Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes; I presume that the cabinet secretary is speaking about proposed new subsection 22B(1). I am not a legal drafter; the amendment was prepared with the kind help of the parliamentary team at very short notice, given our tight deadlines. I prefer to move the amendment and ask committee members to vote on it. Of course, there will be ample opportunity to tidy it up ahead of stage 3, and I am happy to work with the Government on that.

I thank the working group for its work on a difficult and sensitive issue, not least for members who represent communities in the west of Scotland.

It is unclear from the letter what will happen next around some of the proposals. I have concerns about the suggestion that decisions will be taken at microlocal level. I also have concerns about whether local authorities will have new or specific powers in relation to marches and processions, and about what the consequences of that might be. We could have quite disparate outcomes, with certain types of marches allowed in one part of the country but not in another, for example. That would leave matters open to the vagaries of how different councils operate, depending on whether, for example, they are more member led or official led. We also need to bear in mind that councils come in different shapes, sizes and political colours.

I would like to get a bit more information, as it is a little unclear from the cabinet secretary’s comments whether he supports the proposal to give more powers to local authorities. He only says:

“I am keen to explore what, if anything, is possible and desirable”

in relation to the working group’s conclusion on that.

The cabinet secretary uses the phrase

“improvements could be best handled by local partners”,

but the letter does not state who those local partners would be and what statutory roles they would play in making decisions.

Some people are disappointed that we will not have a Northern Ireland-style parades commission. I understand that the number of parades that take place is much lower in Scotland than it is in Ireland, but the consequences are often not dissimilar.

I ask that we are kept up to date on the issue. I would find it really helpful to get from the cabinet secretary any information on the Government’s direction of travel.

Unfortunately, Covid taught us that many care homes felt like prisons for many of their patients.

We are talking about pre-budget scrutiny and, in your opening comments, you mentioned not just prisons—although we have focused our comments on them—but the wider justice sector. All areas of the justice sector face the same potential outcomes; that applies to community justice, the police, the Crown Office and other stakeholders, who are all cogs in the wheel.

If we end up with the Government finding extra money to give to some of those services, on the back of evidence that has been heard in this committee, it is likely that much of that will simply get sucked up in pay rises, because pay is the largest source of outgoings for many such organisations. Do you have any concern that, even if we are not looking at flat cash and there are some additional year-on-year rises in their budgets, all of that will indeed be sucked up through negotiations with workers, or to avoid industrial action—which there is potential for across the board—and none of the good things that any of them wants to do will happen, even given such an increase in the budget? What is your advice to Government about that?

Do you think that the Government would do that even if a better service was being run more cheaply?

Would you be prepared to go on the record with an estimate, today?

In its evidence, the Scottish Prison Service said that a flat cash settlement would mean that it would need to revert to near-Covid-type lockdown scenarios in prison, and pretty much get rid of all the good stuff—rehabilitation and the involvement of third parties including the third sector—that ensures that people come out of prison better than they were when they went in. It said all that would cease to exist. Is that a concern?

That sounds worrying.

I want to touch on two local issues. The first is HMP Greenock. As Katy Clark mentioned, it is disappointing that there are no plans for a replacement for it. I understand that such things come at huge capital cost; we learned that the cost of HMP Highland has already nearly trebled and that costs will probably rise further. Such things tend to cost a lot more than was initially estimated, but it sounds nonetheless as though things are quite dire in Greenock. Do you have the power to shut it down? If you do not, which other agency has that power?

I will just add that, if the process is revised, it is unclear who the ultimate arbiter would be or what appeals process would be in place if, for example, organisers of such events felt that a decision had been made wrongly at local level. If there is no national consistency, how would that be presented at local level? Those issues need to be cleared up.

Good morning. Thank you for your written submission. I will start with a quotation from it, which backs up something that Teresa Medhurst told us last week. You say:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that”

a flat cash settlement—I am paraphrasing—could lead to a

“rapid deterioration of safety.”

Last week, Teresa Medhurst from the Scottish Prison Service said that it would

“impact on things such as violence and vulnerability.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 2 November 2022; c 46-47.]

What exactly do you mean by your comment? How would a flat cash settlement affect the volatility of a prison?

If you were not happy with what you saw, or you felt that shutting the prison down was the best option, would you recommend that it be shut down?