Official Report 893KB pdf
Our next item of business is completion of our pre-budget scrutiny. We have one panel of witnesses today and I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this item. I refer members to papers 3 and 4.
I welcome Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs; and Cat Dalrymple, director of justice, and Don McGillivray, director of safer communities, both from the Scottish Government. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.
Thank you for the invitation to take part in the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny process and for the opportunity to make a few brief opening remarks.
Before we look ahead to 2026-27, I will reflect on the justice budget position that was reached this year. We are investing almost £4.2 billion across the portfolio, which is an additional £194 million in comparison with last year. That recognises the fundamental importance of the justice system in supporting safe, thriving and inclusive communities and its role in supporting the First Minister’s priorities. That investment is supporting vital front-line justice services, providing support for victims and witnesses and tackling the underlying drivers of offending.
In looking ahead to next year’s budget, we recognise that the current fiscal and economic environment poses considerable challenges to Scotland’s public finances and that those are forecast to continue into the future. We expect to hear more about that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when she announces the United Kingdom budget later today.
I restate my commitment to securing the best possible budget settlement for the justice portfolio, where we have a good track record to build on. Crime, including violent crime, has fallen under this Government, with recorded crime down by 39 per cent since 2006-07, which means that there are now thousands fewer victims every year in Scotland than there were in 2006-07. However, I recognise that the demands on the justice system continue to increase and I know that the committee has heard some stark statistics while taking evidence in recent weeks.
Alongside that, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is experiencing a shift in demand due to climate-related incidents, wildfires and a number of emerging risks. The justice organisations are all considering how best to deal with those additional operational demands in a challenging financial environment. I recognise the need to continue supporting that system to reform and innovate, putting it into a more sustainable position and making it more able to deal with new and increasing demands while continuing to deliver high-quality public services.
As I said, Scotland’s justice system has a strong track record of reform and innovation, including reform of the police and fire services. I will continue to support our public services and will invest across the justice system in 2026-27 to prevent crime, reduce reoffending and create safer communities with fewer victims of crime. I will continue focusing on ensuring that victims and witnesses are at the heart of our justice system.
I will, of course, work on delivering the justice vision, the First Minister’s priorities and the priorities that are set out in the programme for government, including supporting our front-line organisations to keep people safe. We will continue investing in the prison estate, progressing the next phase of HMP Glasgow and with HMP Highland on track for completion next year.
We will invest in community justice to continue to expand the use of community interventions, and we will continue to invest in third sector organisations to support and bolster social work services to work with other partners. We will support initiatives that target prevention—the key there is to reduce demand. As I said earlier, we will continue to support victims and witnesses of crime.
I will continue to work with our public bodies and my Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we maximise the benefits of our investment, while also supporting on-going reforms and transformation to deliver a more effective and efficient justice system.
I am happy to answer questions.
I will ask my usual opening question to get us under way. According to the evidence that we have received so far in our budget scrutiny, across the main justice partners, a further almost £270 million in resource funding and an extra £134 million in capital are being requested as the bare minimum for 2026-27, in order to prevent some of the consequences that we have heard from different bodies, such as Police Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I am interested in your views on those requests for additional budget. How confident are you of securing that amount of extra budget for the forthcoming year across the justice sector?
I appreciate that it is always difficult for me to give precise answers when we are still waiting on the UK budget. The Scottish budget is to follow on 13 January. However, I can assure the committee that I will, at every twist and turn, advocate for the best possible deal for the justice portfolio. As I have intimated, the economic and financial situation remains exceptionally challenging. Unless things change today, we know from previous information from the UK Government that the resource budget overall for Government is set to increase by 0.5 per cent in real terms. However, once we strip out some demand-led obligations, that will equate to a real-terms cut.
Capital remains particularly challenging. The information that is currently available—as I said, it may all change—is that capital will be lowered in nominal terms in 2026-27 compared to 2025-26, which could amount to a 2.5 per cent real-terms cut. I cannot deny that we are in a challenging position. I very much hope that the overall numbers that are flowing to the Scottish Government as a whole are an improvement, but we will find out today. The Scottish Government’s position is that we need to prioritise public services, because that is in the interests of the people we serve and our communities. It is also about supporting the future and continuing that innovation journey.
On more justice-related specifics, we will continue to work with all our partners to fully understand their needs, particularly around changing demands. One example would be the number of High Court solemn cases, which has increased and is set to continue to increase. Although overall recorded crime has fallen, we see a change in the nature of crime. One example of that is cyber-related incidents.
We want to scrutinise the information, as the committee has been doing, and there will be hard choices to make. I suspect that I will be unable to give everyone everything that they are asking for, and some of the challenges are not helped by employer national insurance contributions, to give one example.
