courts. There has been a reduction of 12,000 cases—from 44,000 to 31,000, more or less. That is proceeding well. However, we do not see the same level of progress when it comes to solemn courts, so a change has been made by the court service to switch resources in order to effect a similar reduction in the solemn side of things—which may include some of the cases that Rona Mackay was talking about.

It might be worth hearing from Neil Rennick about domestic abuse cases.

I think that you know about the processes for accountability that are in train, and I have nothing to add to that.

The resource spending review was based on information coming from the UK Government, and it was about trying to set out a path for the next few years to give some context. The budget itself is separate from, but related to, that process. Between and within portfolios, it is, naturally enough, possible to change those totals. That is part of the process that we are currently undergoing, in discussions with police, fire and the Scottish Prison Service. It is not fixed in stone as per the RSR.

As I have said, the intention is to have HMP Highland as the first net zero prison. Deciding to develop a district heating system for an individual institution is probably outwith the justice portfolio. It would require the cross-Government working with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport that I think you are hinting at. Your point is perhaps whether—especially in relation to Glasgow, which has our largest prison population—having such a system could produce wider benefits. We are still in the formative stages of the process on Barlinnie. Perhaps Donald McGillivray or Neil Rennick will want to say more about that.

There will be substantial calls on the Government to do many things. Those calls will come not least from your party, which will demand, as ever, that health consequentials are passed directly to health and that, as they say, we do not pass go. I concede that it is the Government’s priority to ensure that health consequentials go to health services.

You mentioned the sum of £1.5 billion over two years. I have just mentioned the additional cost of £1.7 billion that we face this year due to the erosion of value caused by inflation. Therefore, there is no question of that money being a bonanza that we can expect to resolve the pressures in our portfolios. However, I will fight my corner for the justice budget and for the police, firefighters, prisons and others. I will fight my corner for the court service, where we are doing tremendous work, with the astonishing reduction in the backlog of summary cases of 12,000 in one year. Of course I will do that.

You used the word “shocking”, and I think that the budget that we have had from Westminster is certainly shocking. Many Government departments, as well as Scotland and Wales, have said that the pressures that we are facing this year are extraordinary. I am sure that you know the situation: the Scottish Government cannot change taxes during the year, and we cannot increase borrowing to cover pay. To have a £1.7 billion diminution in our budget and for that not to be recognised is shocking, I think, and that is the source of many of the pressures that we currently face. My job is to ensure that justice is well served by the budget process and that we maintain and improve the public services that we have under the justice portfolio.

The approach to pay rises will, necessarily, have to take inflation into account. As you will know, the UK Government has projected the start of a significant fall in inflation during the middle of next year, if memory serves me correctly. Inevitably, the approach to pay rises will take into account the real cost of living.

Briefly, there is of course a correlation between the impact of pay rises, our ability to pay for them and the overall budget. I have mentioned that, in the justice portfolio, around 70 per cent of our costs are people costs—whether directly in salaries, in pensions or in other costs. Those costs are significant, and they squeeze out the opportunity to do other things.

When it comes to the pay settlement that we reached this year—I imagine that the same process will inform how we approach further pay rounds—we recognise that police officers, prison officers and firefighters face increases in the cost of living, including in energy costs. We are trying our best to reflect that within the budget.

Although I neither recognise nor agree with your figures, you mentioned a correlation between paying more for pay and a squeeze on other things. This year, as I have mentioned, there has been £700 million of additional pressure so far, but that has not caused the reduction in police officers. That reduction was caused by the fact that Tulliallan was being used for the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and because of the restrictions of Covid. However, Tulliallan has now gone back up to its regular intakes of 300.

However, there is no doubt that there is such a correlation. I do not think that any Government has projected what it will do on pay over the next three or four years. I also make the perhaps obvious point that a 5 per cent pay increase this year does not disappear next year but is built on, so the pressures will grow.

It is our job to make sure that the number of officers in the police service establishment does not fall below the level that we think—and, more importantly, that the chief constable thinks—is necessary to do the job.

We have seen a substantial reduction in that over time as a result of Covid restrictions and a lessening of the need to appear in person for many of those practices. I have had extensive discussions with Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, and it is evident that the biggest problem that GEOAmey has is staffing. We have had a couple of suggestions about how it might best address that situation. The SPS is working closely with it to try to deliver a prisoner transport system that supports the justice system and protects the public. It is developing quite creative modelling to lessen the impact of the staffing issues, including scheduled weekly meetings to develop short, medium and long-term plans to improve the contractual delivery.

I might ask Neil Rennick to confirm the length of the contract. However, as per the contract, performance levels are monitored by the SPS, and any service failures are managed within the terms of the contract. We are aware that GEOAmey is about 70 staff short of the requirements needed to meet its prisoner escorting contractual agreement. Therefore, those things must be managed.

To be perfectly clear, we do not think that GEOAmey is at it. We know about the pressures with regard to getting staff, and we are trying to work our way through that issue.

Neil, do you know how long the contract is?