Seòmar agus comataidhean

If ever there were to be a case for changing the rules of privilege in the Scottish Parliament to include questions that are sub judice, it would be this one. I understand why it is so, but I do not think that it is good enough that we cannot get accountability for the decision. I agree with Russell Findlay that the case has brought the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service into complete disrepute. We have been unable to ask any questions and it is now a long time since that all happened. I am beginning to worry about the quality of the answers that we will get.

I totally support the notion that, whenever we can do so, we should ask the Lord Advocates to come to the committee. The committee needs to be the body to question the Crown Office on how such a decision could ever come to pass. Who else will do so? The money is an issue to some extent, but at the heart of the matter is the question of why our Crown Office and Lord Advocate took a decision that, on the face of it, now seems highly questionable and which has been described as involving a malicious prosecution against the directors concerned. We need answers on what was behind that decision. The sooner we can get those, the better.

The Criminal Justice Committee still has to have a discussion about how it will respond. It might mention, among other things, the issue that you raised about the extras that prisoners get keeping the prison regime quiet or in check. I picked up the word “legitimacy” quite strongly. Given what you have said, if the committee were to say in its report that it felt that the Government should take those important factors in your submission into account when it is considering what it might strip away, would you be pleased to read that?

Good morning. I have both a local and a regional interest in Barlinnie prison, which you have spoken about. For the record, and to add to what you said, I note that it has only five cells that are suitable for disabled prisoners, that there are no shared spaces for prisoners to sit and converse with others at mealtimes and—this is quite shocking—that prisoners have to eat all meals in their own cells. Where there are two prisoners to a cell, that might breach the standards on space.

I imagine that not much can be done about the situation right now, but how concerned would you be if the timetable for the new build were to slip? Have you had any discussions that would give cause for concern about that timetable? I appreciate that it is in the hands of the Scottish Prison Service but, given what you have said, I imagine that you have a strong interest in it, too.

I am sure that you are absolutely right. I wanted to get that on the record and make sure that I have understood correctly. You have said that

“Adverse prisoner reactions are both traumatic and costly”.

In your submission, you said that

“The cost of the prison riots in England between April and May 1986 was estimated by the Government to be”

in the region of

“£5.5 million”

and that

“The riot in HMP Birmingham in 2016 ... cost the Government and the private operator £6 million”.

From what you say in your submission, there is a financial consideration as well as a public safety consideration, so I want to get you to speak to that. Do you have any further concerns? You have put it in your submission, so I have to draw the conclusion that it is a big concern of yours that we might face that possibility, if the budget is not adjusted.

You said that there are pressures on the contract with GEO Amey. Does there being more virtual court appearances mean that it is not moving prisoners, so there is a cost saving?

I understand. I am thinking of a scenario that I know about, in which some prisoners from London Road police station, let us say, have to go to the sheriff court on first appearance, whereas previously they would have taken all the prisoners to one place. That answer was helpful.

You have mentioned reforms with regard to Lady Dorrian’s review, including single-judge trials and a number of other innovations in that respect. These particular proposals are about trying to reduce delays and help recovery; indeed, that is the Lord Advocate’s position. There are so many women and children victims waiting for their cases to be heard in court, and such an approach would allow you to make progress. However, how can the committee judge whether such reforms are not simply being done on the basis of financial savings? You can see where I am coming from. It is all very well putting in place innovations to make the system more efficient, but I would be deeply concerned if we were making reforms just to save money in a way that was not in the interests of justice.

You have answered some questions to help us to understand the innovations and reforms. Some of those will require legislative change. Some are controversial and they may not see the light of day, but that is a matter for another day.

I will be honest. I am slightly clutching at straws in asking you this question, but it is in my mind. It seems obvious to me that, if the Government put a bit more money up front now, some of the changes, at least, could bring savings even without staff reductions, or with no compulsory redundancies. Is any modelling being done on the figures in that regard? Let us say that you asked the Government to give you X million pounds so that you could front load some changes and you said that you could then deliver savings in future years. Is that discussion taking place?

The reason why I ask that question is that, should we decide to say that we are concerned and suggest something to the Government, we will be required to say where the money would come from. That is the trick in the question that we have to answer. Can you provide any modelling on savings in future years?

Good morning. Whichever way you look at it, the situation is extremely bleak. Indeed, that is what you are telling the committee, and it is also clear from your submission.

Am I correct in saying that the closure of three or four courts, if it came to that, will save only about £4 million?

I was just saying to Rona Mackay that things could not be any bleaker. I have never heard anything like that in all the time that I have been here.

On the evidence that we have from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service—