10:45Nonetheless, in past years, we have managed to provide increases in the resource and capital budgets. For example, for the Scottish Police Authority, the resource budget increased by 4 per cent and capital by 16 per cent; and, for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the resource budget increased by 10 per cent and capital by 11 per cent. There are other such examples across the piece, so we will always do our very best.
That sets the tone for my next question, which relates to the impact of legislation. The committee has scrutinised a range of legislation, including two quite significant bills: the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, which are both now acts. Do you have an update on the impact of those new pieces of legislation, from a budget perspective? Is the Government in a position to implement all the provisions in those acts, or will regard need to be given to costs, and will the roll-out be cost dependent?
I can talk about the here and now in relation to what I have outlined to the committee previously about the phased implementation of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, which was a massive piece of legislation with structural and significant reforms. The implementation will start next year. I have previously shared with the committee our overall implementation plan. You will be aware that much of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) 2023—parts 1 and 2—has already been implemented, and the focus next year will be the work that is required on throughcare standards, which requires public engagement. The plans for implementation have not changed. Implementation of legislation is an important feature of our budget planning, as it is for our partners. Whether there are any changes, positive or negative, will depend on the overall budget allocation to justice.
Good morning. The police told us that they need £33.7 million on top of the £104.9 million uplift. Part of the £33.7 million would go towards funding an additional 600 community officers. The committee heard about the role that those officers would play in prevention and proactive policing. There was also a suggestion that that would help to keep the prison population down. Given the need to reduce the prison population, which the cabinet secretary and I have discussed many times, as well as the significant challenges with things such as antisocial behaviour and retail crime, does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, if the budget provides a lesser award than £33.7 million for community officers and others, the police’s ability to do community policing will be compromised and the outcomes will be worse?
My starting point is that, at a fundamental level, we value very much the contribution of community policing. Police Scotland currently balances the need for specialism and expertise in tackling particular forms of crime, whether that is sexual offences, cybercrime or emerging threats to communities and our country—I am thinking particularly about online harms. However, Police Scotland also has a role and often talks about a preventive policing model, and there is absolutely a value in having community police officers, particularly in crime prevention.
I hope that you will forgive me for quoting an example from my constituency, where the Police Scotland local commander, in collaboration with a voluntary sector organisation called Aid & Abet and local authority partners, has implemented a very successful programme called supporting opportunities for life, which is targeted at young people in the 10-to-16 age group around offending behaviour and antisocial behaviour. The initial results of the programme are deeply encouraging. There are partnership models and initiatives that are very much focused on prevention, and I am sure that it is not only my constituency that is benefiting from those.
On additionality, I note that Police Scotland has made a significant ask for additional resource to cover pay, but we are pleased to have secured a very positive two-year pay deal. Some 87 per cent of Police Scotland’s budget goes on pay, so great care must be taken with regard to the sustainability of the service and any suggestion of increasing the numbers. However, we are looking at Police Scotland’s ask in great detail.
The chief constable has been very successful in moving police officers from mid-office roles to the front line. I can double-check the figure, but I recall that that has enabled the equivalent of 500 more officers to go to the front line. I cannot give a commitment here and now, because I do not know my allocation or what the overall Scottish Government’s allocation is, but we are looking very seriously at Police Scotland’s ask. I remind colleagues that the police budget has increased every year since 2016-17, and that has been in order to stabilise police officer numbers.
On the capital side of the police budget, at the start of the meeting, the cabinet secretary rightly talked about the good work that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have done on modernisation and reform. The chief constable told us that Police Scotland is
“the only public sector organisation in Scotland, maybe with the exception of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, that has seen a reduction in resources since its inception.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 5 November 2025; c 32.]
Police Scotland says that the capital budget needs to rise to £93.9 million, which it specifically says is for fleet, systems and policing equipment. If the budget does not meet the figure of £93.9 million, is the cabinet secretary comfortable that we would be asking our police to continue that good work without the capital to do it and that the good modernisation and efficiencies that the cabinet secretary rightly referenced might grind to a halt?
Mr Kerr is quite correct to point to the fact that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have been exemplars with regard to reform. The success of their reforms presents a challenge to other parts of the public sector. The reforms made very significant savings, but those are not savings that now sit in a bank account somewhere; they are savings in terms of resource that did not have to be spent.
