Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.