 I wish you to be with us again in theทambrant perlifte. The first agenda item is to agree whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Those are considerations of today's evidence and our work programme. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The next agenda item is consideration of the spending priorities in the justice sector for 2022 to 2023, andI refer members to papers I'm pleased to welcome this morning our panel of witnesses whom I'm delighted to see in person, Mr Creith Brown, MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Mr Neil Renwick, director of justice, and Mr Donald McGilverry, director of saver communities of the Scottish Government. We very much appreciate the time you've taken to join us this morning. I'll now invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and as ever, I'm grateful to the committee for the chance to contribute to your pre-budget scrutiny work. I know that you've been meeting with a number of our justice partners over the past few weeks, and I welcome this opportunity to continue those discussions on the budget. You will have heard, I'm sure, members of the committee, the chancellor's recent budget announcements, and while some of those announcements are welcome, overall it does not, in my view, deliver for the people of Scotland. The headline announcement was a significant increase in the Scottish block grants, but in reality the Scottish Government faces a cut in its dataary funding for each year of the spending review period compared to the 2021-22 position. Scotland's capital grant allocation shows no change between 2022-23 and 2023-24, and a reduction between 23-24 and 24-5. That comes in addition to the challenges of Covid, which have patently not gone away, and the on-going impact of the UK Government's decision to leave the EU, both of which have had significant impacts on our justice sector. I echo the views expressed by members of the committee and your previous witnesses commending the impressive work that's been done by those who work within the justice system, in particular over the past 18 months in responding to those challenges. However, 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. If I could, I'd like to highlight a number of key areas for the justice portfolio. First of all, as I've said, Covid-19 has not gone away and continues to be part of our daily lives. I, for my part, continue to be impressed by the commitment of justice agencies to work together to mitigate the consequences of Covid and to finding creative solutions to the challenges and, at the same time, delivering longer-term reforms. Innovation such as the use of remote jury centres and cinemas, the remote balloting of jurors and the use of online hearings and some court hearings demonstrate, I believe, the innovative approach that is taken by our justice partners. We've also committed £50 million this year to help drive forward the recovery, renew and transform programme. Whilst we are seeing optimistic signs of recovery with co-tactivity returning to pre-Covid levels, I do not underestimate the distress 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. As we recover, we need to ensure that we do not simply try and 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 levels of cases in our solemn courts and increasing complexity and needs amongst the population in our criminal justice system. The pandemic has allowed us the opportunity to think how we can do things better, which can mean doing things differently to drive improvements for the future. That is not just about technology to improve efficiency, but also about ensuring 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 strategy for justice that will take that approach forward, and we will continue to focus the needs of victims through a range of actions, including the establishment of a new victims commissioner, our review of the victim notification scheme, considering recommendations from Lady Dorian's report on improving the handling of sexual offences cases and on 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 Parliament, as we did through the last parliamentary session. That provides a stable position from which Police Scotland can plan to improve service delivery and to 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, supporting diversion from prosecution, alternatives to remand and community sentencing, which evidence shows are much more effective at reducing re-offending. We will also develop and launch a new national community justice strategy next spring, setting out clear aims with an emphasis on early intervention and encouraging 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 over £500 million over this parliamentary term. I have already alluded to the challenging outlook for public sector finances and the difficult decisions that I and my cabinet colleagues will face before the final budget decisions are taken. The cabinet secretary for finance and economy has confirmed that she will publish the 2022-23 Scottish budget on 9 December, alongside a framework for a multi-year resource spending review. With that, I can be very happy to answer your questions on the budget for the justice portfolio, thank you. We will move straight on to questions. I would ask that members keep their questions as succinct as possible, if we have a fair bit of ground to cover this morning. I will start off by handing over to Russell Finlay for some questions around Covid recovery. Just for the sake of the record, I would like to pick up on one thing that was said there, which was the UK Government's decision to leave the EU. That was in fact the result of a referendum. It was not a Government decision. It was a decision made by the electorate. Going to the first issue at hand in respect of Crown Office funding, we have heard much evidence last week from the Crown Agent David Harvey. The digital transformation is funded by capital that has been flat for 10 years. They have identified significant opportunities for improvements with investment, yet the capital budget is only expected to rise by around £0.5 million next year, and remains stand still thereafter. Is that sufficient in order to clear the huge backlog that exists and give the Crown and their partners the infrastructure that they need to tackle the huge backlog? I do not like to start off on a point of disagreement, but it was not a decision of the people. It was a decision of the Government. The referendum was an advisory referendum. The decision was taken by the Government and not by the people. It certainly was not taken by the people of Scotland who voted 62 per cent against Brexit. In relation to the improvements, you have mentioned flat over the past 10 years, and I will ask Neil if I can to come in on particular relationship to the Crown Office, because it has dealt with separately from the budgets that we have been discussing so far. However, it is not a surprise if we have had flat and reducing capital allocations from Westminster, so that different budgets in the Scottish Government sphere are also going to feel that pinch. There are many aspects to how we attempt to address the backlog, and I acknowledge that it is a huge issue for us. If you saw the figures that came out last night for England and Wales, they are really scary figures in terms of the backlog of cases that are there, so I acknowledge that it is a very serious problem as it is for us as well, but it is not the only way in which we intend to deal with that. We have put the money into the technological changes, whether it is remote balloting of juries or remote juries more generally. We put that money in this year, but I do not know if Neil wants to come in on some of the detail on the Crown Office budget. The cabinet secretary says that the Crown Office budget is negotiated separately from the main justice budget, so that is directly negotiated between the Lord Advocate and the cabinet secretary for finance in terms of investment in technology. We absolutely agree the potential and the benefits of that. For example, last year we invested an additional £3 million of capital in modernising court technology that was really helpful in terms of allowing court business to continue during the pandemic. A couple of months ago, we announced £10 million of investment in the digital evidence sharing capability, which is a really exciting development that will improve the sharing of information across the whole of the justice system, and we hope to help the efficiency of how cases are processed, including from the police to the Crown and then to the courts. We are absolutely supporting investment in technology. Just for clarification, those sums, are they for the Crown Office or are they for... Justice system is a whole. They were through the main justice budget, although we did obviously provide from the justice budget some additional funding to help the Crown Office last year in terms of dealing with the impact of Covid. Do you think that the Crown are satisfied with the proposed fairly modest rise in the capital budget? Have you had any feedback from them? Are they content? I think, as Neil has said, and I have tried to say that they will discuss that separately with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. It is a separate budget. I think that you have had the Lord Advocate here in the past, and she will discuss her budget. I cannot speak for the Crown Office. What I would say is, I think, generally, we would like to see far greater apportionment of capital spending. Even if it comes down to the borrowing powers that the Scottish Government has, I think that that is a real case that we made for increased powers in relation to that. There is much that we could do usually in terms of spend to save. You can spend on capital and thereby make future reductions in your resource budget if you can spend wisely on capital. I think that it is probably not unfair to say that we would all like to see more capital spending, and the Crown Office would have to speak for themselves in relation to that. I would like to move on and pick up some questions around policing and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I would like to kick things off by asking a couple of questions in relation to funding and the funding provision around COP26. Obviously, we are still in the middle of that unique and so far extremely successful event. Obviously, there has been a budget implication for Police Scotland around that. There are a couple of things that I would pick up. We recently had a visit to Garkhosh and spoke to the chief constable at that point. He was very clear that having the policing budget on track in recent years, he came for that not to be unsettled. In that regard, I wonder if you can provide a reassurance that the UK Government will meet its obligation to fully fund the policing of COP26, including any sort of legacy costs. Bearing in mind that, again, we are aware that there were some lessons learned from the G8 event at Gleneagles when there was some UK provision made around the budget implications of that event, but they did not meet the actual final cost. I am interested in what the plan is in relation to COP26. I would say that, if I could just at the start, and the opportunity was provided for me in the chamber by Mr Finlay's question yesterday, that the policing of COP has been superb. I know that there are some issues where we have to look at particular actions, but overall, I am saying this because other justice partners and UK partners have been extremely impressed by the way Police Scotland has gone about their business in the preparation, which was very detailed and carried out over a long period of time. In relation to COP26, including any legacy costs, we have made clear that our expectation that all costs related to holding COP26 in Glasgow will be borne by the UK Government. That was a commitment that we were giving originally. That has been done