Official Report 641KB pdf
09:00
Our next item of business is pre-budget scrutiny for the 2027-28 financial year. This is the committee’s final evidence session in its pre-budget scrutiny programme. Over recent weeks, the committee has gathered a significant amount of evidence from stakeholders and has heard from organisations involved in the delivery, oversight and scrutiny of justice services. Today’s evidence session gives members an opportunity to explore those issues with ministers and officials.
To that end, we are joined by Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and Ivan McKee, the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform, who are accompanied by the following Scottish Government officials: Gabrielle Cahen, team leader, fiscal sustainability strategy; Cat Dalrymple, director of justice; and Don McGillivray, director of safer communities. You are all very welcome, colleagues, and we look forward to hearing your evidence.
I have agreed that we will allow both cabinet secretaries up to five minutes each to make an opening statement. I hand over to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to kick us off.
Good morning, and thank you very much for the invitation to take part in the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the justice portfolio’s priorities and the challenges and opportunities that we face as we prepare for the 2027-28 budget.
The United Kingdom budget that was announced last week has made the Scottish Government’s fiscal position significantly more challenging, because it delivered a real-terms cut to Scotland’s budget of about £650 million in 2027-28. Although Scotland’s budget is expected to increase in cash terms compared with 2026-27, funding has been reduced in real terms, once inflation is taken into account. Those pressures reinforce the need to focus on reform, prevention, productivity and value for money.
Turning to the justice budget, I would like to first reflect on the budget position that was reached last year. Across the justice system, we are investing more than £4.6 billion, which recognises the important role of the justice system in supporting safe, thriving and inclusive communities. When I was last at the committee, I was asked, I think by Ms Chapman, what the definition of a successful justice system was. My answer was:
“One that reduces the number of victims and keeps the community safe.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 7 October 2026; c 11.]
That remains my priority and the priority of the Government. I am committed to delivering a justice system that is focused on the needs of the people and the communities it serves. I want to ensure that Scotland continues to be a safe place to live, work and visit, while maintaining public confidence in policing, courts, prisons, community justice and the wider justice system.
As the committee will be aware, the public sector continues to face substantial financial pressures. Demand across our justice system remains high, while inflationary impacts, workforce costs and increasing complexity of need continue to place significant pressures on budgets. Against that backdrop, difficult choices will have to be made, and it will not be possible to meet all the asks made of the Government.
Our approach is guided by a clear set of principles and priorities: protecting front-line services, maintaining public safety, supporting victims and witnesses, tackling violence against women and girls, and investing whenever possible in reforms that will improve outcomes and deliver long-term value. The justice portfolio plays a critical role in supporting Scotland’s broader economic and social wellbeing. Effective policing, a functioning court system, robust rehabilitation services and preventative approaches to reoffending all contribute to safer communities and reduce future costs to the public purse.
As you would expect, convener, in developing our budget requirements, we are engaging closely with justice partners, including Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Scottish Prison Service, community justice partners and the community and voluntary sector. They have reinforced the significant achievements that have been made by the justice system but also the growing demand and pressures that services are managing.
The choices that are before us are not simply about funding current activity. We must enhance our justice services so that they are sustainable and fit for the future. That requires balancing immediate operational demands with investment in transformation, digital innovation and prevention and early intervention.
Prevention is key to a sustainable justice system. Tackling the root causes of offending and reoffending will improve public safety, ease pressure on services and deliver better outcomes for communities. Achieving that requires action beyond justice, with health, education and housing all playing a vital role.
I will continue to work with our public bodies, my Cabinet colleagues and the committee to maximise the benefits of our investment and support reform and transformation to deliver a sustainable justice system.
I look forward to this evidence session.
Thank you. I hand over to Mr McKee.
I welcome the opportunity to appear alongside my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to discuss with the committee the role of public service reform in supporting the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s justice services.
As the cabinet secretary has outlined, justice organisations are operating in a challenging environment in which they face significant pressures and increasing demand. In that context, public service reform is not a separate programme that sits alongside the justice portfolio; it is about how we improve outcomes while ensuring that services remain sustainable for the future. In the letter that I provided to the committee, I set out how the principles of Scotland’s public service reform strategy apply specifically to the justice portfolio. The central argument is simple: in a constrained fiscal environment, if we are to maintain public safety, access to justice and public confidence, we must reduce avoidable demand, improve the way that services work together and make better use of public resources.
The public service reform strategy is built around three connected themes—prevention, joined-up services and efficient services—and the programme for government has committed us to accelerating that work. In justice, that means intervening early to prevent problems from escalating and addressing the underlying drivers of demand where possible. It also requires a whole-system perspective, recognising that outcomes are shaped by interactions across policing, prosecution, courts, prisons, community justice, health services, local government and the third sector.
We need to make the best possible use of public resources by building on successful reforms that have already been delivered, investing in digital transformation, reducing duplication and ensuring that workforce and financial resources are focused on where they add greatest value. It is important to see that as not just being about reducing costs; it is about improving outcomes, reducing avoidable demand and creating services that are sustainable over the long term.
As I set out in my letter, justice partners are working together to develop a justice portfolio delivery plan. The purpose of that work is to bring greater coherence to reform activity across the portfolio, align action around shared outcomes, identify cross-system opportunities and provide a clearer basis for delivery, monitoring and future investment decisions.
I look forward to discussing those issues further with the committee.
Thank you. That was very helpful. The two of you have set the scene, so I will move on to questions.
In the first part of this discussion, we will focus on front-line police, fire, court and prison services. I will start with policing. Mr Gray, it has been suggested that a flat-cash settlement for policing would lead to a reduction in officer numbers that would take us back to numbers that we have not seen since 2003 or 2004. You would not let that happen on your watch, would you?
I have received the budget ask from Police Scotland, and we are considering it carefully. It is important to acknowledge, first of all, the quarterly police numbers that were reported just yesterday, which show that we have not had a higher level of police numbers since, I think, 2023. Recruitment in the police is strong, and we have funded Police Scotland to allow the continuation of a figure of about 16,500 officers.
We will consider the budget ask and will ensure that we support Police Scotland to make operational deployments as it sees fit. We will also ensure that the protection of police officer numbers is part of the discussion, so that Police Scotland has the necessary resources to meet modern policing needs.
Do you accept that we now have roughly 1,000 fewer full-time equivalent officers than we had in 2013, when the figure was 17,496? That is just a fact, is it not?
Yes, it is. I accept and understand that.
Are you clear on the fact that a flat-cash allocation would lead to a further reduction in the number of officers? You are not disputing that.
I am not disputing that—I understand that. As with much of the justice portfolio, there is not much room for us to achieve savings, because policing is so workforce driven. I recognise that the suggestion that has been laid out in evidence to the committee, alongside a potential pay freeze, would be an implication if we were to move to a flat-cash position.
Okay. How would a reduction in the number of officers be compatible with the Government’s decision to prioritise tackling violence against women and girls?
It would be extremely challenging.
It would indeed. When the Scottish National Party came into government in 2007, we promised an extra 1,000 officers. What is the Government’s target for the number of police officers that we need?
Through the most recent work on funding that has been done with Police Scotland, we have sought to maintain a number of about 16,500. You will be aware of the recruitment challenge that the police faced during the Covid pandemic. Mercifully, the position has recovered. I again cite yesterday’s figures, which show that there has been an increase in recruitment and that we have gone beyond the figure of 16,500, which is very welcome. I appreciate the work that has been done at Tulliallan to ensure that we have a strong police force through a strong focus on recruitment and training.
Why is it the case that 2,915 officers are on modified duties and 1,600 are undeployable? How does that tie in with the challenges that we face in relation to police officer numbers?
I explored those issues the last time I gave evidence—I think that it was Mr Kerr who asked questions about modified duties. The first thing to say is that it is Police Scotland’s responsibility to manage that. However, I have raised with the chief constable and Deputy Chief Constable Smith how the issue is being managed by the police.
Clearly, we must provide a supportive environment so that our police officers receive the necessary support—whether on health, including mental health, or other issues—to enable them to return to duty as quickly as possible, while being dealt with compassionately. I know that DCC Smith and the chief constable are alive to the position that you have narrated and that they want to improve the situation so that more officers can return to full duties as soon as it is possible for them to do so.
