���˿���

We can certainly follow that up, because it is a fair point to raise.

I thank members for their comments. Some very relevant and helpful points have been made across two key areas. First, there have been comments on the terms of the review and the report that led to the work that Gill Imery undertook. Secondly, some wider questions and concerns have understandably been raised about issues that are not specific to the report but are nonetheless important. I would include myself in the category of those who have such concerns. For example, what brings someone to the point where they become one of the statistics on deaths in custody? It is helpful that such questions have been asked.

I probably land with John Swinney and Rona Mackay in that I have taken some reassurance from the submissions that we received. In relation to Sharon Dowey’s point about pinning down the timescales, I acknowledge that that is missing from some of the correspondence.

I suggest to members—I will seek your agreement on this—that we follow up on the points that have been made and the requests for further information. It is obviously appropriate for us to keep the matter under review. I propose that we engage again with Gill Imery and seek an update on her current situation. In the correspondence from the cabinet secretary, we are made aware that she has engaged with Gill Imery. There is quite a bit for us to take away. The final thing is John Swinney’s point about some further correspondence with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Are members in agreement on that?

If my memory is right, some of those queries related to the number of trials that were undertaken in a virtual format.

I am encouraged by a lot of what is going on. Different tasks in different areas of work take different lengths of time, obviously. I was particularly interested in the update that we asked for on the single court/judge model. There is a lot in that, but it was helpful to have it set out.

We will take away the points that have been raised, and I ask for members’ agreement that we continue to monitor the issue. It is highly appropriate that we do that.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, members, for those additional points. Katy and Pauline, you mentioned queries about the number of deaths, and clerks have, helpfully, had a wee look at that during our discussion. As Gill Imery also pointed out in committee, between 2012 and 2022, there were 350 deaths in Scottish prisons. About half of those were either drug related or as a result of suicide; the other half were a result of natural causes. That reflects the extent of the issue.

We will do some follow-up work on the points that were made today. Members are agreed that we will very much keep the issue under review, and we will communicate with the Crown Office and with Gill Imery in relation to her status, as has been suggested.

We will take that away.

Good morning, and welcome to the 31st meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies this morning.

Our first agenda item is a review of the correspondence that we have received on the progress that is being made on implementing the recommendations on deaths in custody. Members will recall that we took evidence from Gill Imery to review the progress on delivering on the recommendations in the report “Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody”, and that we wrote to various organisations thereafter. Paper 1 sets out the details of that and the replies that we have received.

I invite members to make comments. In any case, I suggest that we send copies of the letters to Ms Imery for her information and reflection.

Thanks, convener. I have nothing to declare.

Thanks. What I was going to ask was in the context of the new fiscal framework. As part of parliamentary budget scrutiny, how should the new framework inform and perhaps change the way in which committees approach their budget scrutiny?

I have listened with great interest to the information that has been shared this morning. The cabinet secretary will know that I am convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, which has recently undertaken its pre-budget scrutiny. The evidence that we have heard during that process has reflected the significant challenges with which we are all familiar, particularly on the capital budget. That is particularly difficult for the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

In some of the evidence that we have heard, it has been indicated that yearly increases in the budget no longer meet the needs of parts of the sector, which brings risk to it. The week before last, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs gave evidence about the

“need, where possible, to have a longer-term spend-to-save vision”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 November 2023; c 27.]

Without hijacking the Finance and Public Administration Committee and turning it into a mini Criminal Justice Committee, in general terms, given the context of the fiscal framework review, is there any scope to start thinking about more of a spend-to-save approach? The cabinet secretary said that financial management arrangements are more sustainable on the back of the review, but the capital budget is still challenging and is not inflation proofed.