through an MOU that was agreed and put in place between the Governments. That records the participants' agreements on financial and contractual liability for COP26. It includes funding for police, fire and ambulance services. One area where we have had discussions, and I think that I am generally quite satisfied and will hear from Dawn in relation to this, is that the assurance framework, which is in place, the means by which we negotiate over planned expenditure for this, has worked very well. There is one area that comes to mind in terms of legal aid, where we did not reach full agreement with it, but we have reached where we have reached in terms of the weekend out of our work that was going to have to be covered and the additional costs fees to be paid to solicitors acting on behalf of anybody arrested. That way, I would say, is a compromised position, so we would not say that we had everything that we wanted from that. All funding is for identified spending associated with the hosting of a safe and secure COP, and there is no funding coming from those arrangements beyond COP expenditure. Police Scotland just fair information has secured around £60 million of funding to the end of October to cover the known direct costs associated with policing COP26. They also cover things like the accommodation for the mutual aid officers who are here, as well as a sizable number from elsewhere in the UK. That will be covered directly, so it will not come through us and be reclaimed to be covered directly by the UK Government. The actual overall costs of policing event will only be known post-conference when all relevant costs are known and finalised. However, I do think that the assurance process is that I have been witness to seem to me to be fairly satisfactory, but Dawn will have been much more intimately involved in me. It might be worth hearing from Dawn. Overall, we are in a good position. There is a very formal process that has been gone through between Police Scotland, various other bodies, Scottish Government and UK Government, to assess cost estimates that are made by those bodies. Those bodies have prepared business cases that have then gone through a formal approval process. I think that the police business cases have made good progress. They have a good level of approval for funding already in place. As the cabinet secretary said, they will obviously need to be a wash-up at the end of the event to look at what the actual costs were against those business cases as approved. Inevitably, there will be a discussion at that point about how the actual costs recorded by Police Scotland and other bodies stack up against the business cases that were approved. However, as far as we are concerned, we are in a good place as it stands. Thank you very much indeed. That is very helpful. I will bring in Katie Clark, who I think has some follow-up questions on COP. As you say, it is not clear at the moment exactly what the financial position is going to be, but once COP is over, would the minister be willing to come to the chamber to give a statement on the full budgetary implications of COP? In particular, whether there has been full reimbursement from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. However, as he says, there has been concern about particular actions, although the overall view is that the policing has gone well. There has been particular concern, for example, on the use of kettling at the Glasgow demonstration. Would he be willing to come to the chamber at a later stage to give a full statement once all the facts are clear? I would love to be in the position of directing what the chamber does and speaking to it when I want to, but that is a matter for the chamber. On my part, I am more than willing to discuss both the point that you quite rightly make about the satisfaction that the budgetary situation has been properly dealt with. We have quite a high level of confidence at this stage that it has been dealt with properly and the wider issues that I tried to address in the topical question yesterday. Yes, there have been two cases in particular where the police would call it moving containment. The purpose is not to keep people in a fixed place for a period of time, but to move them to somebody else. I am advised, because I have discussed this on a number of occasions with the police, that that was done because if they had left the people that were there who wanted to lock on or sit down, that the entire protest or demonstration behind would have ground to halt with consequences for public safety. The people who were asked if they would move to one side for that reason, and that is why that was done. During that period, I am told that there were liaison officers talking to those who were in that containment area. If you think about it today, my latest update this morning was that there have been over 400 different demonstrations, not demonstrations, which I think are the right word, but essentially events where people have made their feelings, no, over 400. We are really talking about one or two where there have been one or two issues. If you think about the very big rally last Friday that it was with young people, absolutely no incidents at all. During the entire event, as far as I am aware, nobody has been seriously hurt. I am not sure that that can be said of previous COP events. I think that one thing that masks a little bit is an extremely positive relationship with development between the police and many of the protest groups. Those are legitimate areas for consideration, so the independent advisory group, which is headed up by John Scott, has got Friends of the Earth, Amar Anwar and a number of other people on it. That is met, met on 5 November, because there was a complaint that came in from, I think, amongst others, Friends of the Earth. I think that I am right in saying that, and discussed those issues. That was, I am told, very constructive. It is independent, so I am not on that, and I am told that it was constructive. I met again yesterday, I am still sitting still to get a read-out from that. By and large, it has been extremely well policed. The Police Scotland has taken a very proactive approach to engage with groups that they knew were coming beforehand, and I have tried to keep that going since then. Even on things like, apart from the arrest of Nessie, I suppose, but on Rainbow Warrior, it was allowed to advance much further towards the event, and it was otherwise permitted. People were not permitted, but the police did not intervene so that people locked on in George V's bridge, and the protesters to their credit allowed one lane to be kept open for emergency vehicles. There has been a lot of accommodation. I do not think that we could have asked for much more in relation to that, but it is right that any actions of the police should be scrutinised. That has happened to the independent advisory group. Police complaints can be another route through which that has taken as well, but so far it has been extremely successful. By all means, those things should be discussed, and I, for my part, would be happy to come to the chamber at a future point. In relation to contracts that Police Scotland enters into, another area of controversy has been the contract with Sri Lanka, which is due for renewal next March. Is it necessary for Police Scotland to raise external funds in this way, and what is the process in relation to that, and what is your involvement in that decision making process? Very little. The autonomy of which this Parliament is granted has been asked for, Amiv Agreed, collectively as a Parliament, for the independence from direct ministerial involvement in relation to that. The police should not be subject to ministerial direction in relation to their operational actions. It is a decision for the chief constable, although there is oversight through the Scottish Police Authority. In relation to the particular contract, there is quite a role for the foreign office who are involved in that. The scheme under which this is delivered is under the aegis of the foreign office. I have discussed it with the chief constable. For my part, I am totally behind the view that Police Scotland is a human rights-based organisation, probably to a much greater extent. I would say that they would concede that as well than they have been previously, and they are very mindful of that. As you know, this activity, whatever people's view on it, some people think that this is trying to make sure that proper policing methods with accountability and unproperly are a good thing to try and spread around. Whatever people's view on it, I think that Police Scotland are the ones who have taken that decision. It has not been carried on for two reasons, one being Covid-related, and the other being the suspension of the UK programme that is involved. It has not been on for some time. In fact, I think that I could be corrected in this during the entire time that I have been doing this job, but it has not been going on. However, the accountability for this rest with Police Scotland and with the Scottish Police Authority as well. I could just follow that up because there are obviously quite serious human rights implications. Many countries in the world, potentially Police Scotland, could enter into contracts with, which unfortunately have appalling human rights records. There are issues clearly of public policy, and the Scottish Government has to have a position, particularly given the Scottish Government's responsibility for Police Scotland. Would he accept that they should not be entering into contracts with particular Governments that have serious human rights abuse records? Does he agree with that? There is a very strong argument to be made for that, but there is also an argument to be made that you would want to try to improve from that human rights abuse that has taken place. If it is the case—I think that that would be the police's point of view, although the police have to speak for themselves in relation to this—if they can improve the performance of other police forces such that they take into account human rights, I would imagine that that would be a benefit. However, you are right to say that there is a reputational issue here as well. I do not think that Donald is looking to come in on that. I am simply going to say that a human rights assessment is part of the process. That is part of the Foreign Office's approval of overseas funding for overseas deployment for police through the programme that the UK Government funds. The Scottish Minister has a very limited role, as the cabsec describes. There is a formal role in approving the deployment of officers overseas, which was done quite some time ago in relation to the Sri Lanka operation, which has been suspended for some time, as the cabsec says. However, the main human rights assessment is done by Police Scotland, approved by the Foreign Office, and then the role for the Scottish Government is a much, much more limited one, which is about simply approving overseas deployment. On another issue, what discussions has the cabinet secretary had with Police Scotland and with the Scottish Police Authority about the use and financial cost implications of nondisclosure agreements? He will obviously be aware of the concern that sometimes those kinds of agreements are used to hide unacceptable practices. It is a very good question. I would say that, as I am sure the member knows, there is the ability to enter into those kind of agreements as recognised by ACAS and is a legitimate process. For my part, I have not discussed the nondisclosure agreements with Police Scotland or the Police Authority because they are the accountable bodies in relation to that. It is whether to use it or not as a matter for Police Scotland and the SPA. ACAS recommends that confidential agreements are considered for both claimants and employers solicitors to record the agreement that is reached between the parties. It