Chamber and committees

Thank you.

I apologise because I was not on the committee when this sort of matter arose in the past, so I am new to the subject. I have a simple question: is the cabinet secretary aware of whether the organisation concerned has any employees or offices, or undertakes any activities, in Scotland? The reason why I ask relates to the point about income tax. If an employee of the organisation was ordinarily resident in Scotland, would they pay the taxation that was appropriate south of the border or the local, devolved income tax, which might differ?

I have wider questions on budgets but, as we are on the topic of prisons, I may as well carry on with that theme.

We heard stark evidence from HM Inspectorate of Prisons on Barlinnie and Greenock. The warning was clear that if, on the next inspection of Greenock, the inspectorate is unhappy, the prison faces the real potential of being closed due to health and safety. Some of the descriptions of it were disturbing.

From a budget point of view, Wendy Sinclair-Gieben made it clear that

“the cost of maintaining Greenock prison outweighs its value.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 09 November 2022; c 2.]

She also said that it costs a fortune to maintain Barlinnie because it is old, and that it is only a matter of time before the building collapses. Rather than look at that in the silo of this year’s budget, is it not part of a bigger picture of chronic underinvestment in the prison estate that has led to a situation in which they are expensive to run and therefore any factors such as rising energy prices affect them more?

In your opening comments, you said that this year you are looking at a real-terms budget cut of 10 per cent due to inflation. I want to probe you on those numbers and on how you came to that figure. My understanding is that the 2021-22 core block grant budget was £36.7 billion and that the 2022-23 block grant is £40.6 billion. That is roughly a 10 per cent increase, so although I understand that the effect of that might feel negated, I do not understand the 10 per cent cut. Could you explain the numbers?

Perhaps we can ask our colleagues in SPICe to verify my figures versus the ones that you used, cabinet secretary. I am just trying to get to an understanding of how you came to the assumption that your budget is 10 per cent lower in value this year than it was last year, which is the opposite of the figures that I have and is notwithstanding the £16 billion-plus in Covid consequentials that was given to the Scottish Government, which has been spent on various issues.

The issue of pay rises is important. The financial problems that you face over the next few years are largely due to an expectation that the Government will have to increase pay across the public sector. We heard from Police Scotland witnesses, specifically, on the effect of that in numerical terms. They forecasted that even a 5 per cent pay rise per annum over the next four years would cost £220 million, and that paying for that would equate to the loss of around 4,500 officers. In other words, every 1 per cent that is awarded to the force equates to the loss of around 1,000 police officers to fund it. Is that of concern to you, and how will the Government approach the issue of pay rises, given that it is largely outside your control?

I will continue on the issue of prisons. The committee had two evidence sessions on prisons—one with the Scottish Prison Service and one with HMIP. We heard evidence that, if the current forecast for the budget comes to fruition, it might result in a situation in which prisons have to revert to Covid-like lockdown scenarios. That was described as a situation in which prisoners would be held in their cells for much or all of the day and in which there would be a cancellation of purposeful activity and third sector organisations coming into prisons. There would also be a reduction in rehabilitation, mental health and addiction treatment services. HMIP described that as a scenario in which people would leave prison more angry than when they went in. Clearly, that would be in no one’s interests, least of all in relation to public safety. How do you respond to those warnings?

The restrictions would be introduced as a by-product of financial restrictions. The inspectorate stated quite clearly that the SPS cannot

“manage against a flat cash budget without significant adverse impact”.

I know that it is difficult to pre-empt what your final budgets will look like, but do you expect to move money from other areas of the justice directorate budget towards the Scottish Prison Service to avoid that scenario, or will you ask the finance secretary for money from other Government departments to fund it? If you are making that commitment today—that is one of a number of commitments that you have made on what you do not want to happen—it is clear that more money is needed.

That is quite a mash-up.

The format of this amendment, or whatever others may get agreed to at this stage, is not really the point; whatever one’s views on the bill’s general principles, what we as individual members are trying to do is to improve and strengthen the bill itself. Reporting requirements are extremely important in that respect, but such amendments are often rejected by Government ministers. I am therefore pleased to get the feeling that, in this instance, the Government accepts the need for more data and clarity as the bill progresses.

I would be happy to work with any member, or with the Government, ahead of stage 3, either on individual reporting amendments or on a catch-all requirement, as long as that happens and that the provision is in black and white in the bill—that is the main thing—so that we, or indeed whoever sits in the next Parliament, can question Government ministers on the impact of the legislation, in the hope that that addresses some of the concerns that people are raising about the potential impact. I do not always share the concerns, but I appreciate that they exist, and it is important that we future-proof the bill in that way.

Ms McNeill makes a good point. My understanding is that it is already an offence to obtain a GRC fraudulently, so a bar has already been set in the eyes of the law and that bar would remain. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will address that, assisted by the team around her. The matter might be clarified through further guidance after the bill passes or, indeed, through further clarification of the amendment itself. As we move to stage 3, I would be very happy to amend the bill further, should amendment 133 be agreed to, in order to clarify the matter.

Pauline McNeill is absolutely right: court cases are all individual. We should be as clear as possible. I am happy to work with the Government and, indeed, any other member, if that would help.

I make it clear that the amendment does not alter in any way the general principles of the bill or the process for obtaining a GRC, and it should not act as a deterrent to anyone who wants to go about that process for good reason. It does not exclude anyone from obtaining a certificate and it does not set any additional preconditions or requirements for obtaining one.

As the committee will know, I also lodged amendment 134—I withdrew it ahead of the deadline—which went into more detail on the types of offences where an aggravator would be suitable, such as offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or human trafficking, abusive behaviour, sexual harm and domestic abuse. I felt that there was some merit in that approach, but I understand that there are some technical difficulties, which the cabinet secretary might want to explain to me. I am happy to work with the Government if the committee feels that the provision could be strengthened to become more specific or if the general approach is good enough in the eyes of the law.

Simple aggravators are commonly used in other pieces of legislation, such as the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Members may be aware that, more recently, the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022, which went through the Criminal Justice Committee, introduced an aggravator for offences of assault against emergency service workers. There is some precedent.

The whole point of an aggravator is to act as a deterrent, which is the intention of my amendment. I ask the committee to support amendment 133. It will introduce a much-needed counterbalance to address some of the concerns about the new process.

I move amendment 133.