You will be well aware of the challenge to policing that is presented by the loss of 0.75 million policing hours to mental health call-outs. We have barely moved the dial on that figure—it has probably been reduced by only about 2 per cent. That is costing the policing budget the best part of £40 million, which is the equivalent of about 480 full-time equivalent officers.
I will direct this question to Ivan McKee. You are Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform because of your experience in the private sector in finding efficiencies and dealing with silo working. Given the well-versed issue of the number of police officers who are called out to deal with non-criminal demand issues, as you look at the state of our public sector, what is your reflection on the fact that we are losing 0.75 million policing hours as a result of mental health call-outs?
That goes back to the Christie commission principles of joining up services and focusing on prevention, as well as to the empowerment agenda, as a way of tackling the problem.
It is important to recognise that the problem that we are talking about exists on a very large scale, because it involves large organisations interacting with one another across a complex landscape. Therefore, it is not simply a challenge for the justice service; it goes much wider than that.
09:15
We need to understand what is driving what and the root causes of the mental health call-outs, so that we can then understand how to measure those, how to put resources in the right place to address the issues and how to monitor the improvements made as a consequence. We need to take a joined-up approach to tackle that, and that requires leadership to take a different approach by thinking outside silos and changing the culture so that money can flow through the system to enable that. It also requires a measurement system, so we are reformatting the national performance framework precisely to address those issues. That will be launched in the near future. We must focus on shifting the dial on those measures, as you have indicated, because that is how to get the right resources in the right places. It takes time to roll out that systemic approach.
I have one more question before I bring in the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Do you accept my belief that justice is sometimes the poor relation and that other things—such as failures in housing for throughcare, or issues in the health service—can get shunted into the justice portfolio? You have had a cross-Government view of things. Is it a fair analysis to say that the burden falls unfairly on the justice portfolio?
The justice portfolio is not unique in that regard, because other portfolios have to address the consequences of things that happen elsewhere in the system. However, you are right that the justice service would probably have very little to do if we lived in a perfect world where everything could be prevented and you are right that it is important to do as much as possible upstream, in other areas, to address societal issues such as poverty, housing and health, because that would reduce the load on the justice system.
There are two parts to public service reform in justice. I have been working within the justice portfolio. There has been some great engagement with leaders in the justice system and a lot of good work has happened, is happening and is planned. It is hugely important to join up measures and to focus on the stuff that happens upstream in a way that will, as you say, reduce the demand on justice services.
I know the cabinet secretary wants to come in something that is a massive problem for the police.
It is, so I appreciate the question and the committee’s focus, which has obviously been driven by significant evidence. I entirely agree with what Mr McKee said in both his answers and I can update the committee about the activity that I have engaged in, along with Ms Oswald, since we last met. I have been able to visit the nook in Aberdeen and to see its work and I suggest that that sort intervention, in a community and voluntary setting, is what is needed from both the health and the justice perspectives.
Mr McKee made a point about knowing where we need to put resources in order to ensure that people know where they can go—which, in the case of the nook, is when they are in mental health distress—and to have somewhere partners can go to ensure that people are provided with the support that they need. I visited the nook in Aberdeen; there is one in Glasgow, too, and there are more to come. It is clear that that sort of intervention will not only reduce the demand for police call-outs, because it is a preventative mental health measure, but provide a supportive place for the police to go when they are the first responders to an incident involving someone who is in mental health distress but does not need to go to an accident and emergency unit. That will lead to a discernible difference in what has been one of the greatest burdens on policing time.
What would your target be? How far do you want to move the dial on that before you next appear in front of the committee? What is your target for a reduction in the number of mental health call-outs? I presume that there is a Government target.
I will be before the committee to look at regulations in a couple of weeks’ time, so I do not think I will be setting myself a target of a few weeks, I certainly want to see a continued—
How about when you come back for post-budget scrutiny?
That is fair, convener. The work that we are doing to support Scottish Action for Mental Health in its roll-out of nook provision is what we need to do in order to ensure that we are providing better and more consistent services across Scotland. That is where we will make the greatest discernible difference in the policing resource that has been deployed.
I entirely agree with the convener that it is inappropriate for uniformed officers to respond to mental health call-outs. It is not what the individual needs and not what police officers need. I believe that the continued roll-out of those nook services, which need to be phased in, built up and developed, and which are the ones that—
You are not answering my question. What is the target?
Forgive me, convener, but I do not have a target. It is dependent on the roll-out of nook services. We are working with Scottish Action for Mental Health on how, where and how quickly those services can be established. That work is being undertaken in the health portfolio to ensure that those services can be provided more consistently.
My question, though, would be: how can the committee hold you and Government to account on whether we are making progress on the issue if there is not a benchmark against which we can measure it?
We are working with Police Scotland on a benchmark of the number of police hours that are lost and on a measure of what success looks like. I have asked the chief constable that question, and we are working with Police Scotland on forming the detail on what those measures can be.
When I had my previous portfolio, I visited the haven in East Lothian, which was a pilot project run by the Edinburgh Children’s Hospital charity. It had a similar premise to the nooks that are now being rolled out by SAMH, in that it provided a non-medicalised but supportive and signposting environment. A wraparound service was exactly what was needed so that people did not need the involvement of community mental health practitioner or to be in acute mental health services, but had an alternative route and were getting support for all the drivers of their poor mental health, including clinical issues and issues relating to housing, social security and other things.
We could go round the houses on this. The only thing that I will caution you on, minister, is the issue with the nook. It is clear as day to the committee that the spike in the call-outs for mental health provision is happening outwith the hours that statutory services operate. Many of those nook services do not operate 24 hours a day, so be very careful before you think that they are a panacea, because they are not.
I want to move on to pressures in the court service. We have received evidence from the Faculty of Advocates that says that the most productive single investment would be an increase in the numbers of the judiciary, but the number of senators is limited by an act of Parliament. Could we increase those numbers as a short-term fix that would be relatively small in cost?
We have already increased the number of judges. I brought through an order in the past couple of months to increase the number of judges in the High Court by one, with the flexibility to provide an additional—
That was for the Sheku Bayoh inquiry, was it not?
Yes, that was because of the particular judge in that setting, but let me conclude. The particular judge in that inquiry is obviously recused in order to take forward the inquiry. The immediate action is to increase the number of senators by one, but there is the flexibility in the order to increase that by a further six over the period. I do not need to come back to committee or Parliament to ask for an increase in the number of senators. The flexibility is now there to allow an increase in the number of senators every time there is a judge-led public inquiry.
The policy note for the Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 2026 shows that the cost of that increase is £318,000 a year. It is one thing to have the legal provision to increase it by six, but will the budget be available to do that? It would alleviate pressure on the High Court.
Conversations are ongoing with the Lord President and the court service on what staffing will be required for the increased number of High Court sittings that are coming in January. Should those resources be required, that will be part of the budget consideration.
I want to finish up on challenges for the Scottish Prison Service. I will come back at the end of our evidence session on the issues relating to Polmont, which I am not particularly happy about.
The prison population is more complex at the moment, and the Scottish Prison Service has acknowledged that. The prison system operates at 109 per cent of its capacity. What is the budget impact of that, and where do you see future prison budgets going?
You will be aware that the figure is just over £50,000 per prisoner place, so you can do the maths to find out the direct implication.
We also have HMP Glasgow and HMP Highland in Inverness coming on stream in the next couple of years. We are staffing up for those, and particularly for Highland, as of now. There is increased resource demand for the Prison Service relating to prison officer numbers. We are working with the Prison Service on its budget ask to reflect the complexity and pressure in the system.
As you will be aware, separately from the budget process, during the summer, we consulted on measures to bring forward a more sustainable prison population and on how we manage offenders and use prison. That is about who prison is there for, what it is there for and what we need to do in our communities on the inevitable release of prisoners. The discussions are still to be had and the decisions are still to be taken on the final conclusions on potential penal reform to bring forward a more sustainable prison population. What the Prison Service is facing in Polmont, which we will come on to discuss and which is an illustration of the issue, is unsustainable and needs to be addressed. Parliament and Government need to address that.