is, of course, for Police Scotland to, with the oversight of the SPA, to determine any compensation payments. However, I think that there is also something else to say, which is that they should not be used to cover up extremely bad practice such as discrimination, harassment and those kinds of things. It is very important that we have the disinfectant, if you like, of publicity around that. There is a role for them. All public bodies, I think, enter into them. ACAS and ACAS speaking, I would imagine with a different interest, including trade union interests, would say that there is sometimes a role. Sometimes that is what the participants want, but I think that if what the member is saying is that they should not be allowed to obscure bigger issues that we have to try to address, then I would agree with that. I will bring in Fulton MacGregor and then I will bring in Jamie Greene. Yes, thanks, convener. It is just a very brief supplementary on the COP26 funding. I think that you have made it clear, Cabinet Secretary, that there is a good process in place for recouping the direct costs of COP26. We have heard that from the police as well on committee and credit to the UK Government and Scottish Government for working together on that. However, what came up in a previous session was the issue of perhaps the unknown longer term consequences of COP26. Are you feeling assured that there would be some arrangement in place around that? The things that are springing into mind here could be stuff like impact on staff, when the support from the rest of the UK returns to their own divisions, maybe renewed activism in the country that hosted it, which is obviously a good thing, from all their point of view. We all want to see that, but it might bring extra police and pressure, so those sort of things might have an impact for the next few years. Do you feel that the discussions will be on-going and incorporate that? Again, if I can, I will bring it on in, but just to say another example might be the fact that for some time just in advance of COP26 all leave was cancelled for the police in Scotland, and that will have consequences as people get their leave entitlement back, and that will continue obviously beyond COP26. All I would say is that my understanding from talking to the police and where necessary with the UK Government, there is an understanding of the cost. I think that it becomes more difficult to attribute costs such as those that you mentioned. You are quite right to say that increased activism has got to be a good thing, and the police will have to respond to that. The other thing that I would say is, and it goes back to the previous question, is that I think—and I do not want to speak too soon, we have still got three days to go in terms of COP—that notwithstanding some of the issues that are there, Kettling was mentioned, and there have been a number of other incidents, for example, early on, the decision to have local people, including women, walkthrough, Kelvin Grove Park in the dark, was wrong, which the police have apologised for, so there are things to learn from this. However, my feeling is that Police Scotland's reputation is going to be incredibly enhanced internationally after this event, if things go as well as we would hope for the next three days, and that will bring opportunities as well. However, those things are very hard to quantify at this stage. I would also say that the other point, of course, is that it is not just about police, the fire service had quite a bit to what to do in the run-up to COP in particular, and those costs are being covered as well, ambulance services as well. Again, we are pretty confident around that. We are hearing that from our justice partners that they are confident about the nature of the arrangements in place, but I do not know, Don, if you want to say anything more about legacy costs. The process is a formal one that looks at business cases. It has to be costs that the organisation is able to make an estimate of, a tangible estimate of, is the way it works. It does cover things like overtime, and I am pretty sure that it takes into account things like the effects on leave and creating a backlog of leave and so on, and the costs associated with that. For costs where it also covers wider things around, for example, the park, the police investigations review commissioner, was able to submit a bid for potential costs for her organisation and so on. So, where there is a tangible cost and you can make an estimate of it, there is a process and that process is working well. Some of the things that were described there I think are harder to make an estimate of at this stage and I think will only really understand whether it is possible to make an estimate of those and make a business case for those probably later in the process. Thank you very much. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Good morning, gentlemen. I just wanted to start to just clarify something you said in your opening statement around the overall budget, because it does put the justice budget into context. My understanding is that the block grant for 2022-23 is rising from £36.7 billion to £40.6 billion, which is a £4.6 billion uplift of which is derived from £3.4 billion resource funding and £400 million in capital funding. That seems to contradict your opening statement, because you just clarified that. I am not the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, but I think the difference, which is apparent from our different interpretations, is that the figure that you give for the current year excludes Covid consequentials. My point is that Covid is not finished. It is very obvious. Members of this committee would ask me that we continue to make more money available to deal with the backlog, so that tells you that Covid is not finished. I think that that is what accounts for the difference and that means that we are seeing that reduction because of the only way that we can start from that figure as a base budget last year, not one that includes consequentials. I think that that is an important point to make. The uplift in Covid consequentials to the Scottish Government, which is around £15 billion, strikes me as perhaps slightly unreasonable to expect that that level of increased funding, which was unique to the circumstances at the beginning of Covid, would necessarily set the benchmark or the bar for future budget years. It would be a better comparison to do year-on-year comparison to a normal budget year, of which we see an uplift in core funding, as opposed to comparing core funding to Covid-related funding. That is a conflation that has been made. I am happy for perhaps Spice to do some investigation into that and inform members accordingly. Off the back of that, we look at the capital funding budgets. I wanted to touch on Police Scotland's budget, because I think that it is an important one to delve into. We took a lot of evidence on it. First of all, can you explain how this year's budget, or at least your asks, of the finance secretary will inform the five-year capital investment plan that Police Scotland has come up with? The figure that they have given us in their written submission is that they need £466 million to put major and essential investment into their ICT strategy, improving the estate and modernising the fleet. Their understanding is that the Scottish Government's capital spending review, published in January of this year, suggests a funding level that is £218 million short over a five-year period. Can you update the committee as to whether there will be a shortfall in the capital budget given to them? First of all, I think that we probably have to define shortfall, if what you are saying is from what they would say that they have asked for, compared to what it may be that they end up with. If that is what you define as a shortfall, I am not sure that actually there is a shortfall. To go back to the first point, what is incontrovertible is that overall grant funding from the Treasury is actually falling. I have got that as a quote, and I am happy to source that whether for Spice or anybody else. Grant funding this year overall is falling. The exchange we are having probably exemplifies the fact that politicians will choose the figures that best serve their purpose. I am sure that that is true, but it cannot deny the fact that Covid did not stop when this budget starts. Across the whole range of government, there are huge continuing Covid costs. If you want to take that out to get to a lower budget starting point, I am not sure that that in itself is not disingenuous, but that is a discussion that will continue. In relation to the police budget, it has increased over the years despite the fact that we have had major cuts to our capital budget over the last decade. I think that we have had in the last three years a substantial increase, which has resulted in the last three years staying around £45 million per capita. We have also recognised additional demands from the police, including the greening of the fleet, so £10 million went in order to do that. One thing that I would say is that we are ahead of the budget by a few weeks, and those things are under discussion, so I cannot be too specific about how the budget will turn out and whether the police will be satisfied. The simple fact is that we have to work with constrained circumstances and whatever the budget has finally agreed, and I am hopeful that it will be no less generous to the police than it has been in the past, given the constraints that we have. It will be for the police and the SBA to work out how to apportion that capital budget, but there are one or two other points that might be useful to hear from Donan, if I can, convener. Yes, and just to put the detail around what you said about the profile of the capital budget, the capital budget for police has approximately doubled since 2017-18, so where we have been able to provide additional capital to SBA in the last few budgets, we have done so, is the picture that I would set out. The committee, under the new procedure, will write to me with their budgets asks, and that is when it gets quite interesting, because the committee will have to say what capital budgets they would cut in order to fund an increased police budget, for example. Again, that probably adds to a richer experience, pre-budgets experience than we have had in previous years. Thank you very much for your time. No, I am sorry, it is quite a big topic, the police budget. So, to be clear, in their written submission, their five-year capital investment proposal, they state, would improve conditions and equipment for the wellbeing of officers and staff, enable a better service to be provided, a lower settlement would require prioritisation to meet health and safety needs, in other words the statutory requirements of the police, but not allow them to deliver much-needed improvements to the fleet, to ICT, and to the police estate, which many in their written submission said were not fit for purpose. So, it goes back to the point that in order to meet their five-year plan to deliver and maintain the policing levels that we currently enjoy, they will need £466 million, and your capital spending review from this year suggests £218 million lower than that. That is the shortfall that we are talking about, that is the shortfall that they are talking about. My question therefore is, if they do not receive the funding settlement that they are expecting or asking of you, which of those projects are unlikely to be delivered, what aspects of police transformation and renewal will we not see in the next five years as a result of not meeting that capital ask? I think that, once again, the difficulty is that we have not fixed the budget, and this session really is about a process where we have not fixed the budget. I think that, in general terms, all I would say, as I have said before, is that when we allocate the budget, first