Seòmar agus comataidhean

As Neil Rennick said and I have tried to say, the Crown Office will discuss that separately with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy. It is a separate budget. The Lord Advocate has been before the committee in the past. She will discuss her budget.

I cannot speak for the Crown Office but, generally, we would like far greater apportionment of capital spending, even if it comes down to using the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers—there is a real case to be made for increased borrowing powers. There is much that we could do. We can spend to save. If we spend wisely on capital, we can make future reductions in our resource budget.

It is not unfair to say that we would all like more capital spending. The Crown Office would have to speak for itself in relation to that.

Mr Findlay’s question in the chamber yesterday provided me with an opportunity to say that the policing of COP26 has been superb. I know that we have to look at some particular actions but, overall, it has been superb. I say that because other justice and UK partners have been extremely impressed by the way in which Police Scotland went about the preparation, which was detailed and carried out over a long period. I thank the police for that.

We have made clear our expectation that the UK Government will bear all costs, including legacy costs, related to holding COP26 in Glasgow. That is the commitment that we were given originally. It was done through a memorandum of understanding that was agreed between the Governments and that records the participants’ agreements on financial and contractual liability for COP26. It includes funding for police, fire and ambulance services.

I am generally quite satisfied with the assurance framework that is in place, which is the means by which we negotiate about planned expenditure for COP26. We will hear from Donald McGillivray on that, but it has worked well.

One area where we did not reach full agreement was legal aid. That related to the weekend and out-of-hours work that has to be covered and, in that respect, the additional fees to be paid to solicitors acting on behalf of anyone who might be arrested. We have, I would say, reached a compromise position, given that we did not get everything that we wanted from the process.

All of the funding is for identified spending that is associated with hosting a safe and secure COP, and no funding will come from the arrangements beyond COP expenditure. For the committee’s information, Police Scotland secured around £60 million of funding up to the end of October to cover the known direct costs of policing COP26 as well as accommodation for the sizeable number of mutual aid officers coming from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Because that is covered directly by the UK Government, none of that funding will come through us to be reclaimed.

The overall costs of policing the event will be known only post conference, when all relevant costs will be known and finalised. The assurance processes that I have witnessed seem fairly satisfactory to me but, as Donald McGillivray has been more intimately involved than me in this matter, it might be worth hearing from him.

Yes, and I think that that has been borne in mind even in prisons that are not scheduled for replacement but where new capital works are going on. Beyond that, in-cell telephony is being looked at for those prisons as well. As you have indicated, the hard-wired options are easier to manage and they make it easier to avoid some of the problems that we have had with the mobiles that were issued. That is being taken into account.

I will ask Neil Rennick to come in shortly. Your question prompts me to recall that I did not really answer the convener’s previous question on capacity.

As you said, we are looking at the other end—at how many people we put in prison. Shortly, we will have something to say on proposals that we want to bring forward in relation to remand and release. It is about sending the right people to prison—those who need to be in prison and will benefit from being there rather than in an alternative non-custodial diversion. That has to be part of the hard calculation that we will make as to what the future prison population will be.

In any event—the convener made this point and it is behind your question, as well—we should not end up without capacity, which has happened in the past. For example, Texas released tens of thousands of prisoners overnight, including many who had been convicted of drug offences, because the state could not cope with the prisoner population. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of California told the state that it had to release thousands of prisoners overnight because there was 200 per cent occupancy in the prisons.

We want to ensure that we have the right number of cells and facilities for people, but we also want to ensure that people go to prison when that is the best place for them to be and when it is where society needs them to be. There are two parts to the equation.

Specifically on women’s provision, the justice secretary before last made a judgment based on the best information that he had at the time. Neil Rennick, who was in post then, might want to say more.

That is a good point. For many years, the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to move away from single-year budgets and the late notification of the budget.

