Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am focusing on fire, because it is a general point that is applicable to fire. The fire budget for this year increased by £14 million in comparison to the previous year, and the budget for this year was certainly in a better position than was the case at pre-budget scrutiny, so there is a very important role for pre-budget scrutiny.

We will, of course, continue to work with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Ministers continue to receive assurances from His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland and chief fire officers that we have a safe service. There are, of course, choices and challenges to address—no one disputes that for one moment—but we have continued to make year-on-year increased investment in fire services. Indeed, comparing the current budget to that for 2017-18, investment is £55 million higher. Of course people are entitled to argue for more. If we invest more in one area, there will be an issue for Parliament to identify where that comes from, bearing in mind that the Scottish Government as a whole has to operate within a financial envelope and that our abilities to raise revenue are somewhat limited.

That is an important staff welfare issue. The Scottish Government is engaged on the issue with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. There are operational procedures in place around decontamination, particularly for some of the more rural stations. It is important that, as a Government, we have contributed to research on the health impacts for firefighters and we are supportive of additional health screening.

I dispute whether the service is underfunded. You are right to point out that people will always make a case for more—that is the function of pre-budget scrutiny. It is rare for any organisation to address all its capital needs within one year. When the Deputy First Minister publishes the budget, she will also publish multiyear indicative spend for resource and capital in the longer term. That does not replace the annual budget process but it allows people to plan ahead. Capital is extremely stretched. Capital funding has been maintained at £32 million for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but there remains deep pressure on capital budgets.

Indeed. I say this with the greatest respect to the many valued stakeholders who have come before the committee and given detailed evidence, in person and in writing, but when I add up all of their asks, I can see that I cannot meet them all. I am just being dead straight with the committee when I say that. That means that we will have to do things differently and leverage in incentives within the resources that we have to see where people can do things such as spend to save.

Our journey with public sector reform is not over. There will still be examples, whether in justice or across the public sector, of services being delivered in a way that might meet the needs of an institution or organisation but not of individuals. It is the perennial challenge of how we support people earlier on in their life’s journey to prevent problems further down the line.

The ultimate assessment must always be whether we are getting better outcomes. In other words, is the number of crimes, fires and so on going down? How do we have services that reach people earlier? How do we have services that prevent, where appropriate, people going to prison? After all, that is in the interests not just of individuals, but of our communities and our country. We need to move the debate from quantum to quality and, also, to change, notwithstanding the undoubted difficulties with the financial envelope available to us.

I dispute the phrase “asset stripped”. It is true and a matter of public record that the formation of Police Scotland into a national police service from eight legacy services has resulted in savings of £200 million a year, which of course is a resource that is available for other public services. That is a good example of public sector reform releasing savings. We can also take assurance from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, which has time and again spoken of our outstanding operational policing services.

I have spoken at a fair amount of length about the challenges with capital. Police Scotland’s estates strategy has a very firm focus on the co-location of public services, not just because of the financial challenges that we all face but also in the interests of more collaborative working, which always seems like a sensible proposition to me. Police Scotland has probably instigated more than 60 co-location projects—there is one in my constituency. Reshaping the estate in light of capital challenges seems like a sensible thing to do, and can also lead to a better way of working.

On police officer numbers, we have 370 more officers than we did in 2007. Since the beginning of 2022, Police Scotland has recruited nearly 1,500 new recruits. We have 30 police officers per 10,000 of the population in comparison to 25 per 10,000 of the population south of the border. I contend that policing is secure and stable in terms of what it is achieving with regard to the investment and police numbers.

We still have to set the budget but I accept the point that body-worn cameras are a priority for the Scottish Government. As you said, the First Minister has spoken of that on a number of occasions. In the evidence that Police Scotland gave to this committee, it was made clear that it is also a priority for them. I believe that body-worn cameras are a good example of investing to save and of reforming how the business is done. Their use will lead to more effectiveness and efficiency, perhaps around the provision of evidence, and there is also an important point about officer safety.

I will not speculate, because I just do not think that that would be helpful. I will say that it will cost more than £400 million. I am confident of that. As soon as we have clarity on the final design, we will have clarity on cost, and I will endeavour to share that with the committee because it is a matter of public interest.

I would expect that information to come from the SPS. We will pick that up with the SPS.

It is important to remember that the number of fires has reduced in the past 20 years, which is to the credit of firefighters. My understanding is that, many years ago, the fire service moved away from having targets on response times. Instead, it has a targeted approach to risk and the allocation of resources. I do not know whether it was the current Criminal Justice Committee or a previous justice committee that was not convinced that time targets for response times was the best way to go. Bearing in mind the preponderance and incidence of dwelling fires and primary fires, we are in a safer place because fires have reduced. Nonetheless, community safety is a priority and we will continue to do what we can to support people with as much resource as can be afforded.