of all we have to prioritise, and I think that the extent to which we are willing to listen to what the police say their needs are is evidenced by the fact that we have increased their capital budget, as we have mentioned, and also in relation to some specific requests, so the greening and the reinvestment in the fleet of £10 million, there is also additional money that has been given for body-worn cameras and various other initiatives as well. We are very receptive to what the police say, but the simple fact is that when the overall grant funding from the treasury is actually falling, we are going to have to make difficult decisions. For that purpose, it would be really useful to me to see what the committee thinks should be priorities. If we increase the police budget, would the committee or the member be saying that we should reduce the fire budget or education budget? Those are the difficult decisions that we have to make. The police understand that point. We expect them to put forward the things that they would want to see, of course they would want to do that, but we finally agree that the budget would be based on, first of all, the amount of money that we have to spend, and then also based on the fact that we expect, because that is what their statutory responsibility is, that the police and the SPA will work out their priorities within that budget, but we are ahead of the budget just now. Other questions relate to other areas of budget, so I'm happy to come in later. I'll bring in Russell Findlay and then I'll bring in Colette Stevenson. Thank you. I'm just going back to some of the points that Katie Clark raised and I'm mindful that this is a budget session, but there were predictions prior to COP26 of there being up to £300 per day, and that clearly has not transpired. I think that the most recent figure I saw was 50 within the first week. Scotland previously provided a figure to the committee of the total policing bill that has been in the region of £150 million. The streets of Glasgow have often resembled something out of the Edinburgh festival for the past week rather than the end of days. Is there any sense in policing circles that perhaps there's a bit of a misjudgment around this and that these costs could have been perhaps made more modest with—I don't say a difficult call, but any thoughts on that? It may well be that, as you've said, neither the end-of-days scenario—for any way that put forward that scenario—nor the estimate of the budget is not where we end up, but as I think we've said already, that that will be a process that we're going through. It isn't just the police, as I've mentioned, there are other agencies as well, which will have to have their efforts funded out of that as well. I'm very willing to say that I think that the police will have an extremely difficult job if they are there in numbers because they have intelligence or an expectation. There's a serious threat to public order. You want them there in numbers, and if it turns out that threat does not transpire to the same extent, then they are, of course, open to the accusation that they've, if you like, overplayed their hand. I don't think they can win in that circumstance, and I would certainly want—I've been on demonstrations my entire life—if I was on a demonstration and saw there wasn't sufficient police numbers for something that happened during the course of it, I'd be very critical of the police. I think they have to—on the side of not just caution, but on the best intelligence that they have, so I think that the police have done what they should. It's huge to say that the two things aren't related, that some people might have been bent on disorder, I mean serious disorder, and there was serious intelligence around that. I might have seen the police planning that went into this and thought, no, we're not going to do that, so I'm not going to be first in line to criticise the police in that regard. As to the cost, we won't really know. It may come in as a member suggests less than what's being suggested, but again, that would be a good thing, if that was the case, and you're right to highlight the number of arrests. We had to make an estimate of that ourselves, because obviously we wanted to have things like legal aid cover and so on as well, and it's not transpired, and I think that that is in large part due to, first of all, the conduct of protesters, the engagement that's happened between protesters and the police, and again the planning of the police. I would say, let's not look for a kind of failure here, where we have potentially three days to go and there's still lots that can happen, a very successful event so far, and also just to point out the different challenges that the police face. There's not been a cop meeting in the past which has taken place right in a relatively small city. They've been on the outskirts of Paris or elsewhere, so to deal with an extremely difficult situation, I think, the police have planned very effectively and done really well. Thank you. Just one quick point about budgets. My Jamie Greene has already questioned some of the language used about UK Government funding to the Scottish Government and the use of the contentious use of the phrase, major cuts, which we, I think, disagree with quite strongly. You also referenced borrowing powers. The Scottish Government has the ability to borrow. In 2020-21, it planned to borrow £450 million, but it ended up borrowing about £200 million. If you're not using the powers that you already have to borrow and you've cited borrowing as a reason for not being able to do the things that you would like to do, why not do that initially? To be honest, that's far more a question for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance than for me, but I think that it's also the nature of the borrowing that can be undertaken. Of course, the point that we all have to bear in mind is that borrowing has to be paid back, so it's an impact on resource budgets in the future, but it's an issue for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. I think, though, beyond my party, there is a relatively broad consensus that neither the borrowing powers nor the fiscal framework remain suitable if they ever were. I think that that's probably evidenced by the fact that the financial framework this year has been looked at, again, as it was due to be under the previous agreement between the Government. I think that there is room for a better distribution of resources and capital borrowing powers, which more properly reflect the range of responsibilities that the Scottish Government has. Just to say, and I think that Jamie Greene has made a very sensible suggestion, let's spice look at this, but it's my position, it's the Government's position, that overall funding from the Treasury has gone down in this budget, this forthcoming budget. That's absolutely my position. I'm happy to defend it and happy to see what, if they're asked, depending on how they're asked, what spice have to say to it, but that is the Government's position. I'll just have to agree to disagree, but thank you. I'll bring in Collette Stevenson, and then I'll come back to Jamie Greene to ask some questions around Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. We've obviously seen in recent weeks the impact that climate change has had here in Scotland, particularly with the damage of the two bridges in Annan and basically sea levels rising and the flood water and the damage that's been done. It's obviously had an impact on Scottish Fire and Rescue in terms of the increase in incidents and responses. I'm just wondering what discussions has the Scottish Government had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue on the budget priorities, given those increased incidents as well for 2022 and 2023? I thank the member for the question, and maybe just start by saying that within the portfolio split that we have in this portfolio, it's Ashwaygan that deals with more obviously Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. However, I had a very productive discussion with both the chief executive and the chair. Recently, modernisation is a big part of the challenge that they face, and all within that, you'll have been aware for the last couple of years that discussion has been about a new broad and roll for firefighters, which is still under discussion. We have continued our commitment to support the fire service delivery and modernisation, so we gave them an uplift last year of £8.7 million of resource for 2021-22, and that brought the total budget to £343 million. In relation to the new challenges or emerging challenges—I'm not sure that they're entirely new because we've seen extraordinary flooding over recent years, for example—we will carefully consider any new proposals from the fire service. However, in the face, as I've mentioned before, of reduced overall capital funding, I'm not sure—I know that the statement I've made about overall grant funding is challenged, and I agree to differ on that. I'm not sure that there's a difference of opinion on capital, so capital stays still for the next two years and falls after that from a historic low base, so that is a factor that's in the background. However, we have maintained the fire service capital budget at £32.5 million per year. We've also provided specific funding of £2 million this year to support a range of projects to improve building the efficiency in the SFRS estate, and the point at which Mr Green made in relation to the police estate is a big issue in terms of the fire estate as well. I wouldn't shrink from that. Also, it's true to say that Transport Scotland and another arm of government continues to provide additional funding to support electric vehicle charging infrastructure and to switch over to low-carbon fleet vehicles, which obviously is related to climate change. We remain receptive to the asks that they have, notwithstanding the overall budget position. Just coming in on that, given what you've said about the increase in budget and what not in capital, do you feel that Scottish Fire and Rescue services will be content with that for the forthcoming budget? Again, I'm being asked to speak on behalf of just as partners who can best speak for themselves, whether it's Crown Office, the police or the fire service. I'm sure that each has ambitions that will outstrip the available resources. I think that that's just the nature of government that we have to deal with priorities. I think that the things that we can identify as needs—and you've quite rightly identified the way that climate change is changing the demands on the fire service—we have to be responsive to that as far as we can. I don't know whether Don wants to say any more in relation to the fire service. Like the Capsaic, I engage regularly with the chair and the chief fire officer in the SFRS. The current budget isn't a particularly strong topic of discussion. It's mainly around the future role of the fire service, around the potential expanded role of the fire service and what the cost and funding arrangements for that will be. That's the main focus of the discussion with the fire service at the moment. Obviously, it's impossible in the advance of a budget to see where we will land on that. We move on to Jamie Greene and then we'll move on to some questions around prisons. I do have some questions around prisons, but I'll let others lead on that. Just continuing the line of question on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, although it didn't express a view or opinion on the budget, it gave us some statistics in the written submission. It is quoted as saying that, as acknowledged in the report by Audit Scotland, to bring their property, vehicles and assets across Scotland up to a minimum satisfactory condition, the SFRS requires an average annual investment of £80.4 million. The actual annual average over the last three financial years on property, vehicles and