We have tried to reflect the point in the funding for victims services, for which we have announced a three-year funding package. As is the case with all such matters, if other things happen, it might be possible to increase funding, so bear that in mind. However, I understand the point that many third sector organisations must make plans, including for facilities, well in advance of each funding year. Multiyear funding is under consideration not only in victims services, but across the justice portfolio and the whole of Government.

There are some situations in which we would not give multiyear funding, but I think that the point has been accepted. We have argued for that position from the UK Government, so we cannot really argue against other organisations wanting the same stability.

Yes, it is, although, as you said, only a proportion of that money comes from the justice budget. Substantial progress has already been made on the issue of children in the justice system. Since 2000, the number of under-18s who were proceeded against in Scotland’s courts has fallen by 81 per cent. The number of under-18s in custody—again, that is a justice system response—has decreased by 79 per cent, and there has been an 81 per cent reduction in children who were referred to the children’s reporter on offence grounds.

We are, however, looking closely at the future funding of secure care. Officials are discussing specific proposals with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners. At this stage, that process can be summarised as being about investing in change—as you suggested in your question—guaranteeing accessibility and also keeping The Promise. I expect to be able to provide a further update early next year, at least on the justice elements of that, if the committee would find that useful.

It is not possible to say definitively, but we can probably get a good idea from looking at the establishment of previous commissioners’ offices. The establishment of the office of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, which I was heavily involved in, might give you an indication of the cost. That can be readily obtained from SPICe.

I am happy to get further information on that and to provide the member with a detailed response. Obviously, it is predicated on the value of fines for convictions, and there has been a pretty big disruption to that process in our court system. I imagine that that accounts for it, but I am happy to look into it further and to provide any other relevant information, if that would help.

That is a good question. We are actually at a lower level than that—I think that the figure is around 7,550. That is the figure that I saw in the latest update this week. However, the figure fluctuates, so it might have changed by a few.

You are absolutely right that we have seen a substantial increase in the use of remand. All parties have expressed concern about that, and we will introduce proposals to try to help with it. That is placing a big demand on prisons. There are different demands on the Prison Service because of how people on remand are treated. That is a current and pressing pressure on the prison population. You are also right that, as the backlog of cases is cleared, the number of convicted prisoners will increase, which will also increase the prison population.

It is hard to estimate the figures. The formulas that were used in our analysis up until Covid are no longer particularly useful during the time of Covid. You mentioned a figure of 8,000. That was true last year, but the figure has reduced as a result of Covid. The analysis is more difficult at the moment.

We are trying to tackle the matter in two—or possibly three—ways. We are trying to reduce the number of people who go to prison, where that is appropriate. We will shortly introduce proposals for consultation on bail and release—earlier, I referred to “remand and release”, but it is actually “bail and release”. I hope that we will get a constructive response to that, just as we have had in discussions in the chamber on those pressing issues. Pauline McNeill has raised those issues, too.

The other issue is about what happens in prisons. Following the committee’s visit to Saughton, Mr Findlay has acknowledged the different pressures in prisons. There are various serious organised crime groups, and it takes up space to ensure that there is segregation, if that is the right word. There is also the issue of vulnerable prisoners.

The demands on prisons are increasing. It is hard to quantify that, but we want to ensure that we have appropriate facilities for everybody. That is why, over the past 15 years, and to an extent before that, there has been an improvement in prison facilities. We are mindful of the issue and we keep a close eye on the population.

We know that a population increase is coming, but there are things that we can do, not least in relation to remand, but also in relation to people who may benefit from a different disposal, whether that involves community justice, rehabilitation or mental health treatment. Getting the right people in prison is one thing. We are mindful of our responsibility to house the people whom the courts send to prison.

I do not know whether that fully answers your point, but that is our current thinking.

Under the new procedure, the committee will write to me with its budget asks. That is where it will get quite interesting, because the committee will have to say, for example, which capital budgets it would cut in order to fund an increased police budget. That will probably create a richer pre-budget experience than we have had in previous years.