The investment in Police Scotland since its reform in 2013 is in excess of £14.5 billion. I am not giving away any state secrets here but, for some time, capital budgets have been very challenged. We have had more than a decade of austerity. The anticipation, based on previous information from the UK Government, is that the overall capital budget for the Scottish Government will reduce in real terms by 2.5 per cent. That will have implications across the board. Nonetheless, the police capital budget for this financial year was increased to £70 million. Police Scotland should be commended for its estates master plan, which shows a clear road to reform and modernisation, as well as its maintenance aspirations. We know that, when resource is available, Police Scotland will always put that capital resource to good use, because it has clear plans, as set out in its estates master plan.
We have tried to help as much as possible with multiyear planning. For the first time in a long time, we have been able to progress indicative plans for three years’ resource and four years’ capital. When the Scottish Government budget is published, it is published alongside the Scottish spending review, the draft infrastructure delivery plan and the draft infrastructure strategy. All of that is about giving as much certainty as we can—we do not have all the cards, powers or control—and supporting coherence, not just across justice but across the public sector.
Staying on policing, I have a specific question about retail crime. Shoplifting is up 15 per cent in the past year, and it is 129 per cent higher than in 2021. The Scottish Government has provided funding for the retail crime task force, which many have welcomed and have said is an important intervention. Is the cabinet secretary making the case for continuing funding for the retail crime task force beyond March 2026? Can she give us any indication of the prospects of success?
I am making a number of cases on a number of issues, not just with respect to policing but across the needs of the justice portfolio. I am heartened that we all seem to agree that the targeted resource for retail crime has been effective. There is some very encouraging data from the retail crime task force; Assistant Chief Constable Mairs has been doing a great job leading that work, which has been valued and appreciated by retailers. I spoke earlier about the changing nature of crime. Crimes such as housebreaking have reduced dramatically over the years, but retail crime, including shoplifting, has continued to rise. My concern about shoplifting is that it can be associated with more organised elements of crime. It certainly has an impact on our economy and is of great concern to retailers, as well as front-line shop workers.
11:00
I will follow on from Liam Kerr’s line of questioning. Police Scotland has a clear budget ask for 2026-27. We are hearing reports of increasing wait times for 101 calls, a lack of response to 999 calls, a lack of road traffic officers, and of officers spending a full shift taking those in custody to various police stations due to some stations or custody suites being closed.
Do you believe that the figures that Police Scotland has asked for will be sufficient to meet the increasing pressure and complexity of work that the police are dealing with?
Just as the committee scrutinises the Government and justice partners, I have a role in scrutinising all the asks, whether those are made by Police Scotland or by other justice partners.
As I said, the financial situation remains very challenging. Although I will be held to account for the choices made within the justice portfolio budget, I hope that Ms Dowey would concede that that is not all within my hands and is part of the overall Scottish Government budget cake. I have been deeply disappointed that the UK Government, as well as putting an onerous burden on the whole public sector, including policing, by taxing jobs via employer national insurance contributions, has not stumped up for the cost—to the tune of £24 million—of the VIP visits to Scotland over the summer.
I say that to add to the picture of the overall resource and capital allocations to the Scottish Government; not all of that is in my gift. I say candidly to the committee that there will be some hard choices. I deeply respect the professionalism of Police Scotland and of the chief constable in particular. They work exceptionally hard to innovate and to squeeze out any savings that they can make because, at the end of the day, we are all focusing on bolstering front-line policing as much as we can.
Since its inception, Police Scotland has saved much more than was anticipated. I hope that some of that money might come back. Recent press stories have said that the Scottish Government civil service bill has gone up substantially, so, when you are having conversations with your Cabinet colleagues, perhaps you could look at saving money there and allocating it to your portfolio. That would be much appreciated.
It is fair to say, Ms Dowey, that the size and composition of the public sector workforce as a whole is under scrutiny. Work on that is being led by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and her junior minister, Mr McKee.
I reassure the committee that police officers, firefighters, justice social workers and prison officers are all absolutely crucial to public protection because of their front-line roles and I assure members that there is a different consideration for those positions.
I have a final question. The committee heard from Police Scotland that every £25 million less in funding—than has been asked for—will result in the loss of 500 front-line officers. Do you see that as being a real issue for the police in 2026-27?
My focus has been on stabilising the numbers of police officers. That has been a big focus of my portfolio budget negotiations in previous years. Police officer numbers have stabilised, and we continue to have more police officers per head of population than other parts of the UK. That is in the context of our nearest neighbours and comparable jurisdictions. I want to get the best possible deal for the police, for front-line officers and for justice as a whole.
Comparing Scotland with the rest of the UK is quite hard, because Scotland has a lot of rural areas.
I accept that up to a point. There are some large rural parts of England as well, and we also have some densely populated urban areas. We have a ratio of 30 full-time equivalent officers per 10,000 population; in England and Wales, the level is 24, which I think is a significant difference. I understand that our justice partners—and, indeed, politicians—will always argue for more, and I am very respectful of that.
Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the impact of the UK Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions. I have been told by Police Scotland that that has cost it £25 million this year, which is the equivalent of 500 officers. The Scottish Prison Service says that it has a bill of £5 million. We are still awaiting information from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, but I can only imagine that the sums involved there are also fairly substantial. Do you have any figure for the overall cost or impact of that increase for the justice portfolio?
By way of action taken by the Scottish Government in relation to the autumn budget revision, as members may have seen, we provided funding of £23.9 million to the justice portfolio. The purpose of that was to fund 60 per cent of the additional employer national insurance contributions. For the Scottish Police Authority, that came to a little over £15 million; for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it was £3.4 million; for the Scottish Prison Service, it was £3.3 million; for the Courts and Tribunals Service, it was £1.2 million; for the judiciary, it was £500,000; and for other, smaller justice and home affairs public bodies, it was £300,000. That came to a total of around £24 million.
That is 60 per cent of the additional cost, leaving a shortfall of £16 million, which our justice public bodies had to find within the resource that was already allocated to them. I am sure that Mr Hepburn is familiar with the overall cost of £700 million to public services in Scotland, as a result of what I would term a tax on jobs. There is still a shortfall to Scottish public services of £400 million, and there will be pain associated with that.
When you say shortfall, you mean the difference between—
Not met.
You mean the difference between what it costs the public sector and what was provided by the UK Government.
Yes.
Did you say that it was a £400 million difference?
Yes—public services in Scotland still face a £400 million shortfall.
We can broadly apply that across the justice portfolio.
Yes.
That will have a significant impact on what would otherwise be diverted to the front line.
Yes. For the justice portfolio, it would be £16 million. Our mitigation—as far as we can go, at the 60 per cent threshold—will be baselined into budgets.
This is probably an imponderable point, but you can correct me if I am wrong. We will have the UK budget today, and I am wondering whether there has been any indication from the UK Government on this. I suspect that the answer is no, because this would probably have been trailed, and the UK Government is not going to change its position on employer national insurance contributions. However, perhaps more fundamentally, it may change its position on the amount that it will provide to the Scottish Government to cover public services—those in the justice portfolio in this instance.
I am not in a position to offer any foresight on the UK Government’s budget. I just hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not short-change Scotland or treat us as an afterthought.
The Government as a whole, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the First Minister in particular, have been clear that the priorities for the UK budget today should be about growing our economy and investing in public services. Obviously, employer national insurance contributions are a drag on that.
The other priority is the cost of living. We all know about the pain that energy bills cause for households, but the cost of living and the cost of energy also have an impact on public services.
Thank you. That is all from me just now.
My question is about fire services. I hope that the cabinet secretary is making strong representations on that aspect of the budget. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has advised that its total capital requirement to 2030-31 is £354 million and that, if its annual budget were to remain at £47 million over that period, there would be a gap of £119 million. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the poor condition of much of the fire service’s estate and, indeed, the inadequate decontamination facilities that are available for many firefighters. Therefore, is it acceptable for there to be such a shortfall?
It is not acceptable that capital has been squeezed and underfunded by the UK Government for many years—that has been the case for more than a decade now. I accept that there are particular challenges that are unique to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I am well aware of the challenges with its estate and its fire stations and the work that it is doing on decontamination facilities. There has also been an issue with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in 14 of the fire stations.
We all want to see an improvement in those facilities, not least to provide dignity at work for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s employees and front-line firefighters. Last year, we increased the service’s capital budget by 9 per cent. As I said, I want to do my best by all our justice partners. Certainly, the increase to capital for the fire service was not insignificant. Like the police service, it has a good longer-term plan: it knows what it wants to do and what it will need to do. The bottom line is that the budget will depend on the allocations that come to the justice portfolio. I cannot be specific about how much the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s capital budget will increase by.
I would not expect the cabinet secretary to be specific about that today. We have already heard reference to the police and fire services getting a less good share of the cake in the past than other parts of the sector have done. I am sure that she will accept that in recent years the fire service has made considerable savings, which I hope will be taken into account.
I also want to ask about funding for alternatives to custody and for justice social work—the cabinet secretary will be familiar with those areas. Written submissions from local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland have highlighted the impact of the increased complexity of their case loads and the dance that they are having to do without any related increases in their funding.
The cabinet secretary will also be well aware of the restrictions on funding for local government, which has a key role in the delivery of alternatives to custody. I know that she agrees that we need to do something about the rising prison population. Will she say how we will allocate more funding to ensure that justice social work and alternatives to custody are properly funded so that we can provide them as realistic options?