equipment has been £30.2 million. Although it doesn't express an opinion, it has enlightened us to the reality of our budget. Does that mean that their assets are not up to a minimum satisfactory condition? What confidence can we have that future budgets, particularly on capital spend, will ensure that we have a fit for purpose fire and rescue service over the next 10 years as they have asked for? I have to repeat myself, but we haven't set the budget yet, and in setting it, we're going to have to listen as we are doing to those points made by the fire service. In the discussions that I've had with them directly, and I think that the same would be true for Don, there's been quite a lot of discussion about the assets in terms of the estate in particular and whether they are fit for purpose appropriate or whether they should be further rationalisation. It's worth saying that, in addition to the capital budget that we are able to give them, and we can only give them what we give them if it's more at the expense of somebody else, whether it's a police or somebody else, they also have the ability to draw down capital receipts from sale of their own properties, and they have plans in that regard. It's probably best that they, I don't know whether they've appeared before the committee or not as yet, but they might be able to say more on that. That will help with the capital resources that they have in terms of investment of new facilities. Just as with the previous question, I think that, as Don has said, the discussions that I've had, they don't necessarily centre hugely in relation to that. It's about the changing demands that they have and changing the nature of the service that they've been most keen to speak about. The changes themselves, we have to try and facilitate them, we have to try and give them the capital support to do that. We have to do that from a lower budget, as I've mentioned in certainly year 3 of this spending settlement, but we are listening to them. We will present our budget and, as I've said before, we are very interested to see what members of the committee see in terms of the priorities that we should afford within the budget to envelope, whether it's what would be at two and a half times the current capital budget for the fire service, if that's something the committee should support and where the money would come for that. That's the kind of questions that we are facing in Government and, of course, it's the kind of questions in which the committee will face as well. Thank you for that clarification. I'm not sure there's much precedent in committees telling the Government what more to spend on and where that money should be cut from in terms of budgets, but if that's the new scrutiny process, I'm happy to engage in it. I think that it leads on from your question that, if there have been asked to do more as a service than there are, and then those clearly are concerns that we've heard both from their management but also from their unions as well, then that must be backed up with investment and, I guess in this sense, resource investment, whether it be training or other assets required to do more. But if their budget remains static, as has been the case since 2017, people clearly find it very difficult to offer a wider range of services without more investment up front. What discussions have you had specifically around what will be asked of them and how much might be required from a budget allocation to help them to do that? As I said, I've spoken to them directly, although it was a broad, wide-ranging discussion that touched on things such as asset management and ambitions for the service. Officials speak, I think, probably daily to the service and the minister who's directly responsible speaks to them as well. Those are the discussions that we've taken place. I don't think that there's any area that you've mentioned so far that we're unaware of in Government or that we haven't discussed with the fire service at a senior level. It's true to say that you mentioned the fact that there has been asked to do more. I think that it's a little bit more nuanced as far as there has to do with some different things, as evidenced perhaps by Collette Stevenson's point about climate change providing different demands of them. We are partners in that change process. I may be wrong, but I thought that the process would require the committee to say which priorities would attach to the budget. In any event, I think that that is right, because I think that it's not possible just to go each line of the budget and say that there should be more spent on that, more spent on that, without any consequences or pretending that there are not consequences for other parts of the Government. I just think that it probably leads to a better budget process than we've had in the past. From my point of view, it would be really helpful to get as much—I mean that sincerely—if the committee's got a very strong view that this budget, as opposed to that one, should have more resource for whatever reason, I'm very keen to listen to that. Also, it's probably worth saying, which I'm sure you'll be aware of, that the budget, when it's published, will be allocated per portfolio, but there's quite a bit of discretion after that for me to reflect on the committee's priorities as far as they will try to identify them. I'm sure that that's something that we'll consider, convener, as a committee. Just before we move on to looking at prisons, I just wanted to pick up on something that you said, cabinet secretary, around the rationalisation of fire stations, I think. Can you maybe just expand on what that might mean? The thought that came into my head was that it might include closure of stations, but perhaps you can correct that for me. I'll obviously ask Don to come on that to convene, but it's also true to say that, as everybody knows, we've seen a process of rationalisation of police stations over the years, and I think that the fire service would tell you, as they've told me, that some of the fire stations—I was in one last week in my own patch in Allawa, some of them—probably it's sometimes not in the right place. They've said that to me directly, and sometimes they're not the right type of buildings given the new equipment, but I don't know if you want to see more than that, Don. The fire service inherited essentially a set of buildings that were set for an eight brigade structure, a regional structure, and it's now a national service. It's at a fairly early stage, but they're in the process of just reviewing that footprint and actually asking themselves what's the right national footprint for a national fire service, essentially. As the Cubs said, they also inherited a lot of pretty terrible 50s, 60s, 70s local authority buildings that are—there's a real question as to whether they can ever be upgraded and be made fit for purpose for a modern fire service, so there's a number of factors there that they're feeding into a question about what does their future estate and footprint look like. I think the commitment that the fire service would give is that they are at a relatively early stage and that in taking forward that thinking that there would be wide-ranging consultation and engagement with people before they start making any decisions on those kind of issues. Thank you very much. I mean, it would be helpful perhaps for the committee to be kept up to date on that. Thank you. I'll bring in Collette Stephenson, I think, just quickly. You touched upon capital receipts in terms of the repurposing of some of the buildings and whatnot as well. Has there been any discussion really with the police stations, fire stations, prisons as well, having a role to play in terms of district heating systems going forward? I would say more generally—for example, we might come on to the new replacement for Barlinnie, for example—these things are much more—I hate to use that expression—baked in from the start now as to how you can be most energy-efficient. I'm aware that it's done in relation to housing in my previous area. Whether district heating is specifically considered, I don't know, but reducing the carbon footprint certainly is factored into any new build. One other thing, just to come back to the convener's point, is that in my area, the police, we have one police station in Clotmanusshire, and it's now moved into the council headquarters. That wouldn't be suitable for a fire station for obvious reasons, but we would want to see our public bodies trying to think more cogently about how they can work together on some of those things, police, fire, ambulances, ambulance service as well. It can massively reduce the cost and increase the efficiency, and it would allow for where there are new facilities exactly the kind of initiative around whether it's district heating systems or reducing the carbon footprint. In fire service, one of those areas is going to be electrification vehicles. I would imagine that it would be a big area for them. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I wonder if we can move on to some questions around the prison estate and the prison surface. I wonder if I can pick that up. While we're acknowledging that there's a strong case to reduce the use of imprisonment as an option post-conviction, we've got a pressing current situation with overcrowding, the changing demographic in prisons and buildings that are no longer fit for purpose, or do not meet the needs of the prison population. In the discussions that you've had with the Scottish Prison Service about making improvements around the prison estate, can you give some indication around timescales for replacing some of the current estate that is no longer fit for purpose? On the back of that, if there is a need to perhaps bring funding forward earlier to facilitate that, is that something that would be feasible and possible to do? Thank you very much for that. Overall, we've committed to investing over half a billion pounds, £545.7 million, to improve the prison estate. You will know exactly which prisons we've talked about in terms of replacement or upgrading because of our capital programme, but maybe your question at the latter part was heading towards a couple of prisons where we've had to make improvements but have not been able to commit because we don't have the resources at the stage to replace them, such as Greenock or Dumfries. However, what we have done in those circumstances is carried out improvements. Across the piece, even though we're going to replace Barlinnie, for example, there are substantial improvements being made to the current facilities at Barlinnie. More generally, we have a situation in which much of the prison estate was pretty Victorian. I suppose that in this place we go back to 2007 when our school estate was pretty appalling and it's been pretty much transformed over that period. If I think about our road network, the new Queensferry crossing or the Aberdeen-Western peripheral routes or the dualling of the 89, which is progressing, major changes to the infrastructure in Scotland have taken place, but you can't do it all at once simply because of finance. On your point about whether things can be brought forward, I do remember in recent years, not the most recent years but five or six years ago, where it was not unusual to have mid-year additional allocations, which came in terms of capital. We often had in Government a series of, we're asked to very quickly compile, a series of oven, not oven-ready, shovel-ready projects. Oven-ready is now a kind of abuse time, I wouldn't use that one, but shovel-ready projects, which we could advance quite quickly. I think that we know what we'd like to do in terms of, for example, Dumfries or have an idea around Greenock. Greenock is an interesting one because there are other investments that you can make there in terms of police, in terms of college. I think that we are ready to go, but we have to go based on what we expect