Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask Neil Rennick to come in shortly. Your question prompts me to recall that I did not really answer the convener’s previous question on capacity.

As you said, we are looking at the other end—at how many people we put in prison. Shortly, we will have something to say on proposals that we want to bring forward in relation to remand and release. It is about sending the right people to prison—those who need to be in prison and will benefit from being there rather than in an alternative non-custodial diversion. That has to be part of the hard calculation that we will make as to what the future prison population will be.

In any event—the convener made this point and it is behind your question, as well—we should not end up without capacity, which has happened in the past. For example, Texas released tens of thousands of prisoners overnight, including many who had been convicted of drug offences, because the state could not cope with the prisoner population. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of California told the state that it had to release thousands of prisoners overnight because there was 200 per cent occupancy in the prisons.

We want to ensure that we have the right number of cells and facilities for people, but we also want to ensure that people go to prison when that is the best place for them to be and when it is where society needs them to be. There are two parts to the equation.

Specifically on women’s provision, the justice secretary before last made a judgment based on the best information that he had at the time. Neil Rennick, who was in post then, might want to say more.

That is a good point. For many years, the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to move away from single-year budgets and the late notification of the budget.

We have tried to reflect the point in the funding for victims services, for which we have announced a three-year funding package. As is the case with all such matters, if other things happen, it might be possible to increase funding, so bear that in mind. However, I understand the point that many third sector organisations must make plans, including for facilities, well in advance of each funding year. Multiyear funding is under consideration not only in victims services, but across the justice portfolio and the whole of Government.

There are some situations in which we would not give multiyear funding, but I think that the point has been accepted. We have argued for that position from the UK Government, so we cannot really argue against other organisations wanting the same stability.

Yes, it is, although, as you said, only a proportion of that money comes from the justice budget. Substantial progress has already been made on the issue of children in the justice system. Since 2000, the number of under-18s who were proceeded against in Scotland’s courts has fallen by 81 per cent. The number of under-18s in custody—again, that is a justice system response—has decreased by 79 per cent, and there has been an 81 per cent reduction in children who were referred to the children’s reporter on offence grounds.

We are, however, looking closely at the future funding of secure care. Officials are discussing specific proposals with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners. At this stage, that process can be summarised as being about investing in change—as you suggested in your question—guaranteeing accessibility and also keeping The Promise. I expect to be able to provide a further update early next year, at least on the justice elements of that, if the committee would find that useful.

It is not possible to say definitively, but we can probably get a good idea from looking at the establishment of previous commissioners’ offices. The establishment of the office of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, which I was heavily involved in, might give you an indication of the cost. That can be readily obtained from SPICe.

I am happy to get further information on that and to provide the member with a detailed response. Obviously, it is predicated on the value of fines for convictions, and there has been a pretty big disruption to that process in our court system. I imagine that that accounts for it, but I am happy to look into it further and to provide any other relevant information, if that would help.

That is a good question. We are actually at a lower level than that—I think that the figure is around 7,550. That is the figure that I saw in the latest update this week. However, the figure fluctuates, so it might have changed by a few.

You are absolutely right that we have seen a substantial increase in the use of remand. All parties have expressed concern about that, and we will introduce proposals to try to help with it. That is placing a big demand on prisons. There are different demands on the Prison Service because of how people on remand are treated. That is a current and pressing pressure on the prison population. You are also right that, as the backlog of cases is cleared, the number of convicted prisoners will increase, which will also increase the prison population.

It is hard to estimate the figures. The formulas that were used in our analysis up until Covid are no longer particularly useful during the time of Covid. You mentioned a figure of 8,000. That was true last year, but the figure has reduced as a result of Covid. The analysis is more difficult at the moment.

We are trying to tackle the matter in two—or possibly three—ways. We are trying to reduce the number of people who go to prison, where that is appropriate. We will shortly introduce proposals for consultation on bail and release—earlier, I referred to “remand and release”, but it is actually “bail and release”. I hope that we will get a constructive response to that, just as we have had in discussions in the chamber on those pressing issues. Pauline McNeill has raised those issues, too.