Before I come on to Polmont, are we still on track on HMP Glasgow?
Yes.
Is the budget still in place?
Yes.
We are not expecting any slippage at all on that.
No.
I have asked you this before but, is it the case that, when HMP Glasgow opens, HMP Barlinnie will close for good straight away?
As I have said previously, that is the current intention. However, given the prison population figures that we are working with and the projections on High Court business and other matters, HMP Barlinnie is a resource that might need to be called on, but no decision has been taken on that.
Do you understand that any decision to keep HMP Barlinnie running would have to be planned well in advance? I have had a conversation about that with Mick Stoney. We could not just do that overnight, but it seems to me that the Government is now thinking that that could be an option. Is that right?
As I said, no decision has been taken, so no conversations have been had with the governor. However, I am well aware of the operational need for any decisions in that regard to be taken as early as possible so that the necessary planning can be done. I stress that it is still the intention of the Government and the Prison Service that Barlinnie will close on the opening of HMP Glasgow. However, I am cognisant of the current and projected prison figures, so the decision could still be reviewed.
I will move on to the situation at Polmont. Why was it felt appropriate for the BBC to be briefed on a prison riot that involved 30 inmates and that necessitated officers from four establishments to come in to restore order, but for the Parliament and, in particular, this committee not to be told about that major incident?
That is an operational matter for the Scottish Prison Service. It has operational responsibility, which I have to say it discharged impeccably in restoring order. I was kept informed that evening on the progress of the incident, and I have since written to thank the prison officers who were involved, who were not just from Polmont but from other jails, and who were dispatched to restore order. It was an impeccable restoration of order.
The First Minister set out to you yesterday how careful we need to be in such scenarios, given the prison population measures. It was—
Why was the BBC told when Parliament was not?
The incident was reported at the time. The Sunday Mail and The Sun reported it at the time, on the weekend of the incident, so it was in the public domain. However, we need to be careful. It is an operational matter but I, as justice secretary, as well as the Scottish Prison Service and other agencies that have operational responsibility for maintaining public order such as the police, need to be careful in how we report such incidents and how we ensure that we continue to restore order, given the sensitive nature of the system that we are operating.
Obviously, Ms Pollock gave her interview to the BBC and set out the situation at Polmont, but I stress that the incident was reported at the time—it was in the public domain, and it was reported by the Sunday Mail and The Sun.
So, it is all right for the committee to find out from the Sunday Mail and The Sun.
09:30
Forgive me, convener, but that is not the point that I am making. It was in the public domain. Given the situation around operational issues that arise in the Prison Service and regarding the police, you will understand the sensitive nature of the matter. We need to be incredibly careful around reporting it and the dissemination of such information, given the very sensitive nature of our prison system at present. Mercifully, it was possible to respond to, contain and resolve the situation relatively quickly. However, given where we are with the prison system, I do not want a situation where there could be further disorder elsewhere in the system.
This committee has oversight of your portfolio, and prisons policy in particular. The idea that such information would be concealed or withheld is a gross discourtesy to the Parliament. You and I both served as members of the Westminster Parliament, and we have rightly gone through Tory Government ministers for not providing such information to Parliament. I would be keen for Government and the Prison Service to reflect on how that information can be conveyed to Parliament. There are mechanisms for doing that. The committee should not be finding out about prison riots through the media.
I will now hand over to Ms McNeill.
If I may first add, I am more than happy to reflect on that. As Ms Pollock set out, the incident was, mercifully, not one that we have seen in our prison system for a very long—
She also said that it was not unexpected.
Given the pressures that I have been talking about.
Correct.
That is the reason why, as a Government and as a Parliament, we need to consider how we can make our prison system and prison population sustainable. I agree with Ms Pollock about the incident potentially being an outcome of the population pressures. The point that I am making and that I wish to reflect on is that it is a rare issue. Of course, I will reflect on what information that can be provided to committee, and I will ensure that that is done, not just by me but by Linda Pollock and others across the system.
Good.
I call Ms McNeill.
I had a supplementary question, but I am happy that you have covered it.
That is fine; I will come back to you when we come to questions on the police.
I do not think that your answers are good enough, cabinet secretary. You do not seem to understand that you are accountable to Parliament. Ms Pollock is accountable to you. Correct?
Yes.
You are accountable to Parliament.
Yes. I understand the line of inquiry that Mr Kerr is taking. What took place was an incredibly sensitive operational issue in the prison system. I was—
Six weeks. Six weeks.
If Mr Kerr will allow me to conclude.
Six weeks it took from the moment of the incident—
If Mr Kerr will allow me to conclude—
—for it to go to the BBC and for us to get it.
—he will be able to make his point without interrupting. The—
If we do not interrupt, you might just talk forever—but we might not hear anything.
Let the cabinet secretary answer. I will then hand over to Mr Kerr for his line of questioning.
This was an incredibly sensitive operational issue. On the point that Mr Kerr is making about Linda Pollock’s accountability to me, that was clearly discharged in the way that she and her team kept me briefed overnight. I had a meeting with them that evening, and I had a further meeting with them early on the Saturday morning. They kept me well updated on the response and on how the incident was contained.
Sure.
On the point about the dissemination of the information to committee, as I have said to the committee, I am more than happy to reflect on when there are operational—
I think an apology would be more appropriate.
Convener, when there are operational considerations such as in this case, I am more than happy reflect upon—
If you were informed overnight by Linda Pollock—
—what can be done to ensure that the committee is provided with the necessary update to allow you to hold me accountable, and to ensure—
We cannot hold you—
Mr Kerr.
Cabinet secretary, please finish; I will then bring in Mr Kerr for his line of questioning.
I am more than happy to reflect on the point about ensuring that the committee has sight of the necessary information, within the realms of the operational independence of the Prison Service, the police and others who carry out operational duties that I am briefed on. The committee must understand that I cannot always disseminate information. However, in this instance, I am happy to ensure that there is a proper reflection.
I understand the perspective of the committee and the need to ensure that you can be furnished with information to hold me accountable. I have no fear of that accountability. Mr Kerr and the convener know me well enough to know that I am open and transparent with the Parliament about the challenges that we face, and I will continue to reflect on ensuring that you have the information that you need.
It is precisely because the convener and I both know you from our time in Westminster. If a Conservative home secretary had sat on information about the worst prison riot in a UK prison for six weeks and not informed the Parliament and we had had to learn the details of such an incident through the media, then, rightly, you would have been the first person on your feet on the other side of the chamber when the home secretary finally fessed up. That is why I think that it is appalling that it did not cross your mind to think about reporting the incident to the Parliament. Do you understand where we are coming from?
I understand where you are coming from, although committee members must also understand that, first and foremost, my consideration is for the safety of our prison systems—
Six weeks.
Mr Kerr, my first thought is the safety of our prison system, our prison officers, and those who are incarcerated. I discharge my duties from that perspective. Of course, I am accountable to the committee and the Parliament and I am feeling that accountability this morning, as the First Minister did yesterday. There is no desire not to be as transparent as we possibly can be in operational matters such as this. I have given the commitment to reflect on the dissemination of information on operational decisions on matters such as this to ensure that the committee is given the information that it needs.
I am sure that we will return to the matter, because, as far as many of us on the committee are concerned, it has not concluded.
The SPA has said that a flat-cash settlement would result in nearly 1,000 fewer officers. The convener addressed the issue with you directly. Is there a relationship between the spending review, which was conducted only in January, and the 2027-28 budget?
Yes. The spending review sets out indicative figures for our spending priorities over the course of the spending review period. However, Mr Kerr will also be aware of the UK budget’s intervention and the difference that that makes to the budget that we have available throughout the spending review period. He will acknowledge that there has been a £650 million real-terms reduction: £550 million in resource and £100 million in capital.
To govern is to choose. I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that there is no greater priority than public safety.
Of course. It is the first duty of Government.
The SPA has done the public a service by spelling out what the consequences would be if a flat-cash settlement was to be given. Can you give the committee an assurance, given that the first duty of Government is public safety, that we will not be discussing that scenario after the budget is delivered?