in terms of the capital that we expect to receive, and that's what the current capital programme is based on. Thank you for that. Just following on from that, in looking at the plans around modernising the prison estate, one of the issues that we obviously would be keen to build into that process is to prevent the issues around overcrowding that we've seen historically in prisons in Scotland. I suppose that I'm just wondering how is there a way in which that overcrowding issue can be prevented when we're looking at the redesign of the prison estate taking into account some of the things that we've just been discussing around the changing demographic? That's a very good point. I was in Perth prison on Monday, and to my surprise, I was released on Monday as well. If you've been to Perth prison, you'll realise how it's a collection of very different-aged buildings. If you can go into one part, the size of a cell, for example, can be quite different from some of the older parts of the prison as well. Factoring that into what we do, modern expectations around, for example, in many of the women's cells cases in other prisons, there are showers built into the cell, and that's not true for the 96 per cent of the population who are men. I think that we have to factor in new expectations around cell size and so on as well. And in terms of security, Mr Finlay has repeatedly raised the issue of drugs in prisons, which is a serious issue, whether there's anything we can bake into the start of a design of a prison. Also going back to district heat and what we can do to make sure that they are environmentally as friendly as possible. I think that we are trying to do that. One example being cell size, that is currently being very closely considered in relation to Barlinny. Yes, we are taking into account. You do that at a point in time, and it may all be 10, 15 years from now. We have different expectations, but you have to make sure that it's done up to the last minute as far as possible in terms of the expectations and thinking more sensibly about that. Thank you, cabinet secretary. You mentioned issues around women prisoners, and I'll maybe bring in Rona Mackay, and then following Rona, I'll come back to Jamie Greene. Okay, thank you, convener. Good morning. Yes, just following on from the convener's questions, I'd like to ask about the women's new custodial estate. I believe there are about 230 places for women there. There are approximately 400 women in prison just now, including remand prisoners. I wonder if you want to comment on the capacity of the new estate. I would like to think it's because less women will be sent to prison, and I really hope that. Can you tell me if there's been any kind of thoughts and planning towards the fact that there might not be enough in the new women's estate? I'll maybe ask Neil to come in shortly, but your question prompts me to record. I didn't really answer the convener's last question in terms of capacity. Just as you said, we are looking at the other end, where many people who we put in prison will have something to say on that very shortly with some proposals that we'd want to bring forward in relation to remand and release. It is about sending the right people, the people in prison, that will need to be in prison, will benefit from being in prison and not from an alternative diversion. That's got to be part of the calculation that you would make. It's very hard to make that calculation as to what the future prison population should be. However, in any event—this is the point that the convener made and the point behind your question—we shouldn't end up in a situation where we don't have the capacity. That has happened in the past. For example, Texas released tens of thousands of prisoners overnight, including many that have been convicted for drugs offences because they could not cope with the prison population. The Supreme Court of California told the state that it had to release, again, thousands of prisoners overnight, because they had 200 per cent occupancy in their prisons. We want to make sure that we have both the right number of cells, for example, and facilities for people. We want to try to make sure that people are in prison and that that is the best place for them to be, or that society needs them to be in there. That is two parts of the equation. On the women's provision, the judgment that was made by my predecessor, Two Back, which was based on the best information that he had at that time—I don't know whether Neil, who was in post at that time, might want to say more. Absolutely. When the plans were announced for the new female estate, it was very much with the ambition to ensure that the estate was forward-looking and trauma-informed. The plans that the SPS has developed are tremendously exciting, particularly for the two new innovative community custody units in Glasgow and Dundee, and then for the new national prison at the existing site at Contenvale. We always knew that we also had to continue to focus on trying to reduce the number of women coming into prison, so that has been reflected in the work that we have done around extending the presumption against short sentences, expanding the availability of electronic monitoring and what we are doing just now, looking at bail and remand and whether we can reduce the number of people coming into prison on remand. In terms of capacity, obviously, in addition to the new facilities, there are existing spaces for women in grampain, but also in Edinburgh, Greenock and Polmont, as well. It was always understood that we would keep that capacity under review as progress was made in terms of changes to the overall number of women coming into prison, and that continues to be the case. I will hand over to Jamie Greeneam, and then I will bring in Collex Stevenson. I just wanted to ask a more fundamental question about the prison estate. I appreciate your comments on HNP Greenock. Everyone accepts that there are elements of it that are not fit for purpose, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate made that clear. Whilst we are a long time away from any site of replacement, it is important that any funds that can be allocated to make immediate improvements would be most welcome for the staff and inmates. I say that from a pro-kill point of view, but it is an important point to make. I am looking more widely, although I spoke in the last session with trees in midhurst, about more of a medium-to-long-term plan for the prison population. We know that, at the moment, the annual average is sitting at quite a high average. The last number that I had was over 8,000. That has been quite a sharp rise over a number of years. Have you put that in the context of the large backlog of court cases, of which a large percentage of them will be quite serious crimes, specifically those of sexual nature or gender-based violence and the rise in serious organised crime, because of the good work that the police and other agencies are doing? Ms Midhurst seemed to imply that there is an expectation that the prison population could further rise. Therefore, the question is that, if the budget has been allocated, given that it takes four, 10 or 15 years to build a new state, if the budget is geared up to that potential and quite a sharp immediate rise in the prison population? That is a very good question. I would say that we are at the lower level than that. That is around 7,550. That was the last update that I saw this week. It may have changed by a few, and it does fluctuate, but you are absolutely right to say that we expect. We have already seen a substantial increase in demand, which all parties around this table have expressed concern about, which will bring forward proposals to try and help with. That is producing a big demand on prisons. There is different demands of the prison service—how it treats people on demand, of course. That is a current and pressing pressure on the prison population. You are also right to say that, if the backlog is clear, that will increase the number of convicted prisoners and that will increase the population. There are two things that are hard to estimate. We have had a number of our analysis formulas that have been used up until Covid and are no longer particularly useful during the time of Covid. You have seen what you said about 8,000. That was true last year, but Covid has meant that that has been reduced. Some of those analyses are more difficult just now, but I think that, as I have said already, we are trying to tackle it from two or possibly three points. One is to try and reduce those going to prison where that is appropriate for it to happen. I called it Romandan release—it is bail—and will bring forward proposals for consultation on that very shortly. I am hopeful that we will get the similarly constructive responses that we had in the discussions that we have had in the chamber around very pressing issues. Pauline McNeill has raised those as well. One is about the numbers going into prison. The other is making sure that, within prison, Mr Finlay, from the visit that the committee had to Salkton, has acknowledged that there are different pressures in prison, so that there are different serious organised crime groups. That also takes up space to make sure that the segregation, if that is the right word, is also vulnerable prisoners. Those demands are increasing. It is hard to quantify them. We want to make sure that we have the appropriate facilities for everybody, because that is why we have seen, over the last 15 years and, to some extent, an improvement in the prison facilities. We are very mindful of that. We keep a very close eye on the population. We know that an increase is coming, but we know also that there are things that we can do, not least in relation to demand, but also in relation to people that may benefit from a different kind of disposal, whether that is community justice, whether it is in relation to rehabilitation or mental health treatment. Getting the right people in prison is one thing, but we do have a responsibility to house who the courts sent to prison. We are mindful of that. I do not know if that fully answers the point that you made, but that is certainly thinking currently at this time. I think that you make fair points. It is very difficult to model, but, given the scale of the congestion in the courts and the evidence that we took on the nature of the types of trials that are likely to come through the system, there is an expectation that non-custodial options simply may not be suitable for a large chunk of those. Therefore, there will be an expectation that the prison population will rise. There are limitations to what you can do, though. I presume that there is only so much space that you can magic in a prison estate until you start getting to an overcrowding situation. Do you foresee a situation in which you would have a California scenario in which you simply have to release people because of overpopulation? They were told to do that by the Supreme Court, and no, they would want to avoid that. They would want to remain in control of this, rather than be told that they cannot imagine the Supreme Court of the UK telling us to do that, but they do not want to be in that position. It is important that we try to anticipate that as best we can. You are right to say that, because of the backlog of cases and the nature of the cases, sex crimes in particular will result in more people being imprisoned. I should also say that, despite some of the political banter that we have around the presumption of short sentences, the current prison population that is serving longer in prison than was the case previously, partly because of the nature of the crimes that they have. We have had a big increase in historic sex offences, which means that we are accommodating a lot of people in relation to that. We do not want to be forced by anybody to do that. We want to try to manage that situation. I will