The other issue is about what happens in prisons. Following the committee’s visit to Saughton, Mr Findlay has acknowledged the different pressures in prisons. There are various serious organised crime groups, and it takes up space to ensure that there is segregation, if that is the right word. There is also the issue of vulnerable prisoners.

The demands on prisons are increasing. It is hard to quantify that, but we want to ensure that we have appropriate facilities for everybody. That is why, over the past 15 years, and to an extent before that, there has been an improvement in prison facilities. We are mindful of the issue and we keep a close eye on the population.

We know that a population increase is coming, but there are things that we can do, not least in relation to remand, but also in relation to people who may benefit from a different disposal, whether that involves community justice, rehabilitation or mental health treatment. Getting the right people in prison is one thing. We are mindful of our responsibility to house the people whom the courts send to prison.

I do not know whether that fully answers your point, but that is our current thinking.

Under the new procedure, the committee will write to me with its budget asks. That is where it will get quite interesting, because the committee will have to say, for example, which capital budgets it would cut in order to fund an increased police budget. That will probably create a richer pre-budget experience than we have had in previous years.

I am not the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, but the difference, which is apparent from our different interpretations, is that the figure that you give for the current year excludes Covid consequentials. It is obvious that Covid is not finished. I think that committee members would ask that we continue to make more money available to deal with the backlogs, which tells you that Covid is not finished. That accounts for the difference and means that there is a reduction, because the only way that you can start from that figure is by using last year’s base budget and not the one that includes Covid consequentials.

Within our portfolio split, it is Ash Regan who deals with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. However, I recently had a productive discussion with its chief executive and chair. Modernisation is a big part of the challenge that the fire service faces. You will be aware that, in the past couple of years, the discussion has been about firefighters providing a broader role. That discussion is still under way.

We have continued our commitment to support the delivery and modernisation of the fire service. Last year, for 2021-22, we gave it an uplift of £8.7 million for resource, which brought the total budget to £343 million.

On the new challenges, or emerging challenges—I am not sure that they are entirely new, because, we have seen extraordinary flooding, for example, in recent years—we will carefully consider any new proposals from the fire service.

I know that the statement that I made about overall grant funding will be challenged—Mr Findlay and I agree to differ on that—but I am not sure that there is a difference of opinion on capital funding. Capital funding stays unchanged for the next two years and falls after that. That is in the context of a base that is historically low. That factor is in the background. However, we have maintained the fire service’s capital budget at £32.5 million a year.

We have also provided funding of £2 million this year to support a range of projects to improve building efficiency in the SFRS estate. Mr Greene’s point about the police estate is a big issue for the fire estate, too; I do not shrink from that.

It is also true to say that Transport Scotland, which is another arm of Government, continues to provide additional funding to support electric vehicle charging infrastructure and the switch over to low-carbon fleet vehicles. That measure is related to climate change.

We remain receptive to the fire service’s asks, notwithstanding the overall budget position.

I hate to have to repeat myself. We have not set the budget yet, and in setting it we will listen—we are listening—to the points that the Fire and Rescue Service made. In the discussions that I have had with the service directly—and I think that the same is true for Don McGillivray—there has been a lot of discussion about the estate and, in particular, whether assets are fit for purpose and appropriate or whether we would say that there should be further rationalisation.

It is worth saying that, in addition to using the capital budget that we can give the service—and we can give it more only at the expense of someone else, such as the police—the service is able to draw down capital receipts from the sale of its properties. The service has plans in that regard. I do not know whether it has appeared before the committee; it might be able to say more on that. That will help with the capital resources that it has to invest in new facilities.

In relation to a previous question, the discussions that I have had—like Don McGillivray’s discussions—have not centred hugely on the issue; the service has been most keen to speak about changing demands and the changing nature of the service. We have to try to facilitate those changes and give the service the capital support that it needs if it is to make them, but we have to do that from a lower budget, as I said—certainly in year 3 of this spending settlement.

We are listening to the Fire and Rescue Service. We will present our budget, and I will be interested in committee members’ views on the priorities in the budget envelope. If the committee supports a capital budget for the Fire and Rescue Service that is two and a half times the current budget, I will be interested to hear where the committee thinks that the money should come from. That is the kind of question that the Government faces and which the committee will face, too.