Chamber and committees

I have two questions. First, Dr Plastow, just last week, the Parliament had an interesting debate on artificial intelligence. What do you see as the opportunities and challenges from the increasing use of AI in your field of biometrics?

Sticking with the investment that may or may not be coming down the line, in your response to the convener you talked, rightly, about the need for capital investment. The committee heard from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority that, as they put it, an increased capital allocation of £83 million is required to allow them to deliver a basic rolling replacement programme—an estates master plan. If they do not get that—if that is not what they see in the budget—what does the cabinet secretary understand will have to not happen as a result?

I remind the committee up front that I am a solicitor, although I have not done legal aid work for 20 years and I do not do criminal defence work.

Cabinet secretary, I understand and respect the answer that you gave to Pauline McNeill. However, the questions that she put to you are key. We know that there is a huge problem with the lack of numbers of solicitors who enter criminal defence, and evidence shows that that is due to unsustainable working conditions and—according to the dean of the Faculty of Advocates—inadequate remuneration. You will be very aware that Aamer Anwar & Co recently pulled out of doing legal aid work, because those solicitors cannot continue to fund it themselves. That has led many commentators to talk about an inability to access justice.

None of us—least of all you, I know—wants such a situation in Scotland, so give me a direct answer, please: will the Scottish Government do anything about legal aid in the forthcoming budget, and anything about the structural issues that underlie the situation in which we find ourselves?

I might press you for one more question, convener.

I say with deep respect, cabinet secretary, that the previous money will no doubt have been very welcome. I have no doubt that the police will have been pleased to receive the sums that you talked about, both in capital and resource. However, this session is about looking forward and about what is coming up in the budget. The committee has heard that, if the police do not get what they need for resource, there will be a drop in officer numbers; if they do not get the £83 million capital allocation, there will be a problem with the rolling replacement programme.

Cabinet secretary, you accepted the seriousness to the police of not being able to deliver one or both of those, in the event that the budget does not deliver the money. What representations have you made to the finance secretary in relation to those specific asks from the police? Have you said to the finance secretary, “This is what we need to see, because the consequences of not seeing that are a disaster”?

I understand. That is clear. Thank you.

I am very grateful. My final question is about an interesting point that came up during our evidence sessions. John Logue of the Crown Office advised the committee that the ending of extensions to statutory time limits in solemn cases in November 2025 presents it with “significant risk”, as he put it. What is your response to that? What can the Government do to avoid that situation?

Good morning. Police Scotland advised the committee that a flat-cash settlement, or a 3 per cent real-terms reduction in funding, would see officer numbers drop to as low as 15,100, or to below 15,000, respectively. It is important to be clear that Deputy Chief Constable Connors followed that up by saying that she did not believe

“that public safety would be compromised”

by such reductions, but that Police Scotland would need

“to prioritise and make more difficult choices around the threat, harm and risk.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 30 October 2024; c 9.]

Does the cabinet secretary accept the projections of those numbers in those financial scenarios? If so, what does the cabinet secretary understand that the police would have to do in terms of prioritisation and making those difficult choices?

Yes; I am very grateful. It is very interesting.

My second question might be a little more awkward, but I feel that I need to ask it, to get the issue out in public. Your role is to scrutinise the police, at least in part, or to have oversight of the police. Earlier, you talked about public awareness and public perception. You are joined today by Ross MacDonald, who has joined you on secondment from Police Scotland. Now, there is no question about Mr MacDonald’s expertise; I can see that from the committee papers. However, Mr MacDonald is seconded and is therefore still an office-holder of Police Scotland. Given that the public perception of such a secondment might involve a question about independence, why was that route chosen, and is there merit in future in looking beyond the police and perhaps beyond the public sector?

On a related point, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told the committee that it needs to receive an increase in resource funding of £16 million. If that does not happen, the consequence would be that work would be

“slowed down, shelved or stopped completely.”

What work have you advised the finance secretary would need to be slowed down, shelved or stopped completely if the forthcoming budget does not show a £16 million uplift?

Can I clarify that point? The Crown Agent puts it to the Lord Advocate, and it is for the Lord Advocate to negotiate with the finance secretary for budget—is that correct, or have I misunderstood?