³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Cabinet secretary, your Government has written what is effectively a blank cheque to cover the cost of the Rangers malicious prosecution scandal. We have been told that the amount has now reached £51 million, which, incidentally, is double the amount that it would cost to give every police officer in Scotland a body-worn camera. Can you give us any idea as to what the total amount might be in the end? Who do you think is responsible for that? Will there be any consequences for that absolutely shocking state of affairs?

That was very helpful. Thank you.

The more that the cabinet secretary talks, the more questions I have, but I will try to remain focused. I will begin with a budget question. The evidence that the committee has heard in the past few weeks has been nothing short of shocking. The police, fire, courts and prison services have all given pretty stark warnings about what might happen as a result of the proposed cuts. We do not yet know the exact details of next year’s block grant, but we know that there will be an additional £1.5 billion that has been generated by health and education spending elsewhere in the UK. Given what we have heard about the situation that the justice system faces, will you ask your First Minister and the Government whether some of that money can be used to head off some of the crisis that the justice system faces?

Instead of blaming the UK Government for all Scotland’s ills, let us get it on the record that the UK block grant is a record £40.6 billion. It is entirely up to your Government, cabinet secretary, how it chooses to spend that money.

We have heard dire warnings from across the justice system about failures to spend money, not just this year but in many years gone by, and we have heard about fire stations in a state of serious disrepair, putting firefighters at risk. There are courts needing work done to them. In the time since Police Scotland’s creation, 140 police stations have been shut down. We need to be a little bit more honest with people about the choices that your Government has made.

Turning to the issue of prisons, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, as well as issuing warnings about the state of Greenock prison—Jamie Greene touched on the possibility of calls for it to be shut down—said that the transfer of HMP Kilmarnock from private to public ownership should be paused. She suggested that the reason for that happening was ideological on the part of your Government. Do you have any response to what the chief inspector said about that?

With the current financial situation and the pressures of inflation, which are of course a worldwide problem, as I am sure the cabinet secretary would acknowledge—given those extreme global circumstances regarding inflation—is it not worth looking again at the Kilmarnock transfer?

Indeed.

Everyone in Scotland benefits to the tune of £2,000 per head in additional public spending compared with others in the UK, which I am sure that the cabinet secretary is very grateful for. That presumably helps to pay our police officers more than they get paid elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Despite that, and as we have heard from evidence over the past few weeks, Police Scotland—uniquely—does not have body-worn cameras, as Katy Clark has already pointed out. They are used in every force in England and Wales. Some officers there have second-generation cameras. David Page says that they would have massive benefits and that they are supported by 81 per cent of the public. The cost of them is estimated to be about £25 million. Is it a priority to get those as a matter of urgency in order to protect officers and the public?

Perhaps I could ask it differently.

With regard to the £2,000 per head, those are Scottish Government figures—they are not open for debate or discussion unless you disagree with them.

I go back to body-worn cameras. The Scottish Government has set aside £20 million for constitutional matters next year. Now that a referendum is not likely to happen as a result of the ruling in court today, could that money be used for body-worn cameras?

Thank you; that is reassuring.

I will make a number of points, and it is worth repeating my opening comment, which the cabinet secretary acknowledged: this not about trans people; it is about male offenders—in the main, male sex offenders. I welcome the commitment that has been given today to amend the sex offender notification requirements, which goes some way towards addressing the issue, albeit nowhere near far enough. I do not agree with many of the cabinet secretary’s views on the matter. Her statement that there is no evidence of sex offenders having exploited, or being likely to exploit, the GRC process is ill-judged and perhaps even naive; it is not only likely, but inevitable. I am keen to know when the mechanics in her amendment would come into being.