Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will shut up, then.

I am sorry—we are skipping ahead. On deaths in custody, on page 34, are we content as a committee that that issue has been followed up by analysis of where the Scottish Government agreed with our recommendations? The Government pushed back and said that it had

“no intention to create an online centralised system where delivery of the recommendations can be tracked.”

Are we content with that response, or do we want to push the Government further on that? It is still a very live issue, unfortunately and tragically.

I want to start with the section on Police Scotland. It is a great summary, and I thank the clerks for it.

Page 4 of paper 4 suggests actions, and they seem to be that we ask the SPA to do some work. We first need to take a step back and go straight back to Police Scotland. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of paper 4 show that the committee—I am now putting this on the public record—is unhappy with Police Scotland’s response and we have more than enough opportunity to go back to Police Scotland.

Paragraph 5 states:

“The response does not include an explanation as to why the officers who the Committee spoke to did not receive the expected standard of advice and support.”

In paragraph 6, we complain that Police Scotland’s response does not address key issues that the committee raised. In paragraph 7, we also say that the point about

“the inadequacy of the employee assistance line”

is not addressed. In paragraph 8, the committee requests details about when

“the court scheduling system redesign will be in place”

and say that that information has also not been provided.

Therefore, Police Scotland has not responded to some very specific things, and we should give it a second chance to do so before we escalate the questions. I am happy to include the SPA in our correspondence, but we should go straight to Police Scotland and explain that we are unhappy with its response. Let us be up-front about that, uncomfortable thought it might be.

We could also include the challenges that the SPF has raised. I know that Police Scotland will read the response from the SPF but, if Police Scotland is not asked to answer that, it does not have to and probably will not. I would like Police Scotland to respond directly to the concerns raised by the SPF, such as the one mentioned in paragraph16, which is that

“the SPA bases its oversight on evidence provided by Police Scotland”

but not necessarily by officers directly.

That is a key point. In other words, the SPA seems to be marking its own homework by responding to evidence given to it only by Police Scotland, which is, of course, accountable to it, but not necessarily by going directly to staff associations or organisations to get feedback. We need to sanity check whether what the SPA is hearing from Police Scotland marries up with the truth on the ground. That is perhaps a criticism of the SPA.

Paragraph 17 refers to specific complaints about

“the strategic commitment to wellbeing from Police Scotland”

and the mainstreaming of that policy. It notes that the SPF believes that there is

“either a failure to operationalise the programme or a failure to operationalise the right programme.”

Again, we could invite Police Scotland or the SPA to respond to that.

I do not disagree with what we are asking the SPA to do around data collection and how it could better engage with officers and their representatives from the union or otherwise on whether that could be beefed up, as those are valid points, but they are not necessarily the main criticisms that we want to pose.

Although the paper is quite short, the committee has clearly expressed our unhappiness at the response that we have had from Police Scotland. I think that we need to challenge that. That is my only plea.

The current position is that no transgender offender who has been convicted of a crime of violence or sexual violence against women or girls will be placed in a female prison. I presume that those who commit other types of violence and domestic abuse are not currently and will never be held in the female estate. Is that something on which you can give assurances, or is that a temporary measure?

At his directive, though.

Under ministerial directive.

When I briefly popped out, did you cover recovery cafes?

I have a few different items to discuss, but I do not want to impinge on other members’ opportunities to speak. Perhaps I can kick off the conversation on some of them, at least. The first one is the cabinet secretary’s response in relation to the budget for the Scottish Police Authority and police budgets. I want to probe a little bit into that.

There is quite an important clarification from the cabinet secretary about the part of our report on police budgets. When we took pre-budget scrutiny evidence, it was made quite clear to us that there would be a direct knock-on effect on police numbers in proportion to a flat cash settlement or a real-terms cut in the budget, depending on how you phrase it. It is an area I probed into quite vociferously. In the cabinet secretary’s response, he writes that, in the committee’s report,

“you stated that I said that I have no intention of cutting police officer/staff numbers.”

We put that in the report in the context of the evidence that we took that there would be a reduction in front-line officers or back-office staff. The cabinet secretary has replied that he thinks that that is an “inaccurate reflection” of what he said.

I need to look at our report to check what we wrote, but that was certainly the essence of what he said in committee. We might have misquoted him, or he might think that we did, but that was very much what I thought he said. I believe that other members thought that as well, which is why we put it in our report. The cabinet secretary has come back and said that, actually, what he said was that he had

“no intention of overseeing a budget for the police force that results in 4,000 officers leaving.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 23 November 2022; c 12.]

That is welcome, as that is not a position that any cabinet secretary would want to be in, but that seems to fall quite short of a commitment that there will not be a reduction in police officer numbers. It is unclear whether that leads us to surmise that there is a potential reduction in officer or staff numbers and whether, if that were to be the case, the cabinet secretary would be content with that, given that he has watered down his position.

I appreciate that the next part of the cabinet secretary’s response says that an additional £80 million of resource has been allocated to policing. I presume—and this can be clarified—that that is resource budget and not capital budget. It is unclear whether that is intended to meet any percentage pay rises that are asked for or settled on, given that we do not know the final outcome of negotiations on that.

My fear is that, even with the £80 million, we do not have evidence of what it will translate to. If the £80 million just gets swallowed up in an inflationary pay rise, we will be left with a static number of police officers. If that amount is not enough to cover any pay rise, there will still be a reduction in the number of police officers; we could still lose front-line police officers. That situation needs to be looked at percentage by percentage, by which I mean what would pay rises of 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 10 per cent look like?