hand over to Collette Stevenson and then I will bring in Russell Finlay. I would like to draw this session to a close at Hapust 11. We have a few additional issues to pick up after that. We will just see timing-wise how much we get through, so I would ask for succinct questions and answers to Collette. How would you respond to the call from HM Inspectorate of Prisons for a fundamental review of the provision of purposeful activity in the prisons and its expectation that additional resources will be required, given the challenges that we are facing at the moment? I think that the first thing to say is that, going back to a previous point, we are not through Covid just now. It would be interesting to hear from Neil Moore on this. It is a very fluid situation just now where some prisoners are going back to a two-shift system and that has allowed them to increase the amount of purposeful activity that is taking place. I think that whether it is the review of exactly the terms that Wendy has called for or whether it is the prison service just looking at this holistically and looking also at what they are able to do, because part of that is driven by whether there is an outbreak of Covid and what the public health regulations are in a particular prison given its facilities. It is a very fluid situation just now, but we are very much seized of the fact that we have to increase and go back to at least what the purposeful activity was before the levels of purposeful activity. I would say that we are notwithstanding that, and I think that the inspector recognises that as well. Some of the stuff that has happened with telephones, mobile phones—a lot of discussion, quite rightly, about those that were tampered with, but there has been a huge benefit from that. The number of calls, for example, to Samaritans is massive from within prisons and the ability of families to talk to prisoners, especially at a time when prisoners cannot have the same purposeful activity. It has been really important, but we are very seized of the fact that this is a situation that cannot persist, people being denied the purposeful activity. I do not know if you want to say any more on that. Just briefly, looking at the medium term back in 2019-20, the then chief executive identified the need for additional resources of £24 million because of that growth in the prison population and the demands that that was creating. That was met in full by the Government and has been added to since in terms of revenue funding. As the cabinet secretary said, during Covid, there had to be an adjustment to how the day was organised within the prison, but that in the vast majority of establishments has now moved back to the previous arrangements, and that is opening up the possibility for further purposeful activity. The other issue that the inspector of prisons identified in her report was the importance of us continuing to work to try and provide alternatives to prison to create the capacity for the prison service to manage the population that it has. As the cabinet secretary said, that is one of our key priorities. For example, in the £50 million that the Government has committed to the Covid recovery programme, as well as money going to courts to allow for the backlog to be dealt with, that includes an extra £11.8 million this year, specifically for community justice, to try to expand the capability of alternatives to prison to make sure that we are reflecting the pressure that is within the system. The cabinet secretary read my mind that he mentions prison phones. We will not reheat everything that has been said about the mobiles and the problems that have been caused, by some of them. To reason matters to her evidence, the committee said that the reason that these were not adopted in Addiwell and Comarnac was because of the hard-wired infrastructure in the modern prisons. With that in mind, with the new prisons that are in the pipeline, have you sought to ensure that that similar infrastructure will be part of them in order to provide safe and secure communications down the line? Even in prisons that are not scheduled for replacement, where there is new capital what has gone on, that has been borne in mind at the same time. Beyond that, in-cell telephony has also been looked at in relation to those prisons. As you said, the hard-wired options are easier to manage and to avoid some of the problems that we have had in relation to the mobiles that have been issued, so that has been taken into account in those things yet. Cabinet Minister, if you have made an assessment of what percentage of the prison population you think actually needs to be there and whether we are adequately funding currently alternatives to custody, I know that you mentioned that there is going to be an announcement of a new strategy next year. Whether you think that it is actually practical to shift resources from prisons into alternatives, whether you really think that that is something that can happen and what percentage of the prison population do you think potentially perhaps should have been dealt with in another way? I couldn't give you a percentage, but I think that we could all mention Annick Dottley. Certainly, if you had talked to Theresa Medhurst or I don't know whether you saw that recent program guilt down south where it was said, I know that it's fiction, but it was based on a lot of research. Prison officers are saying that there were people there that felt that they should not be there and that they were not equipped to deal with the needs that they had. From our point of view, we deal with the fact that the courts have sent these people to prison and it's our responsibility to accommodate them. It's how you go forward in future and the point that you make about community justice. I don't think that we can take away money 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 the alternative to that. Where it's community justice, I think that that will require further investment. We have to give the courts the confidence and that kind of disposal before they will use it, but also in terms of things like electronic monitoring and other alternatives to prison, which might be more suitable for people. We have to make that provision available and credible to the courts before it will be used, so it's how you can in future make sure more people are going to the places. There's always going to be people that are a danger to society or there will be a punishment element that has to be reflected in prison sentences. There's a saying that says that prisons should have a narrow entrance and a wide exit where it's just now we appear to have the opposite, but we can't change the fact that if a court has sent somebody to prison then they are there to serve that sentence, so you wouldn't shift them, but how we go forward in future is to make sure that we have alternatives for people to go to the right place. On the subject of alternatives to custody and community justice, we know that the emphasis is going to be very much on the third sector organisations and their involvement, and that will be even more crucial than it is now once that's expanded. In the last session of the justice committee, there was a great call for multi-year funding settlements for third sector organisations, as is done in the health service, etc. The benefits of that are obvious, security and forward planning, etc. Is there any chance that the Government would be looking at that perhaps with the new policies that are coming in so that third sector organisations had that security? It's a very good point, and the Scottish Government has asked for many years for the UK Government to move away from the single year and also the very late notification of the budget that we have. We have tried to reflect that in relation to the victims funding that we've done. There's a three-year funding package that we've announced. It may be possible with all those things that other things happen that you can increase that funding, so if you can bear that in mind. I understand the point that's made for many of the third sector organisations. They have plans that they have to make well in advance of a year in terms of funding and facilities and so on, so that is under active consideration, not just in terms of justice beyond victims but across the whole of government, how we can give that. There are some situations where you wouldn't do that, but yes, I think it's a point that's been accepted. We've argued that we should be in that position from the UK Government, so we can't really argue against other organisations wanting that same kind of stability. I'm just watching the time. We've got two or three final questions if we may would like to ask Cabinet Secretary. I'll hand over to Fulton MacGregor in relation to community sentences. Thank you. I'll try to be brief. Cabinet Secretary, you said a minute ago I think in response to Katie Clark that you think that your prediction is that we'll need more investment in community services and I really welcome that. I think that you're right. Have you been able to expand a wee bit on the current Government thinking around that? I know that there has been an uplift already, but do you envisage that being more and how might it link into some of the other policy areas that you're talking about such as the use of remand, less people within prisons etc? Are you able to talk through that? I think that one thing I would say both in relation to community sentences, an interesting point that you made on remand, is that I think that we want to have in mind very much the victims of crimes in relation to that. The concern that that can give rise to for victims if somebody goes on to community sentences, not because the Government tells them but a court orders that. I think that there is a continuing concern in some cases from an identifiable victim of that crime, so we are looking at what more we can do to make sure that people are kept up to date and assurance is given. That has an interrelationship with things like electronic monitoring and things like that. It's also true to say that it's often termed as soft justice, but the simple fact is that the reconviction rates for people that are put on community justice and community sentences is lower. If what we all agree is that we want to see less crime in society, less people being affected by crime, less victims, then you want to do what's most effective. In some cases, community justice is community sentences are the effective response. It's been substantially disrupted during Covid. I acknowledge that fact, but I think that we want to make sure that both through the review, which we're obliged to carry out under the 2016-17 act into how it's currently working, and you'll have seen the Public Audit Committee has made a number of pretty trenchant kind of observations about what's currently happening, so we're obliged to review that, but going forward you'll also know that it's something that our community justice has a relationship to the new consultation that has just finished on the national care service. All those things play into the fact that we think that community sentencing has a vital role. Anything that can reduce crime and reconviction is something that you have to look very seriously at, and whether somebody benefits from that more than being in a prison, for example. On that point, Cabinet Secretary, I would agree with much of what you said, but I often think that the issue around what victims want in the toughness of justice is a discussion that we have at political level, rather than on the ground in my own experience. I refer members to my registered interest. As a criminal justice social worker for years, what victims want primarily is for the offence not to be repeated again into somebody else, particularly for those less serious, so I didn't really come across a lot of people in all those years who were demanding and shouting for prison sentences. They were wanting