Chamber and committees

I dispute that, Mr Findlay, with respect.

There are two aspects to Ms Clark’s question. Yes, indeed, I visited the premises in East Kilbride to be able to apprise myself of the further advantages of GPS technology. I have commissioned my officials to explore that work and hope to keep Parliament abreast of that. We have seen success with the increase in the electronic monitoring with bail, for example. That is a good example of the use of technology that is not just to the benefit of individuals and families but also to communities in the long run. It is an important part of the jigsaw in relation to community payback orders. Community payback orders can have a very wide range of conditions attached to them and I would like to see that fuller spectrum of conditions utilised. I have recently discussed with Social Work Scotland how we can move forward and do that.

We do not want to take for ever and a day about it, but that will be finalised once the budget is finalised. I hope that I can convey to you and also to police officers, that the body-worn camera investment is a priority.

The assurance that I can give to this committee is that I will work as hard as possible to get the best possible budget for Police Scotland because I want the new chief constable to be able to make decisions as she sees fit around police numbers and the deployment of those resources. I know from my engagement thus far with the new chief constable that she is particularly focused on community policing and presence as a priority.

It is always the case that, in the lead-up to budgets, people make predictions, and predictions have to be made on assumptions, but I point to the fact that, this year, we ended up in a better financial position, and the most recent quarterly statistics around police numbers show a stabilisation at 16,600. We all value each and every police officer, and we want to support them to work in communities, whether that is via technology or other means.

No—although it is about our on-going recovery from the pandemic. We will discuss this in greater detail later. Originally, there were seven extensions to time limits. With committee approval, after its hearing on the issue, we will remove some of those and we will have in place three out of the seven.

We are making progress because the court backlog programme is making progress. The backlog is down by a third since the start of last year. Increasing resources went into solemn cases, with two additional High Courts and six additional sheriff summary courts. The test of the measures that were applied was whether they were necessary and proportionate. We are lifting the time limits because they are no longer necessary and proportionate. We believe that the remaining extensions, which we will discuss later, continue to be necessary.

I can assure Ms McNeill and the committee that the replacement of HMP Barlinnie is a priority. Prioritising it will have consequences in that we will not be able to pursue other actions in the prison estate as quickly as we want.

The prison will be a large infrastructure project that will require funding over a number of years and it will require a sustained commitment. We will not know the timescale until we know the costs, and we will not know the costs until we get the final designs. That is the bottom line. There perhaps is not the specific information that people desire. We are all keen to have that information, but we need to know the final design so that we can know the final anticipated cost. I say “anticipated” because the costs of infrastructure projects change, as we know. Once we know the cost, we can work out the timescale and the capital budget accordingly. This is not a one-year-only investment.

It has not, that I am aware of. Obviously, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance will engage with the UK Government but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the position with our capital budget is extremely challenging. There will be a real-terms reduction of nearly 4 per cent for the next financial year, and between now and 2027-28 there will be a reduction of nearly 7 per cent. There will, of course, be an opportunity for the Deputy First Minister to lay out indicative long-term spends in accordance with the anticipated envelope for resource and capital. However, it is just a matter of fact, as opposed to a political point, to say that the UK Government has not inflation proofed capital. That applies to Scotland and it will also apply to local authorities across the UK and the Welsh devolved Government.

That measure is expired by the regulations because it is no longer proportionate or required because of the progress that has been made overall in the functioning of our justice system. That measure will expire on 29 November. We have consulted carefully on that, in particular with all our justice partners, and there was support for allowing that part of the coronavirus legislation to expire.

It will mean that someone can be tried in any court, which means that it could be done in a more local court, as opposed to transporting somebody from a prison at one end of the country to a court at the other end. My view is that that is just common sense. Nonetheless, it is a matter for consultation and people will have the opportunity to respond. The Government will have to reflect on the consultation and then there will have to be the normal legislative process. I hope that I can give some reassurance on that process.

I appreciate that, for ideological reasons, some people may be opposed to fiscal fines as an alternative to prosecution and, of course, all prosecution matters are not for me; they are for the independent Crown Office, for good reason, as we should not have politicians presiding over matters of prosecution. The regulations are not so much about the fundamental existence of fiscal fines but about increasing the scope of the fine from £300 to £500. It could potentially—again, this is a matter for independent prosecutors—reduce the number of cases going to the justice of the peace court if the prosecutor decides to offer a fine.