There are several strands to that question. I know that Ms Clark takes a significant interest in community justice and in justice social work. I always appreciate it when people are prepared to champion the work of justice social work staff as much as that of registered social workers. Here I should probably make a declaration, given that in my past life I was a social worker myself.
I accept that there are increasing case loads and complexity. That trend is mirrored in the size of the prison population, as well as in the work that is expected of justice social work staff. Ms Clark will be familiar with the fact that, over the past two years, I have increased justice social work funding by £25 million to £159 million. The useful thing to bear in mind is that none of that £159 million is spent on staff salaries, which come instead from the overall local government settlement. Therefore, the local government settlement has a bearing here and will be important for me, as justice secretary, to consider, just as it will be for other cabinet secretaries.
11:15In the longer term there has been growth in the justice social work workforce. Since 2015, the number of staff there has increased by 18.6 per cent, which is more than double the overall increase in the general social work workforce. However, I am concerned that, over the past year, the number of justice social work staff has decreased a little, by around 3 to 3.5 per cent. One of the reasons why I was an advocate for establishing a national social work agency is that, after the police, social work—not only justice social work, but social work as a whole—is the next biggest public protection workforce in Scotland. In the whole of the social work profession there have been recruitment and retention challenges, particularly for newly qualified staff. The work of the national social work agency will be underpinned by a partnership agreement. Considerable work has been done on that, and there is now a memorandum of understanding with COSLA and our local government partners, who will, of course, be the employers in that respect.
Between the justice portfolio and the education portfolio, there have been endeavours to provide education packages, which offer support for social work students and more innovation around pathways into the profession. For example, starting in this academic year, there will be a graduate apprenticeship in social work. That is a great way to upskill staff in either general social work or justice social work to become registered social workers. A lot of effort is being made to bolster that. On the one hand, I want more resource to be put into justice social work, particularly around broadening the range of electronic monitoring. On the other hand, it is not just about the top line; any growth in investment needs to be matched by a growth in staff.
We might have a time problem, but perhaps I could ask a follow-up question on alternatives to custody and the role of local government.
Sure.
What is available seems to vary across council areas. I fully understand the pressures that local government is under, but what is the cabinet secretary’s view on the availability of alternatives to custody? We have heard from sheriffs that sometimes they simply do not have faith in such alternatives. We have evidence—for example, from responses to freedom of information requests—of community service not happening. The same is true of electronic monitoring, even when it has been ordered by the court. Presumably that is because of resource problems. What is the cabinet secretary’s view on the resource implications of ensuring that robust alternatives to custody are available throughout Scotland?
The number of people and the resource are increasing. My expectation is that, when a court orders something, it will occur.
Ms Clark makes an important point about confidence in the availability of community disposals, and indeed that is why I have had a particular focus on community justice. However, part of the work of the sentencing and penal policy commission is to examine not only how custody operates but how community disposals are used. In short, much more work needs to be done.
Perhaps we can look at that when we get the report.
We move to questions from Rona Mackay.
Good morning. My question is about the rising prison population and the costs caused by that. Can you confirm that it still costs around £50,000 a year to have someone incarcerated?
Yes. I believe that that figure comes from the Scottish Prison Service’s annual report; it is around £52,000.
How does that compare with the cost of the community justice measures that we have just been discussing, such as home detention curfew?
I cannot recall off the top of my head the average cost of a community payback order, but it is obviously significantly less. I can supply the exact figure in due course if it is available.
We know, from the evidence about what works, that the reconviction rate for people who have completed community payback orders is around 28 per cent, whereas the rate for those who have served sentences of less than a year is around 52 per cent. That is why it is important that we continue working on the availability of community sentencing options and do whatever we can, notwithstanding the effects of local decision making, to increase the availability of those options and to increase confidence in them.
That is a stark difference.
I will move to a different topic, which is the need to invest in cybersecurity. We know that cyber risks increasingly pose a threat throughout our society, and not just in the criminal justice sector. What work is the Government doing to support the public sector in that area, and what plans are there for further digitisation? The SCTS has been very firm about the need for modernisation. Do you view that as a priority?
Malcolm Graham of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service always speaks powerfully on the need for investment in cyber resilience. We also know from Police Scotland’s statistics on recorded crimes that there are now around 14,000 cybercrimes each year. That is around double the number from before the Covid pandemic: about 7,700 cybercrimes were recorded in 2019.
Our justice partners have taken various actions. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has had a number of internal audits and structural reviews, with a view to strengthening its cyber resilience. More broadly, earlier this year, Police Scotland set up a cyber and fraud unit, which promotes using a preventative policing model so that the service can be more agile and better co-ordinated.
