Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have some questions that I want to ask, but they are not on support for victims.

My questions will follow on nicely from yours, convener.

I think that it is fair to say that there is a spectrum of views on the subject of video links and technology. Some people would prefer an environment in which the accuser or victim gives a pre-recorded statement that is played in a court in which not everyone is present—the use of remote juries in different buildings has been trialled in that regard. On the other hand, there are people who want everyone to be in the court—the accused, the accuser, the jury, the judge, the witnesses and everyone else. Between those two views there is wide spectrum of opinion. Obviously, we are trying to modernise how we do things—the pandemic is forcing us to do that, in any case, but it is also the right thing to do.

I want to ask about the issue of pre-recorded cross-examination, which we have not discussed yet. You will be aware that trials of that approach have taken place in London and elsewhere in England—I know that Durham Crown Court is running one. Does that happen in Scotland? If not, why not? Are there any plans to run such trials here?

Absolutely. I do not disagree that it is a common theme. The problem is that much of that work is currently taken up by the third sector and, in some cases, by volunteers. It is not formalised in any sense. People have access to Victim Support Scotland or to victim information and advice, which is the Crown Office’s process. However, in many cases, people are directed to charities such as Rape Crisis Scotland or Scottish Women’s Aid, or to their MSPs or MPs if they are really stuck, as we can write letters to people and generally get answers back.

I think that the lack of centralised support to hold someone’s hand through the process has led to accusations that the system is geared and weighted towards the accused. They have a single point of contact—their lawyer—who will hold their hand and educate them as they go through the process, whereas the victims often feel that they are passed from pillar to post.

With regard to your bit of the process, you manage the estate, but you have little control over the physicality of the estate. Many people have said to us that the estate creates difficulties—it is not a pleasant place to be, and victims often come face to face with the people who have attacked or abused them. In addition, the physical layout of the buildings, many of which are antiquated, is not conducive to a trauma-informed experience. What will you do to improve that?

Five years is a long time to wait for a case to come to trial, whether you are the accused or the victim. It is horrendous.

You make fair points. It is difficult to model the situation. As you say, given the scale of the congestion in the courts and the nature of the trials that are likely to come through the system, on which we have heard evidence, there is an expectation that non-custodial options simply might not be suitable in a large chunk of those cases. Therefore, there is an expectation that the prison population will rise. I presume that there are limitations on what you can do. You can magic up only so much space in the prison estate, so there will be overcrowding, eventually. Do you foresee a California-type scenario in which you simply must release people because of overpopulation?

Those are the words of Police Scotland.

Thank you for that clarification. I am not sure that there is much of a precedent for the committee telling the Government what more to spend and where the money should be cut from, but if that is the new budget scrutiny process I will be happy to engage in it.

If the SFRS is being asked to do more, as it is being asked to do—and we have heard concerns about that from management and the unions—that must be backed up with investment and, in this context, resource investment, whether we are talking about the requirement for training or the requirement for additional assets. If the budget remains static, as it has been since 2017, and there is no more investment up front, the service will find it difficult to offer a wider range of services. What discussions have you had with the service about what will be asked of it and how much more might be required from the budget allocation to help it do what is asked?

My other questions relate to other areas of the budget, so I am happy to come back in later, convener.

I want to ask a more fundamental question about the prison estate. I appreciate your comments on HMP Greenock. I think that everyone accepts that elements of it are not fit for purpose; Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland has made that clear. Although we are a long time away from getting a replacement, it is important that any funds that can be are allocated to make immediate improvements, which would be most welcome by the staff and inmates. That is a parochial point, but it is an important one to make.

I will now look at the wider issues. I spoke in the previous committee meeting to Teresa Medhurst about a medium to long-term plan for the prison population. We know that the annual average population is sitting at quite a high number—the latest figure that I have is that there are more than 8,000 inmates. The figure has risen quite sharply over a number of years. In the context of the large backlog of court cases, of which a large percentage are for quite serious crimes—more specifically, those are of a sexual nature or involve gender-based violence—and because of the good work that the police and other agencies are doing to tackle the rise in serious organised crime, Ms Medhurst seemed to imply that the prison population is expected to rise further. It takes four, 10 or 15 years to build new estate. Is the allocated budget geared up to that potentially quite sharp, immediate rise in the prison population?

No. May I carry on? Sorry, but the police budget is a big topic.

Police Scotland states in its written submission that its five-year capital investment proposal

“would improve conditions and equipment for the wellbeing of officers and staff”

and

“enable a better service to be provided”.

It states:

“A lower settlement would require prioritisation to meet health and safety needs”—

in other words, the statutory requirement on the police—but would not allow it to deliver much-needed improvements to the fleet, to ICT and to the police estate, which many people said in their written submissions is not fit for purpose.

I return to the point that, for Police Scotland to fulfil its five-year plan to deliver and maintain the policing levels that we currently enjoy, it will need £466 million. Your capital spending review from this year suggests that it will get £218 million less than that. That is the shortfall that we and Police Scotland are talking about. If it does not receive the funding settlement that it is expecting or asking you for, which of those projects are unlikely to be delivered? Which aspects of police transformation and renewal will we not see in the next five years as a result of that capital ask not being met?