We are engaged in pre-budget scrutiny, rather than setting the budget. I know that Mr Kerr understands that. I cannot set out what will be contained in the budget, beyond saying that we have received Police Scotland’s budget asks, which we are currently considering, and we are working across Government on the prioritisation of our resources. Alongside the priorities that I have already set out on our prisons, the police service is at the forefront of my thinking. As a consequence, I know that it will be at the forefront of the Cabinet’s thinking when it comes to decisions about the allocation of a diminished resource.
Ivan McKee, last week, David Kennedy of the Scottish Police Federation told the committee that the federation had been told by the Government that, in effect, there was a plan to cut public sector spending by 5 per cent overall. Is that correct?
I do not recognise those numbers. As you have already indicated, we have laid out the spending plans for years up to 2029-30 in the recently published spending review. As my colleague Mr Gray has indicated, there are challenges with the funding that will come from the UK Government next year. The Deputy First Minister will announce the budget in short order to address those challenges—
So, the 5 per cent figure is not correct.
I do not recognise that figure. The spending review lays out the numbers that will be available. As we have indicated, those numbers will be subject to the reduction in funding from the UK Government.
You are saying that we should not take the 5 per cent figure literally.
I do not recognise that.
Neil Gray, the Police Scotland submission talks about the consequences of not having the additional investment that the force needs to maintain a police service that we would recognise as being even of the current order. It talks about having to
“prioritise emergency response and the highest threat, risk, and harm”
with
“Prevention and early interventions … limited.”
In fact, last week, the Scottish Police Federation told us that there was effectively no crime prevention work going on in real terms. Is that the level of policing that you would like to see? I doubt that it is.
I think the chief constable would dispute that if she was before the committee.
A resource is provided to Police Scotland and deciding how that resource is utilised is an operational matter for the chief constable. However, I recognise, as I set out in my response to the convener, that the evidence implies that there are only two ways the police can go, and that those are to have a reduction in personnel or a reduction in pay. I recognise the challenges and that is part of what the Government will consider in allocating resources.
It is obvious that the chief constable wants to get back to community policing, which is something that I think we all agree with. Her plan of having two named officers for every ward would require investment, and without that investment she is not going to be able to deliver visible community policing.
Mr Kerr has said to me that to govern is to choose. The allocated resource is provided to the police and how that resource is utilised is an operational matter for the police. However, I recognise that the more resource that is available, the easier it is for the chief constable to be able to do that level of preventative and community work.
Another way of saying that is that it becomes possible for the chief constable to do what she wants to do if she has the resources to do so, and that it is not possible to do what she wants to if she does not have the resources.
We are playing with semantics to some extent. However—
No, because you spoke about things being easy to do.
I recognise that there are challenges and having an increased resource makes things easier, but things are not impossible.
Ivan McKee, I come back to you regarding something that the convener has already mentioned. I feel that both you and Neil Gray missed the point in the answers that you gave to the convener, because the police should not really be responding to mental health calls at all, given that 90 per cent of those calls do not involve any criminality.
Before Mr McKee comes in, it is important to stress that there are some calls that the committee would recognise as ones that the police have to be involved in.
Yes.
What Mr Kerr has put on the record is not a true statement. There are some calls that the police have to respond to.
Yes, some.
The point we are currently wrestling with is that the number is, unfortunately, rather large.
Do you have a number?
I do not have a number before me.
How do you know it is large?
The number of incidents where the police have to be involved is not insignificant.
Can you give us the numbers?
I do not have them before me.
Could you send them to us?
Of course. I will do what I can.
Can you send us the proportion of the total number of calls that are police related?
The point that I am making is that I am not disagreeing with Mr Kerr’s fundamental point, which is that the police are involved in too many call-outs.
Yes.
That is the situation we are attempting to address.
Ivan McKee, how will public service reform transform that picture of 700,000 calls? What will change specifically? We have had some piecemeal discussion today, but you are more strategic, are you not?
We are working closely together and Mr Gray has outlined some of the interventions that can be helpful in that space.
The core principle is about joining up services so that the right people are in the right place at the right time to be able to—
So the police will not be going to mental health calls if they have no policing requirement at all?
Police will need to join up with other services so that the appropriate resource, from the appropriate service, is used to address the particular challenge.
Is that on the agenda? Will we see that in the coming financial year?
Specific steps are being taken, as Mr Gray has outlined, and I have seen other examples of joined-up working. It is important to put that in place to have an impact on that number.
What about citations? I am sorry to rush us on, but we do not have a lot of time. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland produced a report on citation delivery, which is a huge workload for the police. Will public service reform mean that we will stop sending police officers to deliver court citations?
All those areas need to be looked at to be able to address—
They have been looked at. A report was produced and there are 50 recommendations. However, we were told last week that not one of the recommendations has been actioned.
09:45
I will go and look at the specifics of that. I do not know whether Mr Gray has anything to say on that but, more generally, I make the point that we are looking across the whole public sector and indeed beyond precisely in order to identify where there are opportunities to do things—
Will you—
Will you let me finish on this? It is an important point.
Yes.
We are identifying where there are opportunities to do things more efficiently. That is about getting the right resource in the right place so that the limited resource that we have can make the biggest impact. It recognises that that resource is not always used as effectively as it could be.
You have one more minute, Mr Kerr.
You know that I support that, minister. I want you to succeed in your public service reform programme.
I have many questions, but my final question for now is for Neil Gray. Another area where a lot of inefficiency is built in is the way that police officers appear at court. They appear at 9 o’clock in the morning, but they may not be called that day, or they may be called only late in the afternoon. Surely there is a more effective way in which we can use police time when it comes to appearing at court.
Actually, there has been significant work and improvement in that space. I am happy to provide the committee with the detail that I have received from the Lord President and the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service on the ability of police officers to give remote evidence in court hearings from their own police station. That gives them the flexibility to appear remotely to give their evidence so that they are not, as Mr Kerr highlighted, sitting in court and not being called.
It is a fundamental part of a police officer’s duty to give evidence in court, and we cannot move away from that. However, the ability that I have mentioned is a good example of sticking to the principle that Mr McKee has set out and making sure that we have the most efficient use of resources. I am happy to provide the committee with the detail that was provided to me by the Lord President.
I am about to bring in Ms McNeill, but I note that our understanding is that only 13 per cent of officers who appear at court are actually called.
I have data that might be more helpful to the committee in relation to appearance at court, convener.
We will look forward to receiving that.
The chief constable has asked for £110 million, which is a modest request, but she has been told by your department that she should operate on the basis of a flat-cash settlement.
That is not the case.
Are you certain that that is not the case?
Budget decisions affecting either the police or any other public body have not yet been taken, and they will not be taken until the budget process is concluded, which is some weeks away.
If you cannot give the chief constable the £110 million that she has asked for just to stop the outflow of police officers and keep the service as it is, how can you say that it is a matter for the chief constable to worry about?
No—
You say that she should be accountable. If you do not give her the £110 million, why are you not accountable? Why is she accountable?
No—
I received an email this morning from someone who said that they have been waiting for four days for evidence to be collected in a sexual crime case, so this is real to people.
That is completely unacceptable. The £110 million ask is not just a standstill ask. It includes enhancements for prevention and additionality, so it would not be true to say that the £110 million is just a standstill ask.
On Ms McNeill’s point, we are considering—
I did not say that, by the way. I was just saying that the chief constable has been told that it will be a flat-cash settlement. You are saying that that is not the case—
That is not—
She has asked you for that amount. I am asking you how you can say that it is down to the chief constable to be accountable—
I was coming to that.
—as if it is the Police Service that is not good enough and not you.
I was coming to that point. Of course accountability lies with me. We give the resources that allow the police to do their job. The point that I am making, which I also made to Mr Kerr, is not that, once the resources have been passed over, all responsibility is absolved. Of course the resources need to meet the requisite demand. The point that I am making is that, once the resources have been allocated, the chief constable has the discretion and the flexibility to use them as she sees fit in an operational manner.
I understand that, and I will talk about that flexibility. It goes back to the question about flexibility that Ivan McKee was asked. Either the budget has to be good enough or we have to free up police officers’ time. I come back to that point, because I do not believe that you will deliver either of those things.