good outcomes for the whole community. How much are you going to be looking at the pandemic on the budget implications of community sentencing? I was speaking to some ex-colleagues just recently on what they are saying in terms of community payback orders, and I am sure that this is something that the Government will pick up. There has been a real change in the shift in how these are being delivered, because people are no longer able to come into the offices as easily, or are able to say, I cannot go into the office because I want to protect myself from Covid, which I think is fair enough. It is putting an extra demand on the services there, so is that something that will be taken into account as we try to deliver good and effective community sentences as well that the public and victims can have faith in? I have made the point previously, which is a pretty obvious point to make, that Covid is not finished with us yet, and we have to continue to take that into account in whatever we do. However, we want to aim to have a system in place that is beyond Covid, and which is the best one that can suit. The review seems to me that the committee will look at it as well, but the review of community justice—I think that we have to acknowledge that we have, even notwithstanding Covid, we have got further to go in relation to that. How it is best dealt with, how it interacts with the national care service, I think that is quite important, but it does require more investment. I do not know Neil Findlay, if you want to come back on that. Again, just briefly to confirm exactly as you are describing it, that the experience from front-line staff is that some elements of community justice have worked well in the adjustments that were made for Covid, others have not worked so well, and they are working to learn the lessons from that in terms of how we go forward. One other development that we have made is establishing a funding group with the third sector and local authorities and community justice Scotland to look at how we make the most effective use of the resources that are available for community justice, and that will pick up specifically on the points that you are raising about what is the evidence of what works well and the best way for us to use those resources coming out of the pandemic. I will move on to Rona Mackay. I think that you would like to ask some questions about secure care for children, and then we will finish off with a couple of questions around victims. I think that everyone has agreed that we have to keep children out of prison, and I would like to ask about the current funding model for secure care for children. While the money does not come out of the justice budget, I am also aware that, Cabinet Secretary, you are having a meeting with the director of a secure care unit in my constituency next month. Is this something that is going to be looked at because the current situation, and we heard that in the last session of the Justice Committee, it seems odd to say the least, and it is not adequate in the view of the people who are delivering secure care. Is it something that is on the agenda? Yes, as you have said, there is only a portion of that that comes to justice, if you like. I think that there has been substantial progress made already. Since 2000, the number of 18s preceded against in Scotland's courts has fallen by 81 per cent. The number of under-18s in custody—again, I know that that is a justice response—has decreased by 79 per cent, and there has been an 81 per cent reduction in children referred to the children's reporter on offence grounds. We are looking closely at the future funding of secure care. Officials are discussing specific proposals with COSLA and other partners, and perhaps we can be summarised at this stage as being investing in change, just as you suggested in your question, guaranteeing accessibility and also keeping the promise as well. I expect to be able, at least on the justice elements of that, to provide a further update to the committee early next year if the committee would find that to be useful. I wonder if we can maybe just ask if we can be kept updated on that progress around the secure care funding model. I will bring this session to a close with just some final questions on victims, Russell Findlay, and then Jamie Greene. If you can make your questions as brief as possible. I think that Jamie was going to go first, was he not? If you do not want to, I thought that that was understandable. The victims' support budget was cut in 2021-22 from the previous year's £18.7 million to £18.2 million. Does that give the impression to victims of crime that they are not always given due consideration and that, indeed, sometimes there is a perception that the system is geared towards the rights and considerations of those committing the crimes? That would be contrary to what I have said in relation to, for example, the three-year funding in terms of victims' fund that we are producing. We are finding that certainty, which I think amounts to around £18 million in its own rights. I have mentioned victims a number of times. The reason for that is that there are a number of other proposals that I have mentioned in relation to Fulton MacGregor's questions around community justice and, when people demand, how we can do more within the system. It would not necessarily mean spending more money giving to victims' organisations, but how we can do more to take into account the needs of victims. For example, somebody was released on bail and there is a victim. What more we can do in relation to electronic monitoring will provide more information to victims. Not all of it is about headline funding, but in terms of funding, the victim surcharge fund will increase over time. That, so far, has allowed £157,000 to be shared amongst victims of crime. We are also expecting that to increase over time to £1 million a year. We also have the proposals for a victims commissioner to be appointed. We have said that, when the victims commissioner and any commissioner's office that you establish takes up a fair bit of money and it is a big commitment, that will not affect the money going otherwise to victims' organisations. We have a good track record in relation to victims, whether it is a victim surcharge fund or a commitment to look further at the victim notification scheme and to expand it into different areas. I have mentioned at the very start about our emerging justice strategy, and it puts victims at the very front of that. I do not know if you want to add in to that. Just if I can, specifically on that point, in the time that I have been justice director funding for victims' organisations since 2014 has gone up from £5.6 million to over £18 million, so a significant increase over the median term on the specific point about the change in funding this year. We had a very specific programme of £2 million a year over three years that we provided that was targeted funding that we were providing from the justice portfolio, but to support the improvement of forensic medical examination facilities for victims of sexual offending. That was a really positive example of us working collaboratively with our health colleagues, where, through the chief medical officer's task force, they were driving forward improvement in services for victims of sexual offending, but we were providing capital funding time-limited from the justice portfolio budget. That three-year programme came to an end in 2021. With the passage of the bill through Parliament in the end of the last session, the responsibility for the ongoing management and funding of those facilities was clearly set within the NHS responsibilities. In fact, in terms of revenue funding for victims actually increased, the reduction was because of that £2 million a year coming to an end after a fixed three-year period. Just one last question. How much will the victims commissioner cost? It is not possible to say definitively, but you can probably get a good idea from looking at the establishment of previous commissioners' offices. For example, the veterans commissioner, which was heavily involved in, might give an indication of that, and that can be readily obtained by SPICE. Final question from Mr Greene. Super quick, please. Thank you. Just to put it into context, the justice budget is about £2.9 billion, and we are only now talking at the end of the session about supporting victims of a budget of £18 million, so you can see why, relatively speaking, to the outside world it may seem that the focus is in the wrong place. On the Victim Surcharge Fund, I am glad that you mentioned it, because the expectation from your Government was that it would generate £1 million a year. That was in your 2016 manifesto. We know that it has only generated £157,000. Why is such a shortfall and what confidence can we have that, in future, it will generate meaningful amounts of money to support the victims of crime? I would imagine that I would be happy to get further information on that and provide a detailed response to the member. I would imagine that, if you look, it is predicated on the value of fines and convictions, and there has been pretty big disruption to that process happening in our court system. I would imagine that that is what we would account for it, but I am happy to look further into it and come back to the committee if it helps with any other information that might be relevant in relation to that. I thank you for your attendance today, Mr Renwick and Mr McGilverry. I appreciate your time. We will now take a short five-minute break before we move on to the next agenda item. The next item is consideration of a letter from the Minister for Community Safety on the Scottish Government's plans for the control of dogs under review of existing legislation, and I refer members to paper 3 from the clerks. Before I ask members for comments, I would like to put on record our condolences to the family of Jack Lyss in Wales, who sadly lost his life earlier in the week. The control of dogs is clearly a very serious matter, and I am pleased that the minister has responded to our questions on what is being done to update the legislation in this area as a result of work done by the previous public audit committee in its post-legislative review of the 2010 act. The minister's letter indicates that the Scottish Government is committed to reviewing the 1991 act with a view to legislation within this parliamentary session. I think that that is to be welcomed, but we need to keep an eye on the timetable for that. The minister's letter also states that she will be bringing forward a statutory instrument to establish a control of dogs database, and I believe that the SSI will be considered by the local government housing and planning committee as this relates to the powers of local government. Do members have any further comments on the content of the letter at all? I would reiterate and endorse what the chair has said on relation to the 10-year-old child that was killed in Wales this week. Of course, that continues to be a massive issue in Scotland, particularly for postal workers. I suggest that the committee would want to encourage the Government to come forward with legislation at the earliest opportunity. I know that they are already involved in discussions, but I would ask that they, in particular, involve the communication workers union and postal workers' voices in that process. Thank you very much for that. Can I suggest that we note the content of the letter? Note that the SSI is being taken forward by a different committee, and we will keep the timetable for the review of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act under review. Are members happy with that? Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 17 November, when we will seek to agree our budget report and also a number of reports from our round table sessions. We will now move into private session for the final agenda item.