Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I might ask Don McGillivray to come in on that. As everybody knows, there has been a process of rationalisation of police stations over the years. As those in the Fire and Rescue Service would tell you—as they have told me directly—some fire stations are perhaps not in the right place. I was in one last week on my own patch, in Alloa. Sometimes, they are not in the right type of buildings, given the new equipment.

I do not know whether Don McGillivray wishes to say more on that.

There is a strong argument to be made for that, but there is also the argument that we would want to try to improve situations in which human rights abuses have taken place. I think that it would be Police Scotland’s point of view, although it would have to speak for itself in this regard, that, if it could improve the performance of other police forces such that they would take human rights into account, that would be a benefit.

However, you are right to say that there is a reputational issue here, too. I think that Don McGillivray would like to come in on that.

I do not like to start off on a point of disagreement, but the decision to leave the EU was not a decision of the people; it was a decision of the Government. The referendum was advisory; therefore, the decision was taken by the Government, not the people. The decision certainly was not taken by the people of Scotland, who voted 62 per cent against Brexit.

In relation to improvements, you mentioned that capital has been flat over the past 10 years. I will ask Neil Rennick to comment on the Crown Office, whose budget is dealt with separately from the budgets that we have been discussing so far. As there have been flat and reducing capital allocations from Westminster, it is not a surprise that budgets in the Scottish Government’s sphere also feel that pinch.

There are many aspects to how we attempt to address the backlog, and I acknowledge that it is a huge issue for us. The figures that came out last night on the backlog of cases in England and Wales are scary, and I acknowledge that it is also a serious problem for us. This year, we have put in money for technological changes, including remote balloting of juries and remote juries more generally, but those are not the only way in which we intend to deal with the issue.

Neil might want to comment on some of the detail on the Crown Office budget.

It might be that, as you said, the end-of-days scenario—whoever put that forward—and the estimate of the budget are not where we end up. As I think that we have said already, that will be a process that we go through. It is not only the efforts of the police that need to be funded, but those of other agencies.

I am very willing to say that the police have an extremely difficult job. If they have intelligence or an expectation of a serious threat to public order, you want them there in numbers. If that threat does not transpire, they will, of course, be open to the accusation that they have, if you like, overplayed their hand. I do not think that they can win in those circumstances. I have been going to demonstrations for my entire life. If I was on a demonstration and saw that there were insufficient police numbers to deal with something that happened, I would be critical of the police. Therefore, they need to err on the side of caution; more than that, they need to act on the best intelligence that they have. Who is to say that the two things are not related? Some people who might have been bent on serious disorder—and there was serious intelligence on that—might have seen the police planning that was going on and thought, “No, we are not going to do that.” I will not be the first in line to criticise the police in that regard.

As to the cost, we do not know about that yet. As you suggest, it might come in below what has been suggested, but that would be a good thing. You are right to highlight the number of arrests. We had to estimate that ourselves, because we wanted things such as legal aid cover. That number of arrests has not transpired, and in large part that is due, first of all, to the conduct of protesters and to the engagement between protesters and the police, as well as police planning. Let us not look for failure here. We have three days to go, and a lot could still happen. It has been a very successful event so far.

I want to point out the different challenges that the police face. No previous COP meetings have taken place right in the middle of a relatively small city—they have been on the outskirts of Paris or elsewhere. Therefore, the police have planned effectively to deal with an extremely difficult situation and they have done really well.

Keith Brown has identified an error in his contribution and has provided the following correction.

At col 34, paragraph 6—

Original text—

That is contrary to what I have said, for example, in relation to the three-year funding for the victims fund that we are producing. That funding provides certainty and amounts to around £18 million in its own right.

Corrected text—

That is contrary to what I have said, for example, in relation to the three-year funding for the victims fund that we are producing. That funding provides certainty and amounts to around £30 million in its own right.

We want to have in mind the victims of crimes in relation to community services and the use of remand. If an offender is given a community sentence—that will not be because the Government says so but because a court orders it—an identifiable victim of that crime can have a continuing concern, so we are considering what more we can do to ensure that victims are kept up to date and assurances are given. That also has an interrelationship with things such as electronic monitoring.

Although community justice is often termed “soft justice”, the simple fact is that reconviction rates are lower for people who are put on community sentences. If, as we all agree, we want less crime in society, with fewer people being affected by crime, and fewer victims, we should do what is most effective. In some cases, community sentences are the effective response. I acknowledge that that has been substantially disrupted during Covid. However, we want to make sure of that effectiveness, both through the review of how community justice is currently working, which we are obliged to carry out under the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016—you will have seen that the Public Audit Committee has made a number of pretty trenchant observations about what is currently happening—and through considering the relationship with the new national care service, on which a consultation has just finished. All those things play into the fact that community sentencing has a vital role.

Whatever people’s political differences, they have to look seriously at anything that they think can reduce crime and reconviction, and at whether somebody will benefit more from that than they will from being in prison, for example.