���˿���

I have a question that someone can come back to me on.

At the moment, the process seems to be that an inquiry into the unfortunate suicide of a serving officer—I am talking about the police in particular, as opposed to the other emergency services—can arise only if the Crown decides to hold an FAI. Is there another, perhaps legislative, top-down solution, that would mandate some other form of automatic inquiry into such a situation? I do not know what the situation is in England and Wales, which is a different legislative landscape. I am not saying for a second that we should mandate the Lord Advocate to do X Y or Z—although that is always a solution; laws can do that. However, there might be some other form of investigation that could take place or that would have to take place that could be followed by a full-on FAI, if that was what the Crown so decided. In the meantime, it seems to be all or nothing and in far too many cases it is nothing.

Not on that issue, but I think that it is a very good suggestion from Rona Mackay to challenge that and keep the pressure on.

I do not know when the committee is next due to have the SPA in front of us, but it is probably not for some time. Obviously, we are already within that financial budget year and will be looking ahead to the next one. I am not a forensic accountant, and I wonder whether someone—either the SPA, the Scottish Parliament information centre or others—can help us to understand the overallocation that it talks about, because it is quite significant. Again, I am not an accountant, but in effect the SPA is saying that this year it will spend more than it has by about £30-odd million, but it is a bit unclear how that all pans out in the books.

Again, we do not want to start pre-budget scrutiny for the next financial year straight off the bat with 30-odd million quid off the bottom line that has to come out to fund this year’s investment. Very few public agencies can overspend in this way. The SPA has obviously found a clever way of accounting for it, but I would like to understand it a little bit more.

Good morning, colleagues. First, I read on page 1 of the Police Scotland response, which is page 5 of our papers, that the anticipated implementation of body-worn cameras will be spread across three financial years, taking us up to 2026-27. Realistically, that is four years away from now. In the current age of technology, I struggle to see how body-worn cameras being implemented in three or four years’ time is realistic.

I do not know whether Police Scotland is having to spread the costs over three years purely on the basis that it does not have the money to do otherwise or whether it will take that long to find the technical solution. I am pretty sure that there are providers that could implement a solution much more quickly. Perhaps that would be best achieved if Police Scotland collaborated with other forces that are already using second-generation, or even third-generation, technology of this nature. Surely, there must be something out there in the market that would allow body-worn cameras to be rolled out more quickly. I am less focused on the costs and the numbers—we all know the arguments on that, which my colleague presented—and more focused on the timescales.

Body-worn cameras also feed into a system of further information and communications technology transformation. Information from those assets can be quickly fed into a system that can process that data as evidence, which can allow cases to be turned around more quickly. It is not just that cameras are worn, although they act as a visual deterrent; the important part is what is done with the information from them. Only if that happens will improvements be delivered, and it is unclear whether the cameras will be accompanied by significant investment in what happens at the back end in relation to case management and evidence handling. I would therefore like a bit more information on that from the SPA or Police Scotland at some point.

I will not comment on the blue-light collaboration programme. “Collaboration” is always a positive and welcome word, and we see some very good practice in that regard. For example, on my way into the office this morning, I saw an ambulance driving out of a building that is shared with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. That is very welcome but, under our next agenda item, we will talk about police mental health. In relation to collaboration, we are interested in whether work is being done across emergency services and with other public services to reduce the strain on, and the workload of, front-line police officers, because, ultimately, that will help to free up time and speed up processes.

On the budget, which is the important matter, I have tried to raise the issue of the barnahus model in recent parliamentary questions. In a previous committee evidence session, I might have called for a longer-term plan for the roll-out of the model and for some analysis on its success or otherwise. That is all very positive, and I look forward to the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs furnishing us with that information.

My big issue relates to the budget itself. We would be missing a trick if we did not refer to the responses from Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the budget. It is welcome that, since our initial pre-budget scrutiny, the Government has been forthcoming with more cash. I know that times are tough and that money is tight, but we must acknowledge the response, and that extra cash.

My issue relates to the wording and language being used, particularly in Police Scotland’s response. It estimates that the £53 million of capital funding that it will have for this financial year will not be

“sufficient to meet our basic needs of our asset rolling replacement programme”.

Police Scotland also talks about “slippage management”. It seems that, in the current financial year, it is, in effect, drawing down money from future budgets. The effect of that will be stark. Police Scotland is explicit in saying that it needs £85 million in this financial year to be sustainable. That is somewhere in the middle of the £80 million to £100 million that it needs per year to be sustainable.