Last week, I asked an important question that I have asked previously: do you accept that more than £2 billion in savings has been delivered in the police budget over the past 14 years? Does the Government accept that figure?
The savings figure that I am aware of is £290 million. I am not sure where the £2 billion figure has come from.
It is from Police Scotland’s submission to the committee. You might be familiar with the figure that I was familiar with, which is £1 billion, but £2 billion was the figure in the submission to the committee.
Obviously, savings have been accrued from the move to a single force. I would be happy to interrogate the figure that Police Scotland has given and the one that you have suggested. The £290 million and its—
Is your position that the figure is £290 million?
Significant savings have been accrued on the back of the formation of Police Scotland. That has allowed us to ensure that, with a pressed public service budget across the board—I was just speaking about the fact that the UK budget has reduced the amount available for public expenditure in Scotland by £650 million in real terms—
I am sorry to interrupt—I am not trying to be rude—but we have limited time. I am clear in my mind, but I want to see where you stand on this. We can argue about what the figure is another time. I put this question to Ivan McKee, too. Surely, in public service reform, the Government must accept that significant savings have already been made through the centralisation of police and fire services. Ivan McKee’s letter alludes to that. I am talking about the police in particular at the moment. Are there really any more savings that can be made?
I accept that significant savings have been accrued. If we are talking about cumulative budget savings, the figure will, clearly, be closer to the one that Ms McNeill referenced.
Ms McNeill is correct that, as we have spoken about previously, the work that has been done to provide a national force has allowed for operational deployment changes and benefits. This is not only about requiring financial savings; it is about the operational benefits that can be derived for Police Scotland.
There is always more that can be done. Of course, because of that exercise, it is more challenging to achieve the same level of reform, savings and efficiency in the police and fire services that we are seeking in other parts of the public sector.
Ivan McKee, I have the figure here: the claim being made is that £2.3 billion of savings have been made. If the Government cannot provide the police’s ask, something else will have to give. For public service reform, I do not see much left in the budget to scrape, but that is just my view. Well, you tell me—you have already been asking questions about how it could be done, but we do not have any concrete answers.
I have been pursuing a line of questioning about whether we could look at something else. You will be familiar with the structure of Police Scotland. Mistakes were made. The VAT issue was one of them, and the police no longer have the ability to carry forward reserves. Why cannot that be an option to give some flexibility in the police budget?
Is that question for me to answer?
Yes, if you do not mind.
There are a few things to say. First, I will get back to you on the specific numbers, but my understanding is that the figure for annual savings is £290 million and the figure that you provided relates to cumulative savings. That shows the value of that reform, which has freed up resources that can be applied to front-line services and so on.
Secondly, Mr Kerr has helpfully laid out a number of opportunities for doing things more effectively and efficiently and saving police time—and there are others that we are working on. That shows that, although the solutions to such issues often lie outside the justice system, if those issues are addressed in a system that is working as efficiently and effectively as it can be, with joined-up solutions, there is the opportunity for things to be delivered more efficiently. It is always true that there is more that can be delivered, and it is important to recognise that. I do not know whether that answer helps.
Not really. If you need some flexibility in this budget, carrying forward reserves—
In terms of year on year, and carrying forward—
Or multiyear funding. Is it possible to look at that?
No, it is not possible. There are clearly issues. Given her responsibilities, the Deputy First Minister is better placed to answer that. Across the whole public sector, the Scottish Government’s ability to carry forward reserves year to year is severely limited at the top level. We have asked the UK Government for more scope to do that.
But police forces had that ability before the centralisation.
That all gets added up into—
Mr Gray is looking to come in, too.
Sorry, Mr McKee. The correspondence that I am providing to the committee today in response to points raised at my previous evidence session sets out more detailed answers to Ms McNeill’s points on holding reserves. She is correct to say that that was previously possible at a local level when there was closer interaction with local government and we were able to hold a reserve. However, green book rules mean that, when the funds go to a national force, it is not possible to hold reserves.
That is not an option.
It is no longer an option.
That is what I wanted to know.
That is because of the green book rules.
As Ms McNeill is correct to say, and as Mr McKee has set out, the figure that I had in my head of £290 million relates to annual savings, and the £2 billion figure relates to cumulative savings since 2013. According to the Police Scotland submission, that figure is £2.5 billion, so I will check the difference between what we have and what it has.
Thank you for clarifying that, at least.
I go back to this point: if, at the Cabinet table, you cannot provide what is required to deliver the police service that the public want, you have to free up police time. I will be candid with both cabinet secretaries: the complacency is absolutely staggering. If you really care about the service and about delivering it, something else has to change.
The police are unique in that they are the only service whose members cannot walk away from people in accident and emergency departments. That is the truth. Doctors can walk away—it is not their problem. I am sick of listening to people saying, “Progress has been made.” It has not. The police are left with a problem. If the Government does not tell the national health service or other agencies that it is their responsibility, police officers will be left in exactly the same position. If the settlement is not good enough, the service will get worse, and you will have presided over that, having accepted the complacent findings of people telling you, “We are making progress.” Frankly, that is not good enough. If they were doing what was expected of them, we would be able to see how many hours would be freed up for police officers. It is not court time that takes up most of their time; it is attendance at A and E. Surely you must be banging heads together about that. You cannot be satisfied that there has been enough progress.
No—I am not satisfied. I am not complacent, and neither is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, my predecessor in this role. Neither of us is content with the current arrangements.
It is not an either/or situation. It is not that we either free up police time or give the requisite budget; I want to be able to do both. That is where the discussions are leading, because we want to provide the funding required and ensure that police time is freed up, in relation to the courts, as Mr Kerr set out, and in relation to accident and emergency and mental health call-outs, as Ms McNeill set out. Both those matters are not just under consideration; they are being driven by ministers.
I have set out the policy intervention relating to the nook. There is also the manifesto commitment on the 24-hour mental health service. The investment in mental health services within the health service is substantial, and I would expect that to continue to be a priority following the budget.
Ms Chapman has a couple of brief questions in this section. We will then move on to Ms Bland and the next section.
Good morning. I have two questions on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Mr Gray, what is your assessment—or, indeed, have you done an assessment—of the minimum safe operational capacity of the service?
Assessing operational deployment to meet demand is an operational point for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The service delivery review reflected upon those operational demands and on meeting the new challenges that are coming to the service beyond domestic fires—as, mercifully, the incidence of domestic fires has been substantially reduced, thanks to the fantastic preventative action that has been taken by the service. However, operational demands persist, and they are changing. We are working with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that the budget allocation in the coming year is commensurate with ensuring that the service is able to have the infrastructure to meet demand.
10:00
That is not really an answer to my question. One of the challenges is that there does not seem to be a clear, overarching vision for a definition of a safe fire and rescue service, given the changes in demand that you have highlighted, as well as the need for decontamination facilities, the need for fire service stations to be upgraded and the need for rural communities not to be left to wait for hours and hours—never mind the increasing pressures, although that is an issue that the committee will keep coming back to. I am not convinced by the answer that it is an operational matter. I think that the Government should have a clear view on what safe operational capacity is, but I am not hearing that from you.
I do not disagree with the points that Ms Chapman has put on the record about what fits within consideration of what a safe operational requirement looks like. I have visited many of the facilities, including training facilities, to look at how we can enhance those areas, particularly the area of decontamination training for wildfires. I have seen the investment that has been made in Perth, where there is a fantastic £3 million facility. Our firefighters are no longer continually exposed to domestic or other fires because we have been so successful in reducing those incidents, so the facility provides a realistic training environment to ensure that they retain the operational experience that is required when faced with a domestic fire or if they have to decontaminate with personal protective equipment after a wildfire. Previously, because of the rate that officers were deployed to domestic or other fires, they were exposed to fire behaviour in a way that they are not at the moment. That is why it is important to invest in training.
Mr McKee spoke earlier about ensuring that our public services are sustainable and fit for the future. Role expansion for firefighters was agreed to four years ago. The Scottish Government, the service and the Fire Brigades Union all agree, yet the service has been waiting for investment to implement measures that would result in savings being made by the Scottish Ambulance Service, as well as several other public service areas. You talk about joined-up working, but when is the investment going to be made available for role expansion?