Just a few weeks ago, I launched the update to our cyber resilience framework, which focuses on not only the public sector but the voluntary sector. The update document, which is entitled “The Strategic Framework for a Cyber Resilient Scotland 2025-2030”, is available for anyone to consult and covers issues such as encouraging people in leadership to position cyber risk assessment and assurance as key priorities.
Resilience needs to be embedded into governance arrangements. That means supporting boards and leadership in their training, including: hammering home that being ready for an incident is imperative; that various tools exist and can be used; that efforts must be made to secure legacy systems; and that when new systems are introduced they must, by default, be secure in their design. Organisations should conduct practice runs for what to do in the event of attacks such as those we have seen happen in public services such as health boards and local authorities.
Another effort on the part of the Scottish Government has been to establish the Scottish cyber co-ordination centre, the aims of which are to improve incident response, recovery and intelligence sharing and to get a much better understanding of cybersecurity maturity, particularly in the public sector. The same applies to the voluntary sector.
The fact that awareness and preparedness are as important as investment is really interesting. Do you recognise that greater digitisation would make for a much more efficient justice system in the long run?
I do. Colleagues will be familiar with the layering of some of the reforms that have already taken place, such as the fact that the summary case management system sits with the digital evidence sharing capability, the use of body-worn video cameras and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s investment in the update of the Office of the Public Guardian’s systems. It is not cheap—far from it—but we are all making that journey.
We move to questions from Pauline McNeill.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I confess that I have not previously heard such stark warnings as I have done in the evidence that we have recently heard from the various justice organisations. You will have heard the chief constable say that she will have to reduce police numbers; the Fire and Rescue Service say that it will have to reduce firefighter numbers; and the SCTS say that there will be further court delays if it does not get what it asked for. Alarmingly, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, said that if she does not get what she has asked for, she
“will not have enough money to run the organisation”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 19 November 2025; c 30.]
You must be concerned about the real crisis that will happen in the justice system if the Government falls short of the asks of those organisations.
Ms McNeill is right that some of the evidence has been stark—I do not think that anybody would demur from that. I am certainly not in the business of reducing police officers and firefighter numbers or of closing prisons, for the obvious reason that we have an overpopulated prison estate as it stands.
I want to continue the progress that has been made with the investments that have happened thus far, particularly in reform and innovation. I take very seriously all the representations that have been made to me and to the committee. However, I must temper things with a certain reality. It is unlikely that we will be able to give everybody everything that they have asked for, but that does not mean that we will not be in a position to protect the front line, maintain our focus on supporting victims and continue with our journey of reform and innovation.
Liam Kerr has already alluded to this, and we have heard it many times. You have said that the police budget has increased since 2016, but the police will also tell us—and it is recorded fact—that £1 billion was taken, or saved, if you like, from the creation of Police Scotland. Notwithstanding what you have told the committee about other ways to reform through digitisation and getting our police officers on the front line, there is not much more scope for savings. Do you acknowledge the figure that the chief constable has given us? She said that we have lost 900 police officers since the creation of Police Scotland. I wondered why that was.
11:30
Ms McNeill has been around the Parliament longer that I have, and she will remember the journey of police and fire reform. Police officers, the Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland are right to point to the savings that that reform has made. There is certainly no duplication within either of those services, so I am very focused on maintaining the front-line numbers, as a minimum. I am not in the business of reducing crucial front-line staff, who are essential to protect the public.
The Scottish police service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are rightly very proud of what they have achieved in their reform programmes, which have assisted with running more sustainable services, notwithstanding the fact that demand on those services is changing, and indeed the fact that the financial climate has changed since the reform in 2013. They rightly challenge other parts of the public sector to look at their reforms and emulate that reform journey.
I do remember the centralisation of those services, and I did not think for a minute that we would be sitting here now realising that that has taken £1 billion out of the budget.
In view of all that, is it time to change the funding model? A number of organisations have raised the question of multiyear funding, and we have been told that it was possible, before centralisation, to carry forward funding. I do not know whether that indicates a flaw in the creation of the new organisations. Given the pressures, is it not now time to consider that?
That is part of the rationale for introducing a Scottish spending review that plans resource for three years and capital for four years. We want to give as much certainty as possible to our partners in justice. That needs to be carefully balanced with the risk that spending plans are disrupted due to events that none of us can predict. I do not think that any of us predicted having to stump up £24 million for an international visit over the summer.