To manage the shortfall of £32 million, Police Scotland is playing with the numbers as best it can, but all that does is take money from capital budgets in future years—it just compounds the problem. We can see the problem with that by looking at what happened as a result of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s historical capital underfunding. Down the line, we end up with hundreds of millions of pounds of capital underfunding, with the problem being compounded year after year, and no Government will ever have the money to backfill. My concern is that the problem starts small but then grows.

I am also concerned that Police Scotland seems to be sending the message that it will do just the bare basics, which would include, for example,

“A reduced workforce with an operating model of”

around 16,500 officers. It seems now simply to be accepted that we will be working with a reduced workforce as a result of the resource and capital budget issues.

I am concerned that there is still a massive shortfall, as the budget is still way below what Police Scotland is asking of Government. It has been explicit about what it needs—not what it wants, but what it needs—to be sustainable and supply the bare minimum, and it has not got that.

The resource budget is another point of concern. Many of us raised this point when we undertook pre-budget scrutiny. An additional £80 million has been announced, which is very welcome but, all the way through the submission, Police Scotland warns that any additional money that is allocated for resource will simply be swallowed up by inflationary pay increases, so it is not actually additional resource budget.

Police Scotland confirms that by saying that £37 million of the £80 million will simply be meeting the 5 per cent pay award. Thankfully, that has been accepted by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but Police Scotland is looking at 7 or 8 per cent or perhaps even more. There is an issue in that the additional cash has simply disappeared into the ether for pay increases. We know the percentage point cost of every pay increase; that in itself raises issues, which we have flagged with Police Scotland.

On capital funding for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I am concerned about that, because the capital funding of £32.5 million that has been announced is, in the words of the SFRS,

“not sufficient to meet all the Service’s needs.”

We know about, and we have rehearsed, some of the issues around access to facilities for firefighters. Basic personal protective equipment, decontamination and proper dignified spaces should be in 100 per cent of fire stations, and far too many are in poor condition. This budget is clearly not going to chip the surface of any of that, which I think will be a source of disappointment to firefighters.

Overall, we asked for more money, and there was a bit more money and that was welcome but, on the resource side, much of it will be swallowed up by pay increases; on the capital side, much of it will be swallowed up by inflationary pressures; and across the board it is far below what is needed for standing still, let alone for improvements and investment.

Okay. That is good to know.

Does the sheriff assign people to specific institutions or just to be held in custody? Who decides where people go?

Good morning. I thank Linda Allan for coming and for sharing her experience. It has been a horrific couple of years for you and your family, and it is brave of you to share that with the committee, because that is important. I am sorry to hear that the investigation is on-going.

I am trying to get my head round this issue. It is important that we take as wide a range of views as we can on the Government’s proposed legislation. There are three places that someone can be sent to, either on remand or when they have been sentenced to be held in custody: secure accommodation, young offenders institutions or adult prisons. I am trying to see which is the right place for certain cohorts of people.

At the moment, the decision seems to be based on an arbitrary age cut-off. The bill proposes that, up to 19 years of age—effectively, while they are still 18—someone can only be held in secure accommodation, with an expectation that they would probably then move to a young offenders institution, depending on the length of their sentence. It would be unusual for that to be so long but, in the unlikely event that it was longer than that, they would then be moved to an adult prison at some point—perhaps at the age of 25 plus.

Are you comfortable with that set-up, and does it work? Is age the factor that should be taken into account, or are there other factors? How should the Government create rules to know which settings are the right ones for the people who are put into them? I am a bit confused by some of the evidence that I have heard so far.

Perhaps Kate Wallace could start, then I will come to Ms Allan.

That is very interesting. Much of the prison estate is very old and antiquated and is not fit for what you suggest.

Another thing that struck me was the idea that the first three months are vital and key. We have not explored that area. It is not covered in the bill as such, but the period of time when someone enters custody is vital, whether they are an adult or younger. At the moment, what is not happening when someone enters custody that should be happening? What could be done better to reduce the risk involved in those first three months?

There has been quite a lot of criticism. It is not directed at individuals; we know that all prison officers are under a huge amount of pressure and stress. Nonetheless, there are some stark statistics on suicides among young people in custody. Do you have a view on that? Are they preventable or inevitable? Do you think that the situation could be improved but that that would require a huge amount of further investment and resource?

I appreciate that there are efforts in that respect. I have a final question, which is for Wendy Sinclair-Gieben.

I have one or two more questions, based on things that struck me as you were speaking. I was struck by what Katie told you about life inside a young offenders institution and the kind of people who are in there. I presume that she was talking about female inmates rather than the general population.