I will let Mr Gray talk about the specifics of the investment, but that is a good example on a number of levels, because it recognises that the service is changing. The representatives of the workforce are supportive of the initiative and are keen to drive it, and that talks to the important role of the empowerment agenda.
We have been waiting for four years.
We will come on to talk about that. You are right that it generates efficiencies, if you want to call it that, across other parts of the system.
I agree entirely with Mr McKee that role expansion is wanted by staff and unions and that it has been committed to by the Government. Ms Chapman will recognise that pay, terms and conditions for the fire service are negotiated at UK level. I was hoping to be in London this month in order to have bilateral discussions on this and other issues with the likes of the home secretary, but that is not going to happen, due to availability. However, I want to be able to interact with my UK counterparts on the issue and hear about their relative prioritisation and about how role expansion could be done through the negotiations that take place at a UK level on pay, terms and conditions.
I could go on, but I will leave it there.
There is another instalment of Ms Chapman to come, so do not worry. I will now hand over to Ms Bland.
Good morning. I have three questions about the third sector that I will direct to Mr McKee. I will put them into context for you. Based on the evidence that we have heard across the panels at committee, I would argue that the Scottish Government cannot achieve meaningful public service reform without a sustainable, independent and influential third sector. The third sector must be given the financial security, recognition and decision-making powers that are necessary to fulfil their vital role in supporting our statutory agencies and the communities that they serve. Do you agree?
I see that every week in my own constituency, where organisations are doing fabulous work.
I was heartened by your opening statement, in which you talked about reducing avoidable demand and about prevention, joined-up services and early intervention. There are many organisations within the third sector, and the committee can see an intricate web across the statutory and third sectors.
My first question is this: how will you ensure that public service reform translates into a genuine commitment to sustainable investment in the third sector?
If you read the strategy, you will see that we are very clear about the important role of the third sector. We have workstreams that focus specifically on how the third sector can be given its proper place within the wider system.
It is important to recognise that both my job title and the work that we are taking forward use the words “public service reform” not “public sector reform”. That is done specifically to recognise the wider role of the third sector. We have individuals with third sector experience sitting on the public service reform board, which directs and drives the work that we are taking forward, and I meet frequently with representatives of the third sector. I am absolutely seized of the need for the third sector to take a critical role in delivering that activity.
We heard last week from Karyn McCluskey of Community Justice Scotland. I am going to quote from what she said because she represents many voices from the third sector. She said:
“Funding has not kept pace with inflation, and the funding that is there has not increased year on year. I volunteer in a number of third sector organisations, and I know that we give people redundancy notices every January, because we do not know whether the funding is going to increase. They are a critical part of all of this. I came before the committee a few weeks ago with Sheriff Pattison, and it is clear from what he said that sheriffs rely on the services out there so that they can sentence people properly and with efficacy.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 28 October 2026; c 52.]
I used that quote because I have heard that time and time again from charities in my own region of Central Scotland. What do you say to Ms McCluskey and to people from other charities to reassure them?
You are absolutely right. I have met Karyn on a number of occasions. She has done great work in the past and continues to do so.
That goes to the heart of the preventative agenda, because third sector organisations are often best placed to deliver on that agenda in a cost-effective way and are also often able to join up and integrate services in the way that the PSR work seeks to deliver. That is because they meet individuals and families to address their needs, instead of working on a siloed basis. Those organisations are an exemplar of what we want to roll out more extensively—
So what have they got to look forward to?
I will come on to that.
They are an exemplar of what we want to roll out more extensively as part of the public reform work.
You are absolutely right that those organisations should not have to take the steps that you identify when they come to the year end, so more stable funding is important. Part of the work that we are doing—and this is also set out in the PSR strategy—is to look at the grant funding schemes for third sector organisations. That is because there are too many; they are too complicated; and they are not necessarily integrated, because they are driven through silos within Government rather than being coherent across the piece. There is some work at the moment to understand what the grant-funding schemes are, how they can be better joined up and integrated, and how reporting and assessment within those schemes can be more effectively targeted so as to be less burdensome for third sector organisations and to give them more stability.
My final point is that when we are under budget pressure we are always in danger of looking to cut the things that are easiest to cut instead of protecting the things that are delivering the preventative and integrated agenda in a cost-effective way. The budget process must take its course, but recognising and prioritising the work that the third sector does across portfolios is really important.
That leads me to my next question. Last week, Audit Scotland was very clear about the lack of available data. What evidence does the Scottish Government use to assess the effectiveness, impact and outcomes of its funding for the third sector? What I see is a complicated web, and I am not convinced that we have data that can guarantee that public money is being spent in the right places at the right time. I need to understand what evidence you base decisions on, given that the area is so complex.
Are you asking on what evidence we base decisions about where to allocate funding to the third sector?
Yes.
You are right to say that it is complex. We will never get a perfect answer to this, because understanding the impact of a preventative intervention somewhere else in the system at a later point in time will always, by its nature, be complex. It is always going to be difficult to understand the impact of a third sector intervention before we make it and to be 100 per cent sure about that, but—
So, you cannot guarantee that you are always achieving value for money.
I think that that is a given due to the nature of the third sector, but that should not prevent us from doing the right things, which are, as you identified, joining up the processes and the funding streams and providing certainty on funding.
It is a complex environment and, to be honest, the problem is possibly the opposite. We sometimes take too much of a belt-and-braces approach in seeking assurances rather than understanding that the work that the third sector does in providing local services is almost like providing essential infrastructure. We need to simplify the mechanisms whereby different parts of Government ask for different forms to be filled in or for different information and the process is not necessarily co-ordinated. It is important to reduce that burden on the third sector and streamline the processes whereby we provide funds so that that is done in a more integrated way.
I will bring in the deputy convener briefly before we go back to Ms Chapman.
To build on the point that Ivan McKee just made, during the pandemic, we managed to make the processes much more expedient without opening up the public sector to additional risk of fraud. There is plenty of learning from that that we can build on to give trusted organisations resource in a more efficient way.
The Government has—commendably, in my view—made commitments to three-year funding cycles for the third sector, which should make a huge difference both on the ground and to the security that those organisations have. It will remove the risk that my colleague mentioned, and which Karyn McCluskey spoke to the committee about, of organisations having to issue redundancy notices only to withdraw them again because of the uncertainty, or of losing staff and then having to rehire and retrain them, with all the waste that is involved in that process.
How far away are we from securing three-year funding cycles for the sector, even to some extent? That will make a transformative difference.
I do not have the specifics on that aspect of the work. I think that I am right in saying that Ms Somerville is leading on it, but we will get back to the committee on that. However, your point about how the process operated during Covid is a good example of how, working with trusted organisations, we can deliver.
One of the fundamental challenges that we have lies in breaking out of the traditional siloed approach that has been taken. Money goes to portfolios, which then allocate it to third sector organisations through a plethora of schemes that are focused on what is important to that portfolio rather than what is important across the whole system. Tackling that part of the challenge requires us to do things very differently in how we allocate resources and monitor their use, but that is essential if we are to have a relationship that will allow the third sector to deliver effectively.
If the Government could follow up on that and provide the committee with as much information as possible and indicative timescales, we would welcome that. We would encourage the Government to move as swiftly as possible on it, because it would make a big difference in both the justice portfolio and others.
I will bring in Ms Chapman. We are still on the topic of the third sector and victims.
I will carry on with questions to Mr McKee about grant funding and support for the third sector. In response to Amanda Bland, you said that the third sector should be treated as essential infrastructure. Why is it then that, through the various grant funding systems or because of various Government priorities, third sector organisations are repeatedly asked to reinvent themselves—to create a new project and start something new—even if we know that what they have been doing for the past five years works? How is that sustainable? It is a huge waste of resource and time and, frankly, it is really frustrating for those people, who are just trying to do their jobs.
10:15
You are absolutely correct. That is why the public service reform strategy has a workstream on grant funding that addresses those issues. It is why we have pulled together, for the first time within and across Government, a list of the grant funding that is delivered to the third sector. Such a list did not exist previously. Around 500 grant-funding relationships are on that database.
