Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are trying to consider what would happen if the bill were passed. The effect of that would certainly be to undermine the Lord Advocate’s role, because there would be cases that she could no longer prosecute that she might otherwise want to prosecute. In fact, even if the commission decided not to prosecute, if it decided not to refer a case to the Lord Advocate, there would be nothing that she could do to prosecute a case that she might want to prosecute. That is one of the effects, and it is that effect that we are talking about.

I mentioned the specific articles that some of the human rights organisations have expressed concern about, and we have the same concerns. You know the basis on which the Parliament was founded in relation to human rights. However, it is also true to say, I think, that every Opposition party at Westminster and all the parties in Northern Ireland are similarly concerned about aspects of the bill.

I am trying to point out the practical effects for the Scottish Government and why we would object to them. You asked about the principles of the commission. If the principles of the commission allow for that intervention in the legal system in Scotland in a way that undermines the Lord Advocate’s position, it is a principled objection. It is certainly a principled objection to say that we do not think that the commission is compliant or to say that we have sufficient concerns about compliance with the ECHR. It is a principled objection to the basis on which the commission is founded, rather than to the idea of a commission itself.

That is a difficult question to answer. Certainly, I back the general idea that you want to get as much truth, openness and justice as possible through any such process. However, you cannot get justice if you undermine, on the one hand, the role of the Lord Advocate and, on the other hand, the accepted basis of human rights. In general terms, why would you not support trying to achieve greater truth, transparency and, hopefully, reconciliation? Justice must be at the heart of it, however, and we do not think that justice is served by the bill. All that we can go on, rather than sentiment or hypothesis, is what is presented to us. That is why we are opposing it.

First of all, I concede that there are parts of the bill with which we would have no issue, if they were standing in their own right. However, in the overall context of the bill, there are three areas where we—and human rights organisations in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—think that this Parliament’s ability to comply with its human rights obligations will be undermined.

As I have said, the bill infringes on the Lord Advocate’s independence. Under its provisions, she could not be—as she currently is and as all the parties in the Scottish Parliament have hitherto generally agreed should be the case—the person who decides on all investigations into certain serious offences in Scotland. That is a fundamental objection to the bill; even if some of the bill’s elements are absolutely fine on their own, our objection has to be seen in that context.

You have also asked about the impact on people who suffered during the troubles. This is not just some academic thing; such cases could come to and be tried in Scotland. Perhaps the issue of human rights standards is, as you have suggested, political—although it does not seem to me to be so, given how these matters have not been so contested in the past—but if somebody has been subjected to torture or abuse or knows somebody who has been murdered, it is important that those matters receive due process. The bill would insert a new body into that process in a way that we think would undermine the independence of the Lord Advocate and this Parliament’s role in relation to human rights.

I am not sure that those are necessarily political objections. I think that they are well founded, and they are founded on principles such as the Lord Advocate’s independence and the human rights basis of this Parliament.

Helen, do you want to add anything?

On Mr Greene’s question whether the human rights side of things could be overcome, it might be worth pointing out the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s comment that the bill is—and these are its words—“fatally flawed” and that it is “not possible” to make the bill compliant with the European convention on human rights. It has also expressed grave concerns that the

“the Bill is incompatible with Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (freedom from torture)”

of the ECHR and with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There will be a long way to go to overcome those objections.

You are right. There might be laudable purposes behind what is intended, and it might be that, given the exchange and engagement between them, the Lord Advocate and the Northern Ireland Office can find a way around the more fundamental objections. The issues that we have objections about undermine those perhaps laudable purposes. There might well be merit in getting people to come forward without fear of prosecution, but it does not overcome our fundamental objections.

You raised a point about the civil side of things, and it might be best to get someone who is more expert than me to address that point, if that is okay.

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.

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.

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.

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?