���˿���

For the benefit of the record, I was not implying that the proposed changes were financially led—I was merely raising the question.

I am glad that you mentioned HMP Greenock, because it and Dumfries are probably the most criticised parts of the estate. HMIPS said that the establishment breaches the human rights guidelines on cell size, is expensive to maintain and has limited surge capacity. Are you disappointed that the programme for government did not include any announcement of new capital budget for the replacement of HMP Greenock or Dumfries prison? What would your asks be of the Government on that front?

That is a problem, then, if it is not in the current five-year capital investment plan and it takes at least four years. Such projects tend to roll over, go over budget and take longer than people expect, for all the reasons that you have just mentioned. Realistically, we are talking about being a decade away from having new facilities in Greenock or Dumfries. That is surely why organisations such as the Howard League are so concerned, given that the prisons are not fit for purpose now.

I realise that we are slightly steering away from the budget to a deep philosophical conversation about how we manage the rising levels of crimes of this nature. There is no disagreement that we want to have a more trauma-led approach to supporting victims of such crimes, but are you saying that the political solution to this issue needs to change, simply because of the scale of the backlog and the lack of available resource to process it? Would we be making these changes to the way in which we prosecute and try people just because of the situation that we find ourselves in as a result of years of increasing activity in cases? Surely that is not the right way or the right reason to make changes to how we try people, given the effect on the rights of the accused and so on.

I have two strands of questions. The first is purely on the budget, and the other is on the prison estate. My first question is perhaps best addressed to Mr O’Donnell.

Looking at the past three financial years, why are the planned budgets and the outturn figures so starkly different? There seems to be an underspend of around £51 million across three years. Is it the case that less has been spent than forecast, or less than is available to you as a budget? If so, what is the reason for any underspend, and what happens to it? Is it simply not drawn down, or do you have to return it to the Government?

Thank you for that explanation.

My next question is for Ms Medhurst. The committee is undertaking budget scrutiny, and we have had a number of written submissions about the SPS budget. The Howard League Scotland states that it

“does not believe that the Scottish Government is providing enough budget for the work expected of the SPS.”

The Howard League is obviously a third sector organisation, but Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland has stated that it has

“seen no evidence to suggest that the SPS is sufficiently resourced to make adequate progress with ... capital projects and strategic initiatives ... and important but routine maintenance”.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with those written submissions?

That would be very helpful.

The committee will present back to the Government the findings of our pre-budget scrutiny, so you have an opportunity to make an ask of the Government. If we know what we are asking for, that makes life easier. You are welcome to follow up on what you have said in writing.

An area of slight concern that jumps out at me is that, if you are making a large number of offers to junior solicitors or to people to join the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, that might ring alarm bells in other parts of the legal sector. What are the average salaries in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in comparison with, for example, the independent sector, which you worked in previously? There is a general feeling that the public sector and governmental bodies are recruiting proactively and aggressively from other sectors in which there are now shortages, and that those sectors are really struggling to stay afloat. It is great news that you are reducing your head count vacancy rate, but is that at the expense of other areas of the legal sector?

I thank everyone who has spoken. I know that we do not have a huge amount of time left.

A number of times, people have mentioned the legislative framework that operates in the UK and, specifically, in Scotland, given that we have two very separate legal systems. I have a question for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The number of charges for the offence of possession has roughly stayed the same over the past five years—the statistics show a marginal increase from 9,700 to 10,000. However, five years ago, the number of diversions was very low—there were about 88—and there has clearly been a big shift in policy towards diversion, because last year there were more than 1,000.

Given that there has been a dramatic increase in diversions but the sad roll call of drug fatalities has also increased year on year, can we draw any conclusions about the success of the diversion concept in reducing overall harm and death from drugs in Scotland? Is there a correlation to be made there? In other words, has the policy been a success?

Thank you for that illustration. We all welcome any positive outcomes from such interventions.

Is there a role for the Crown Office to play in analysing what happens next? We often focus on the discussion about diversion but not necessarily on what we are diverting people to and the success of those programmes. Do we know how many of the 500 people who went through a diversion from prosecution in 2019-20 had a successful outcome? Do we know what percentage of them attended rehabilitation? Do we know how many of them reoffended or were back in the system and were included in the figure of 1,000 the following year? What sort of analysis does the Crown Office do on the continued monitoring of people who are diverted from prosecution?