I am sorry to interrupt, but the issue is not just about the number of funding organisations; it is about what they are seeking.
That is absolutely correct.
The funders are always looking for innovative new projects and asking, “How can we do this differently?” What if we do not need to do it differently, because what we are already doing works?
Yes—I am agreeing with you. You are absolutely correct. The first step is to understand the scale of all this, which is the aim of the work that we have undertaken so far, and the next step is to understand how we can streamline those asks.
You are right that there is a conceptual issue. Silos in Government often feel that they need to be seen to be doing something different. You are absolutely right that, very often, it is better to just do more of the same and to do it consistently and effectively. It needs to be recognised that, because of the nature of the services that those organisations provide, they should be integrated and joined up and not made to fit into the specific silos of the funding mechanisms.
Do you agree that, if third sector organisations are undertaking vital and often life-saving work that complements and supports public sector agencies, they should receive funding that covers the costs for delivering those services? I am talking about a full-cost recovery model, rather than funding for just a project, which does not recognise that the infrastructure of the organisation needs to exist for the project to exist.
Conceptually, I understand what you are saying. Clearly, the mechanics of that—who is funded to do what—is a separate bit of work that needs to be done within the budget constraints, but I understand your point. You need to recognise, though, that third sector organisations receive funding from a variety of sources and not just from Government. As you know, those will often be complementary arrangements, such as matched funding and other funding from the public sector that can give confidence to other providers to fund services.
However, you are right that, in general, that should be as simple as possible and organisations should not have to patch all those things together to continue operating.
That is helpful.
Services such as the victim support services and advocacy services that we have heard about in this committee should be considered to be core justice infrastructure. If they are to be treated as essential and core justice infrastructure, the Scottish Government is beholden to ensure that they have the funding for appropriate premises. It is much the same situation as when we challenge you on ensuring that there are premises and facilities for the fire and rescue service. It is almost as if the Government’s position is that it will fund the salaries of the staff who do the work but not the things that need to exist for the staff to do that work. I just ask you to reflect on that in your conversations.
I have a question for Mr Gray on support for victims and survivors. How will your budget asks and decisions ensure that victims and survivors receive timely and sustained support throughout their engagement with the justice system, rather than it just being counted as a success if a successful referral is made and someone moves from one agency to another?
The organisations that Ms Chapman is speaking about in the community and voluntary sector provide a significant amount of support in that space. Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and others provide substantial support in that regard, and we give them funding to support that endeavour. She will be aware that we are currently working on ensuring that some of those organisations are given the funding that they need to respond to the demands that have been illuminated, partly through this committee’s sessions, but also through events that took place in the summer.
Given that you have mentioned Rape Crisis Scotland, I should probably remind folk that I used to work for a rape crisis centre.
When you say that you will provide the resources to meet demand, what is an acceptable waiting time for somebody who has been raped and who is looking for advocacy and therapeutic support?
Obviously, we want to ensure that that support is provided as quickly as possible. The evidence that has been provided on waiting times in certain parts of the country is the reason why we are looking to provide additional support to those organisations. We would expect to come forward with that following discussion with the organisations, while getting their financial needs properly assessed and worked on. We would expect to be able to provide that in short order.
Do you have an idea of what an acceptable waiting time is, or how long waiting lists should be?
That is a very difficult question to answer.
But it is the question that those organisations grapple with every day.
Of course they do—I understand that. The point that I am making is that the Government wants to ensure that those organisations can provide their services to individuals as quickly as possible. The level of waiting that has been set out by some organisations, which was put in the public domain over the summer, is what prompted the Government to look to intervene and provide additional support. We recognise that some of the waiting times are clearly unacceptable, as is the fact that, in some cases, we have closed waiting lists. That is not where we want to be. That is why we are reviewing the situation and working with the organisations to assess what it would take to speed up the processes.
My final question on this topic is for Mr McKee. Your strategy talks about
“organising services around people … rather than around organisational boundaries”.
What needs to change in public sector agencies to enable that to happen, so that there is a through-flow or coherence between the public sector and the third sector, in the way that currently works well in some places but does not work at all in others? How will that principle apply in the interconnection between the public and third sectors?
I recognise that that principle should inform the other work that we take forward. You are right that it will work better in some places than in others. Clearly, there is a wide range of activity right across all the portfolios in the public sector where that can apply. Some of that comes back to the culture, which is important when it comes to public sector leaders recognising the importance of the third sector. Some of it will come down to how we design services.
As we work our way through the landscape review and the understanding of what effective public services could and should look like in their structural design, streamlining things and ensuring that as many things as possible are integrated at local level is really important. That is where third sector organisations can often add significant value.
Thank you. I will leave my third sector questions there.
I hand over to Ms McNair.
Good morning, cabinet secretaries and officials. It is good to see you.
The Wise Group stated in its written submission for last week’s meeting that poverty has been treated separately from justice spending. How are you addressing the link between poverty, deprivation and justice demand? You touched on that in your opening remarks, Mr McKee, but I ask you to expand on that a wee bit.
I have visited the Wise Group, and its approach and the work that it does are commendable. It has an effective model for addressing that issue. It recognises many dimensions of the challenges that, unfortunately, can lead people to an interaction with the justice system, and it is able to unpick and address those.
The issue comes back to the fundamental point about not thinking or budgeting in silos and understanding that, within Government, the money needs to be joined up effectively on the ground, if I can put it that way, so that it addresses the systemic or holistic issue, where everything, or many things, are joined up and influence other parts of the system. It comes back to the point that we made about siloed funding and the fact that the way in which we have traditionally done things is not helpful in delivering solutions on the ground.
If successful anti-poverty measures were in place, what impact would you expect them to have on the police, courts and prison service?
I will not put a number on it. Although poverty can be a driver—
It is a huge driver.
It is not the only driver. Conversely, to say that everyone who is in poverty will be interacting with the justice system is not a fair representation. The First Minister’s top priority is to address child poverty, and considerable resources have been applied to that. The work that we are doing on preventative budget tagging in the budget process will help us to identify where money has been spent on prevention. As part of that, we will look to understand and quantify the links between interventions and how addressing poverty could have an impact elsewhere in the system, whether that is on the economy, housing, health or justice.
As you can imagine, that is a complicated piece of work; it is not just a question of putting £1 in somewhere and getting X out somewhere else. Understanding those relationships is difficult and complicated, but that should not prevent us from taking those measures and recognising that poverty interventions will positively impact other parts of the public sector.
You are nodding, Mr Gray. Is there anything that you want to add?
Mr McKee makes an important point about budget tagging. We need to see housing investment as justice preventative spend and poverty preventative spend, as well as a good economic contributor in its own right. We need to see education as justice preventative spend. We need to work with that dynamic across Government and remove silos, which is a critical element of public service reform that Mr McKee is taking forward.
Particularly from a budgetary perspective, we need to ensure that we are able to do that. The programme for government sets out how we will do that, with the key areas, principles and outcomes that we are looking to drive at. It is the collective responsibility of the Government and departments to look to achieve those outcomes. We want to have safer communities through a better functioning justice system, and we want to address child poverty, grow the economy and have good public services. All those contribute towards improving the picture and preventing people from interacting with the criminal justice system.
We will move on to the next section on community justice and workforce wellbeing. I hand over to Ms Chapman to lead on that.
This follows on nicely from Marie McNair’s questions. You have recognised that prevention requires up-front investment that might benefit the broader justice system, even if it accrues in a different portfolio or budget line. What practical changes have you already made to this year’s budget process to allow the investment to be made in one place and the benefits or savings to be realised somewhere else? I do not know which of you wants to answer the question first.
Mr McKee might disagree, but, fundamentally, that is a question for the Deputy First Minister about how she is managing the budget process.
In recent years, we have seen a shift towards more outcome-based resourcing and budgeting, rather than budgeting purely on the basis of departmental spend. We are looking in the round at investment areas that could clearly be deemed to be preventative spend for the health service as well as the justice system, which Mr McKee and I have spoken about.
The Deputy First Minister is taking forward that approach. I am due to have a bilateral meeting with her this week to set out some of the areas of discussion and to indicate where I would like there to be investment within my immediate responsibilities and in other portfolios.