I have looked closely at this, particularly in relation to policing and in the conversations that I have had with the chief constable, and the Scottish Government’s ability to borrow is extremely limited. That is not something that I agree with, and the Government has continued to—
Yes, but the point of my question is that the previous services had flexibility. I understand your point about certainty, but those services had flexibility before the creation of the new organisations. I do not understand why you would not be interested in building that flexibility back into the funding model, notwithstanding the fact that some of that is not in your control—although some of it is.
On the here and now, the borrowing limits on the Scottish Government, set by the UK Government, are a real constraint. However, what is more specific to justice is the fact that, even were Police Scotland to borrow, that would have to be covered by the justice portfolio, so there is no additionality as a result of borrowing by Police Scotland or other justice partners. We are constrained by the lack of flexibility in our overall—
What about carrying reserves forward? That was allowed before, was it not?
I do not know. I will ask.
When policing was a local government service, police forces could carry reserves, but the rule tends to be that national bodies cannot carry reserves forward.
Looking back, was that an error?
No, it is simply an artefact of the change from being a local body to being a national body.
So, it is a requirement.
Those are the broader rules for national bodies—
Nobody can change that.
National bodies do not carry reserves.
Who can change that—the UK Government or the Scottish Government? I would like an answer on that because your chiefs are saying that, if they do not get what they have asked for—we do not yet know the outcome—they are going to run out of money. Some of the organisations have said that. I would have thought that carrying reserves forward would be an obvious thing to consider—unless you do not have the power to allow that. I understand what you said about borrowing powers, but we had flexibility on reserves previously.
The broader point about reserves is that the money still has to come from somewhere. My observation is that, when health and social care partnerships or local authorities have had substantial reserves, that has not gone down well among politicians or the public more widely, and the Scottish Government is not sitting on reserves.
The point that Police Scotland is making is that it put £1 billion back into the Government’s funds, but that, since we created the single force, it is no longer able to carry money over. It gave the money back to you, so maybe it is time for it to keep some to create flexibility, keep officers on the front line and keep the budget healthy. That is the point that is being made; I do not want it to be lost.
I understand the point, but there is not a savings account with money sitting in it. Of course, the figures for the savings that have been made over a number of years are accurate, and that speaks to the fact that one of the outcomes of the reforms is the financial sustainability of services as well as improved outcomes. It is important that we remember the improved outcomes and deliverables from Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, both of which are exemplars with regard to reform.
In its submission, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said that the renewal money—I think that was the phrase; I cannot find it—was not included in the baseline, and it was not sure why that was.
It is the recovery money—the recover, renew and transform programme funds. I understand the arguments, and we are giving due consideration to the request for that budget to be baselined.
Good morning. I think that I have spoken to most committee members already, but I apologise again for having had to move and join the meeting remotely.
Katy Clark started to explore this matter in relation to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. You probably saw last week’s evidence session, when the SFRS advised the committee that it had made a business case to expand the firefighter role, but that had not been funded by the Scottish Government. I think that there was an agreement that you were keen to look at that. Why was that decision made, and could it be reconsidered, given the persuasive case that the SFRS made for the expansion of the role?
There is a very persuasive case to broaden the role of firefighters. I understand that there is great interest in that from the Fire Brigades Union and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. We have been exploring that for some time, and I am particularly interested in it, because it makes sense. The full cost of broadening the role of firefighters is £26 million per year, so it has just been the reality that, in an environment of sometimes difficult choices, we have been unable to resource that. However, I am keen to keep the option on the books and alive. I have asked my officials to explore with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service whether we could look at a phased approach, because it would be another step in our innovation and reform journey. We continue to look at that issue.
On the fiscal flexibility point that Pauline McNeill was exploring, if the cabinet secretary could write with more detail on the current landscape, particularly in relation to reserves and fiscal flexibility options that stakeholders might or might not have, it would be helpful for the committee to understand more about that.
Yes, of course. I hope that I intimated that to Ms McNeill, particularly in relation to reserves; we can set out in more detail the work that we are doing to provide certainty where we can. That is the raison d’être of three-year resource budgets and four-year capital budgets, notwithstanding that a lot can change in that time. It is a very interesting area, and we can put on record some of the limitations with regard to additionality. It is not just a case of whether Police Scotland is able to borrow, because the money still needs to be found, and there needs to be cover for that, at which point we get into where the additionality is for public services and investment.
That is of real interest, given the challenges that we are trying to grapple with.
The next question is about what I feel has been a significant shift in the types of pressures and priorities that Police Scotland in particular is facing compared with in previous years in which we have undertaken budget scrutiny. For example, the chief constable spoke about having to take account of issues such as civil unrest and protests, as well as counter-terrorism work, which we know is a long-standing responsibility—although I think this is the first time that it has been specifically referenced in a budget submission—and major events, including presidential visits at relatively short notice. There is a really shifting picture of priorities that Police Scotland and other services are dealing with.