It is a matter of concern, and it is not clarified by just chucking a number into the response and diverting away from it by saying that those are operational matters for the chief constable. Although they are, we should be evidence led when we scrutinise budgets, and I do not see how we can marry up that statement. There might not be 4,000 officers leaving, but a substantial number of officers still might leave. I do not know what effect the money will have, where it will go in the service or how it will be spent. It is a bit late, now, of course, but the letter has provided more questions than answers.

I have other comments on other parts of the response—specifically around the Scottish Prison Service and legal aid—but I will stop there in case other members want to talk about the police budget.

I want to pick up on some of my other points, some of which have been touched on by other members.

I hope that Fulton MacGregor is wearing a seat belt—otherwise, he will end up with a blue plaque on the tree next to his car.

I am glad that Fulton MacGregor is positive about the cabinet secretary’s reply, but there is nothing positive about uncertainty about police numbers. They are not around the edges of the budget; they are absolutely core to delivering good public safety.

I echo the comments about body-worn cameras. That is about the minutiae of operational matters, but that is a big detail. It is inconceivable that officers should have to wait years for fairly simple equipment that is standard in other forces. That is not going to go down well at all with officers on the front line.

On the fire budget, my colleague Russell Findlay pointed out the massive capital backlog. The response says:

“We have maintained the £32.5m capital budget”.

I assume that “maintained” means that the budget is still what it was. In other words, there has been no increase at all, which means a real-terms cut in the capital budget for the fire service.

I do not know how on earth that will go any way towards solving some of the problems that Katy Clark identified, which we have already debated in the Parliament. Those are quite serious and urgent matters. I know that we cannot magic up new fire stations overnight and that they take time to properly procure and build. That needs to be a longer-term project. However, I am pretty sure that many existing fire stations could do with an injection of cash to make them at least semi-fit for purpose. It is absolutely deplorable that we send our firefighters into the situations that we send them into and expect them to work in those conditions. I am willing to be corrected—the cabinet secretary is happy to correct me on other matters—but if it is a flat cash settlement for the fire service, it will come as a disappointment to it.

On prisons, notwithstanding the convener’s comments, I question the

“£97m in capital funding to continue the modernisation of the prison estate.”

The response goes on to say:

“This will include … the completion of the new female national prison at HMP Stirling.”

I am afraid that I do not think that that is new money. Again, I am willing to be corrected if that is the case, but surely that will just be the next tranche of the procurement and building costs of the prison, and it would already have been known to us prior to the revised budget. I do not think that it is new magic cash. It is probably going some way towards resolving payments to those who are building HMP Stirling, as the response seems to imply.

There are major issues around HMP Greenock. I know that we have asked about it many times and that we have been given the honest answer that there simply is not enough money in the pot to do anything there, but it will close if things go on as they are. If it does not receive cash in any shape or form, it will inevitably close. That is not scaremongering, as was reported in local media; it is a real possibility.

We have not discussed legal aid. I was quite intrigued by the cabinet secretary’s response. I am not sure that it was meant to be read in this light, but he said:

“In addition, following positive engagement with the legal profession, we will bring forward regulations in the New Year to further increase and reform Legal Aid fees.”

Nobody in the legal aid profession whom I spoke to thought that the engagement was positive or was happy with the outcome of that engagement. In fact, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association is on the record as saying that it is better than nothing, but it does not really go far enough. That has been echoed by many others in the sector.

There is a little bit of head-in-the-sand syndrome in the cabinet secretary’s response. It is unclear what the additional budget will look like in fees versus what the solicitors think is required to continue to provide services. We are now starting to see the very real effects of the financial problems in the legal aid sector. Members are probably aware that people in Orkney, for example, have little to no access to practitioners and that that is repeated throughout the country. Again, we have been raising that issue for many years, and I do not take much that is positive away from the cabinet secretary’s statement.

The last point, which is an important one, is on victims. There is a welcome announcement on multiyear funding for some of the third sector organisations. A committee on which I sat in the previous session of the Parliament did a huge piece of work on that. That certainty of funding is welcome.

On the bairns’ hoose model, my understanding—I am happy for the clerk to correct me if I am wrong—is that a report was due to the Parliament to outline the plans for future bairns’ hooses. I think that the Government was doing a piece of work to identify how many would be needed and how much budget would be required to roll that out. That piece of work is overdue, but I could be corrected on that. That report would be helpful. I do not think that the roll-out will happen in the next financial year anyway, even if the report had been released, but it would give us an idea of what is happening down the line with that. I appreciate that getting the first bairns’ hoose off the ground is the priority, and I support that.

I understand what the cabinet secretary has said. I know what we said and what he said, and I know what he is now saying. I do not think that he has changed his position, and I am not accusing him of doing so.

I am less interested in that and more interested in the context and the content of what he says. It is welcome that the cabinet secretary will not preside over a budget that will result in 4,000 officers leaving. Nobody wants to lose 4,000 officers. The inference from our exchange was that there would not be a cut of that nature. Whether the cabinet secretary or the chief constable makes that decision is irrelevant. He goes on to say that he has found some cash in the pot, which, again, is welcome. No one has a problem with that. The cabinet secretary might not be content with presiding over a budget that results in 4,000 officers lost, but I do not know whether he would be content with losing 3,000, 2,000 or 1,000 officers. We do not know that, so there are unanswered questions.

If it is correct that those are operational matters for the police and not the cabinet secretary, we should be asking Police Scotland what the £80 million will be spent on, and whether, in that context, it is still considering a reduction in officer numbers. I say that because officer numbers are at their lowest levels since 2008, so any suggestion that they will drop any further should be a matter of concern for the committee.