Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

As I said, I have spoken to the Fire and Rescue Service directly. That was a broad, wide-ranging discussion that touched on, for example, asset management and ambitions for the service. Officials probably speak to the service daily, and the minister with direct responsibility speaks to it, too. Those are the discussions that have taken place. I do not think that, so far, you have mentioned any area of which the Government is unaware or that we have not discussed with the Fire and Rescue Service at a senior level.

You said that the service is being asked to do more; I think that it is a little more nuanced than that, in that the service is being asked to do different things—as is evidenced by Collette Stevenson’s question about climate change leading to different demands of it. We are partners in the change process.

I might be wrong, but I thought that the budget scrutiny process required the committee to say which priorities should apply. In any event, I think that that is right. It is not possible just to go through each line of the budget saying, “More should be spent on that, and on that”, while pretending that that would have no consequences for other parts of the budget. Scrutiny such as I am describing probably leads to a better budget process than we have had in the past. I mean this sincerely: if the committee has a strong view that a particular budget line should have more resource than another, for whatever reason, I am keen to listen to you. I am sure that the committee is aware of this but it is worth saying that although the budget will be allocated by portfolio, after it has been published there will be quite a lot of discretion for me to reflect on the priorities that the committee identifies.

Thank you, convener. As ever, I am grateful to the committee for the chance to contribute to its pre-budget scrutiny work. I know that the committee has met a number of our justice partners over the past few weeks, and I welcome the opportunity to continue discussions on the budget.

Members of the committee will have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent budget announcements. Although some of the announcements are welcome, overall, that budget does not deliver for the people of Scotland. The headline announcement was a significant increase in the Scottish block grant but, in reality, the Scottish Government faces a cut in its day-to-day funding for each year of the spending review period compared with the position in 2021-22. Scotland’s capital grant allocation shows no change between 2022-23 and 2023-24 and a reduction between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

That comes in addition to the challenges of Covid, which have patently not gone away, and the on-going impact of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to leave the European Union. Both issues have had significant impacts on our justice sector. I echo the views that have been expressed by members of the committee and previous witnesses in commending the impressive work that has been done by those who work in the justice system, particularly over the past 18 months, in responding to those challenges.

Despite those pressures, I remain ambitious for our justice system. In September, the Government published our programme for government, which sets out how we aim to transform the justice system in a number of areas over the next five years. I will highlight a number of key areas for the justice portfolio.

As I said, Covid-19 has not gone away; it continues to affect our daily lives. I continue to be impressed by justice agencies’ commitment to working together to mitigate the consequences of Covid and to find creative solutions to the challenges while, at the same time, delivering longer-term reforms. Innovations such as the use of remote jury centres in cinemas, the remote balloting of jurors and some court hearings being done online demonstrate the innovative approach that has been taken by our justice partners.

We have committed to providing £50 million this year to drive forward the recover, renew and transform programme. Although we see optimistic signs of recovery, with court activity returning to pre-Covid levels, I do not underestimate the distress that is caused to the victims of crime by unavoidable delays in cases being resolved. The continued recovery of the system remains a key priority for the justice portfolio.

We must ensure that we do not simply try to recover to the place that we were before the pandemic started. Even before Covid, despite the overall downward trend in crime, we were experiencing growing numbers of cases in our solemn courts and increasing complex needs among the population in our criminal justice system. The pandemic has given us the opportunity to think about how we can do things better, which can mean doing things differently to drive improvements for the future. That is not just about technology improving efficiency; it is about ensuring that there is a culture that places the needs of people at the heart of the system in a way that reduces trauma.

We are working on a new overarching justice strategy that will take forward that approach. We will continue to focus on the needs of victims through a range of actions, including the establishment of a new victims commissioner, a review of the victim notification scheme, consideration of recommendations from Lady Dorrian’s report on improving the handling of sexual offence cases and consideration of other areas of the justice system.

On policing and public safety, we have committed to protecting the police resource budget in real terms for the entirety of this parliamentary session, as we did throughout the previous session. That provides a stable position from which Police Scotland can plan to improve service delivery and enhance the safety and security of people and communities across Scotland.

As a progressive and humane society, we will be working to continue to shift the balance between ineffective short-term periods in prison and robust community alternatives. That will be underpinned by on-going investment in the expansion of community justice services that support diversion from prosecution, alternatives to remand, and community sentencing, which evidence shows are much more effective at reducing reoffending.

Next spring, we will develop and launch a new national community justice strategy that sets out clear aims with an emphasis on early intervention, and encourages a further shift away from the use of custody. Where imprisonment is the only safe recourse, we will continue to modernise Scotland’s prison estate, and have committed to invest more than £500 million over this parliamentary session.

I have already alluded to the challenging outlook for public sector finances and the difficult decisions that my cabinet colleagues and I will face before the final budget decisions are taken. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has confirmed that she will publish the 2022-23 Scottish budget on 9 December, alongside a framework for a multiyear resource spending review.

I am happy to answer your questions on the budget for the justice portfolio.

That is a good question. As I am sure the member knows, the ability to enter into that kind of agreement is recognised by ACAS—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—and it is a legitimate process. I have not discussed the non-disclosure agreements with Police Scotland or the SPA, because they are the accountable bodies in relation to the issue. Whether to use such agreements is a matter for them. ACAS recommends confidentiality agreements for claimants’ and employers’ solicitors to record the agreement that is reached between the parties. It is, of course, for Police Scotland, with the oversight of the SPA, to determine any compensation payments.