Will you set out how you plan to incorporate in your forthcoming budget consideration what feel like quite new and emerging priorities across the justice sector?
11:45
In broad terms, I agree with that narrative. We live in a country where people have the right to protest. I, for one, will always protect people’s right to peaceful protest. We are seeing more protests now. Every weekend, there are several protests and counter-protests, not just in all our major cities but in some of our towns and smaller conurbations. Police Scotland and I, as justice secretary, always have a heightened sensitivity and acuity when it comes to broader threats to communities and, indeed, to our country.
You mentioned the work on counter-terrorism. As I pointed out earlier, cyberoffending is increasing, coupled with online harm, whether that is people seeking to exploit the vulnerable or using online activity as a vehicle for other offending behaviour. Police Scotland’s activity over the summer months around serious organised crime has been well documented and has resulted in around 60 individuals being in custody. Of course, there are also major events.
All of that points to a change that has been coming, particularly around online cyberharm. We live in an increasingly globalised world, and criminals and their activities do not just stop at the border. The co-operation between Police Scotland, the National Crime Agency and police forces across the UK is important, as is the work with our European partners. I have recently been engaged in that, for example with the European Union commissioner for justice. Despite Brexit, which has made our co-operation with European partners more complex, there is still a commitment, and a need that is mutually recognised. We are living in a more uncertain world, and events, wars and disputes across the world can play out domestically, too. There is a different environment; I am focused on that as part of our deliberations in and around the budget.
It is interesting to hear your comments about collaboration with European partners. The committee has explored that issue and taken an interest in whether, with the impact of Brexit, justice co-operation within law enforcement remains as robust as it needs to be.
I come back to Pauline McNeill’s line of questioning on prisons. We heard from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service that, with regard to HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow, the SPS will require an increased capital budget of £462 million in 2026-27. That is her overall capital budget, with the bulk going to the construction of HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the construction costs of HMP Glasgow, given the stage that it is currently at, will be met regardless of whether costs increase beyond the current capital budget that the Scottish Prison Service has asked for?
A contract has been signed, which locks in the costs and provides a legal commitment to build the new HMP Glasgow and, of course, to pay for it. Overall, the cost is the best part of £1 billion. There is a profile of the capital cost—increased investment will be required in the forthcoming year in comparison with this year. There is a profile of spend, although that does not mean that it will not change from one year to another—that would not be unusual with large-scale construction projects. However, we are financially and legally committed to the project. I am sure that I do not need to tell anybody on the committee that there is a necessity to replace HMP Barlinnie with HMP Glasgow.
Thank you—that is a helpful clarification.
My final question relates to climate change. All committees have been exploring that in scrutinising efforts and arrangements to reduce carbon emissions across their portfolios. In the justice sector, the issue is highly relevant to prisons, policing and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
Will you outline the work that the Government is undertaking to model and deliver the resource that is needed to allow justice stakeholders to deliver on climate targets for the rest of the decade? What sort of achievable targets does the Government want to set specifically for the justice sector in the first carbon budget, which will cover the 2026-30 period? That is in the context of achieving our stated aim of a 57 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels. There is a wee bit in that question, and it might be something that you can outline in a written follow-up response.
In broad terms, tackling the climate emergency is a priority for the Government as a whole, as has been set out and articulated by the First Minister. Justice is part of that priority in the same way as other portfolios. We will all be expected to make a contribution.
Following on from our discussion about HMP Glasgow, I should say that the new HMP Highland will have zero direct emissions, and no fossil fuels will be burned in the running of the new HMP Glasgow, because it will all be electric. Net zero ambitions are particularly important when it comes to building public facilities. That was certainly a feature when the new HMP Stirling was built. The Scottish Futures Trust also has net zero in its public buildings standards. Such endeavours are sometimes mocked and, at times, they may well add to the cost of building public buildings. However, there is an important expectation for the justice portfolio and elsewhere to consider sustainability in public services.
Our agencies are also expected to do that. Last year, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service published its “Sustainability Strategy 2024-2027”. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been working on plans to build a new community resilience hub in Skye, which will be carbon neutral. Police Scotland is held to account by the SPA, which has key environmental targets, notably in relation to reducing carbon emissions. The SPA also produces an annual report on sustainability.
There is a lot of information available, but I will be happy to follow up with further detail if the convener wishes me to do so.
That would be most helpful.
As there are no more questions from members, we will draw the evidence session to a close. Thank you very much for attending, cabinet secretary and officials. We will suspend for a few minutes to allow for a changeover of Government officials.
11:56 Meeting suspended.