Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you said, we have Lady Dorrian’s recommendation, and the committee has heard from the Lord Advocate. One of her main concerns is that the backlog be impacted in a positive way, which single judge trials might help with. There are other factors, too, such as the specialist nature of the judge’s knowledge.

We want to see what comes out of the governance review group. I cannot give you a definitive answer at the moment, but we are mindful of the fact that various groups and political parties, as well as some members of the committee, have serious concerns about the use of single judge trials, as do the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and others in the system. They say that they think that there is not widespread support for such a measure. That is probably reflected in the fact that Lady Dorrian’s review group could not come to a consensus on the matter.

The issue will form part of the work of the governance review group. There is no way that it would ever be proceeded with without full parliamentary involvement, to the extent that that is necessary and appropriate. We must wait and see what the governance review group comes up with.

It is a very good question. It may be useful to hear from Willie Cowan on this, too. The governance group will consider the issue. There is a particular issue around the court considering domestic abuse, although rape will be part of what the court will examine. Where does that properly sit? I know that you will be speaking to the Lord Advocate next week and, as you know, she has discussed how we can get the pace to address the backlog. There is a huge issue with the backlog, and part of that is to do with the impact that it is having on victims and witnesses. We want to deal with the backlog, given the preponderance of sexual assault and rape cases in it. That is one of the drivers for the specialist courts.

It is also true, as I am sure you will know, that the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the bar association have expressed concerns about some of the proposals. That is more to do with judge-only trials, but it concerns both specialist courts and the proposal for judge-only trials. The latter area, at least, was one where there was no consensus when Lady Dorrian’s group considered the matter.

The governance group will have to give more thought to those aspects. Of course, whatever we choose to do, Parliament will get the chance to have a say. If we decided to bring in specialist courts, we would have to legislate in any event. It might be worth hearing from Willie Cowan on some of the detail.

I do not control the court system—it is the judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that deal with it. However, no matter whether we are talking about the courts, the prisons or the police, I would say from all the evidence that I have seen—and I have looked at this in some detail—that they are very cognisant of the rights and safety of individuals. They are trying extremely hard to ensure that they are upheld, and I support them in that process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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