I should say, however, that such agreements should not be used to cover up extremely bad practice such as discrimination and harassment. It is important that we have the disinfectant, if you like, of publicity around that. There is a role for the agreements, and I think that all public bodies enter into them. ACAS, which speaks for different interests, including those of trade unions, says that there is sometimes a role for those agreements. Sometimes, it is what the participants want. However, if the member is saying that such agreements should not be allowed to obscure bigger issues that we have to try to address, I agree with that.

I am again being asked to speak for justice partners who can best speak for themselves, whether that be the Crown Office, the police or the fire service. I am sure that each will have ambitions that will outstrip the available resources. We have to prioritise—that is just the nature of government.

On those aspects that we can identify as needs, you have quite rightly identified how climate change is changing the demands on the fire service, and we have to be responsive to that as far as we can.

I do not know whether Don McGillivray wants to say any more about the fire service.

I could not give you a percentage, but I think that we could give an anecdotal indication. If you talk to Teresa Medhurst—or perhaps you saw the recent programme, “Guilt”; I know that that is fiction, but it was based on a lot of research—you will find that prison officers say that there are people in prison who they feel should not be there and whose needs they are not equipped to deal with.

We deal with the fact that the courts have sent offenders to prison. It is our responsibility to accommodate them. The question is how we go forward.

On your point about community justice, we cannot take money away from the Prison Service—the vast bulk of which is wages in any event—and put it towards something else, so we have to find money for an alternative. Where that alternative is community justice, I think that that will require further investment.

We have to give courts confidence in such disposals before they will use them. The same is true for electronic monitoring and other alternatives to prison that might be more suitable for people. We must make that provision available and credible to courts before it will be used. The question is how we can ensure that more people get such disposals. There will always be people who are a danger to society or whose disposals have a punishment element that must be reflected in prison sentences.

There is a saying that prisons should have a narrow entrance and a wide exit but, right now, we appear to have the opposite. However, we cannot change the fact that, if a court has sent somebody to prison, they are there to serve that sentence. We would not shift such people, but the way in which we go forward is to ensure that we have alternatives so that people can go to the right place.

That is contrary to what I have said, for example, in relation to the three-year funding for the victims fund that we are producing. That funding provides certainty and amounts, I think, to around £18 million in its own right. [Keith Brown has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] I have mentioned victims a number of times. In answering Fulton MacGregor’s questions, I mentioned a number of proposals in relation to community justice and how we can do more in the system about people on remand. It does not necessarily mean giving more money to victims organisations but, instead, considering how we can do more to take into account the needs of victims. For example, we might be able to do more for the victim of somebody who is released on bail by using electronic monitoring and providing more information, so it is not all about headline funding.

The victim surcharge fund will increase over time. So far, the fund has allowed £157,000 to be shared among victims of crime, and we expect it to increase over time to £1 million a year. We also have proposals for a victims commissioner to be appointed. Establishing any commissioner’s office takes up a fair bit of money and is a big commitment, but we have said that the appointment of the commissioner will not affect the money that otherwise goes to victims organisations. I think that we have a good track record on victims, whether that is the victim surcharge fund or our commitment to look further at the victim notification scheme and expand into different areas. At the very start, I mentioned our emerging justice strategy, which puts victims at the very front.

First of all, you have to define “shortfall”. If you are comparing what Police Scotland says that it asked for with what it will end up with, I am not sure that that is a shortfall.

To be honest, that question is more for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy than it is for me. However, it is also about the nature of the borrowing that can be undertaken. We must all bear in mind the fact that the borrowing must be paid back, so there is an impact on future resource budgets. Beyond my party, there is relatively broad consensus that neither the borrowing powers nor the fiscal framework are now suitable, if they ever were. That is evidenced by the fact that the financial framework is being looked at again this year—it was due to be looked at under the previous agreement between the Governments. There is room for better distribution of resources and for capital borrowing powers that more properly reflect the Scottish Government’s range of responsibilities.

Jamie Greene made a very sensible suggestion that we should let SPICe look at that, but it is my and the Government’s position that overall funding from the Treasury is reduced in the forthcoming budget. That is absolutely my position and I am happy to defend it. If it is asked, and depending on how it is asked, I am also happy to see what SPICe has to say to that. However, that is the Government’s position.

That may have been a technical answer, but it is also a factually correct one. We have observed the standing orders of the Parliament. There is a role for the committees, if they wish to take earlier consideration. This is the second committee of the Parliament to consider the powers, and that is in the context of a pandemic. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has undertaken a voluntary consultation exercise, which was not required. The SPS has done the right thing in that regard.

If the committee wanted to annul the instrument, it could do that, or that could be done through the Parliament, and the powers would continue until that process happened. I do not think that there is a material loss of benefit to the scrutiny process in that regard.

On the consultation responses, as I tried to explain in my response to the committee, we did not get permission from the consultees to publicise their responses. Work is being done to do that—although some of them are already known to members of the committee. As soon as those permissions have been granted, the responses will be published. You are right to say that that will be next month, but next month starts on Friday. I am not saying that the responses will be published on Friday, but next month starts on Friday, and they will be published as soon as it is possible to do so.