We have touched on many of the issues where there are opportunities for preventative activity; Mr Kerr spoke about the work of the police, for example. I believe that we need resourcing to allow preventative work to happen and to relieve pressure on the justice system—I have mentioned housing and social work services, as well as the community and voluntary sector, and community justice services.
You said that you are working with the DFM on that. Is it the DFM who has the authority to agree shared investment across different outcomes in justice, housing, local government and so on?
10:30
We do that collectively as a Government, but as she leads the budget process, informed by the work of Mr McKee from a public service reform perspective, the answer is, ultimately, yes.
Who will be accountable if those systems—
In Government we are collectively accountable, so we are all accountable.
Okay. Can you give me an example of an area where the Government is prepared to spend more now in order to save somewhere else, because it knows that that will reduce harm and keep communities safer in that area and also reduce harm and demand elsewhere in the system?
I referenced increased investment in housing. Taking it back to my portfolio area, I note that we have substantially increased the budget line for community justice and provided increased resourcing in that space. I also referenced the need, from a public protection perspective, to ensure that social work is given the necessary resource to manage individuals and to work with families in order to prevent either the first interaction with the criminal justice system or reoffending.
There are also a number of other areas. Drug and alcohol services have a clear interaction with the justice system. I point to those examples as the most immediate, but there are a range of others where we have seen an increase in resource that is important both for its own ends and as a direct contributor to preventing offending in the first place or reoffending.
If we get prevention right, it will be a different way of funding services. As Ivan McKee said, it involves putting the person at the centre and getting the right services around them, regardless of who provides those services or which budget line they come out of.
Does the conversation about prevention and the different way of thinking require us to shift our thinking on what we measure? Last week, we heard powerful evidence from the Wise Group that measuring stability is better than just recognising that somebody has completed an intervention or that a certain outcome or output is complete. Actually, what matters is whether the person has genuinely moved away from the circumstances that brought them into contact with the justice system, rather than whether they have completed a short-term programme. How do you see what the Government does having to change in response to that?
Mr McKee might have more to say on that, but I am familiar with the Wise Group. I have met it repeatedly both in my current role and in my previous role. It does phenomenal work, both in my constituency and elsewhere.
What you are asking for is difficult to measure, as Mr McKee said earlier. Some of those things are not data points but overall outcome assessments, which are more challenging for us to pull together on a consistent methodological basis. However, that is the type of area that Mr McKee is speaking of when he says that the Government is looking to put the person at the centre and have whole family support as a priority in order to tackle and eradicate child poverty, as well as to support people away from substance dependency, support people to ensure that they are complying with bail conditions or their licence conditions, and to ensure that we stop the escalation of antisocial behaviour into serious criminality. All of that fits into this work, and justice social work and social work services in general have a central role to play in that, as do the police.
The wider public protection landscape, which includes some of our community and voluntary organisations and the information that they are able to pass on, including information that is given not as a data point but on a free-form basis, will be critical to ensuring that we get better outcomes for individuals and their families.
I want to ensure that justice social work—and wider social work services—is given the resource that it needs to manage its case load and to do the preventative work that I was speaking about in my previous answer.
We are working with Joanna Macdonald, the chief social work adviser at the National Social Work Agency, on what we need to have in order to support the workforce properly while also growing it to meet the increasing demand, especially as we are seeking to shift from managing so many individuals within custody towards providing more services in the community to prevent offending happening in the first place and to prevent reoffending occurring. That is a key piece of work that Joanna Macdonald is taking forward for us.
You have hinted at my final question on community justice. Karyn McCluskey was clear that we cannot expect the same number of people in community justice to deal with increasing complexity and increasing demand if we are genuine about our desire to see a shift away from custody. How will you balance the pressing needs around our custodial facilities and the investment that is so desperately needed, given how stretched community justice and justice social work services are already?
I understand that point. That is part of the discussion that Government is currently undertaking, and which Parliament will need to engage with, around ensuring that we have the space within the Scottish Prison Service to manage those offenders who pose a risk to the public and for whom serious sentences have been laid down.
I do not apologise for the fact that there has been a 37 per cent increase in sentence lengths over recent years, nor do I apologise for the fact that there is a rising number of long-term prisoners in incarceration—which is because we are better able to investigate, through the police, and prosecute, through the work of the courts, very serious offending, particularly sexual offending, both historic and current, as well as offending involving serious organised criminality. I commend the work of the police, the courts and the Scottish Prison Service in seeking to disrupt and deal with that.
However, we need to have a conversation to ensure that we have the space to manage those very serious individuals and that we have the capacity in play in the community to support offenders when they are released from custody in a way that reduces reoffending, while preventing offending from happening in the first place and looking to utilise the community disposals better so that we can better manage individuals, rather than seeing custody as being the only answer in some cases.
I think that we still need a little bit more recognition that community justice and justice social work should be seen as equal partners in the justice system. I am not sure that that is always the case. However, I want to move on.
I totally understand that. That is a key thread of work, which is currently being taken forward by the Social Work Agency to inform the budget position.
I have a question on workforce wellbeing. This applies to community justice, to justice social work and to the police—I think that it applies across the board. We are losing staff who are very experienced and skilled, because of the stresses and pressures of their jobs, either because they do not have the number of colleagues that they need or because they are dealing with increasing complexity without appropriate support and supervision. What is your plan to retain experienced staff across the justice portfolio, and how will that be reflected in the budget?
I think that I have already covered the point about where we are with social work services. I recognise that that is a challenge in social work, because we are seeing more complex individuals and more individuals who require support across social work, whether in children’s services, adult services or, indeed, justice services. That work is under way.
I also recognise some of the points that have been raised around the police in relation to modified and reduced duties. I understand that work on that is ongoing with Bex Smith and the police service at present. In response to Ms Chapman’s earlier point, I referenced the work that is being done to provide training and support to the fire service, to ensure that the necessary PPE and other elements are in play, and to ensure that the service is given the requisite support that it needs.
Across our workforce, including in our court service, we are looking to ensure that we have the capacity to be able to deal with the demands that are on it. Ensuring the welfare of those who work in our justice system is paramount, too.
To take the prison service as an example, I hear directly from the Prison Officers Association Scotland, as I do from Linda Pollock, about the challenging environment that prison officers are operating in at present. It is my ambition to make the prison service an attractive place in which to work and do life-changing work with individuals, turning their lives around and ensuring that they return to communities reformed and rehabilitated. That is part of why we are looking at how to provide greater capacity for them to do their work; how to create more space in the prison system; and what potential there is for penal reform, which we consulted on over the summer. It is to ensure that we give our prison officers the space to do the work that they want to do—that is the greatest challenge that they face at present.
Across the board, however, it is not just a numbers game. If you lose prison officers, police officers or third sector workers with years—sometimes decades—of experience, you leave behind workers who do not have that level of experience, and, although they might be very skilled and expert at their jobs, they will not have seen as much as somebody who has been there for 20 years. How do we ensure that we give those staff sufficient time for support and sufficient training?
We have heard stories that certain staff do not have proper appraisal systems, because there is not the time to do that. Others do not have an experienced mentor to whom they can go to sense check everything, because the mentor has resigned due to the stresses. How do we ensure that we build in not just the number of staff but the time and capacity for training, support, supervision and appraisal?
It is not an either/or situation. The numbers clearly help to provide the capacity for people to do their jobs well, but having workforce support is critical. Whether we are talking about the justice system or any other part of public service, looking after our number 1 asset—our workforce—making sure that they are able to do their jobs well and looking after their wellbeing is a priority. Police Scotland is investing significant amounts in ensuring workforce wellbeing. I made the point in response to Mr Kerr that, when officers are on modified or reduced duties, we must support individuals to be able to return to full duties, instead of taking punitive approaches.
Whether we are talking about the police, the Prison Service, the Fire and Rescue Service or the court service, we are looking after individuals’ wellbeing and ensuring that—to pick up on Maggie Chapman’s point—they are in the best possible place to provide the incredible service that they provide. Regardless of which part of the public service they are in, we want to ensure that they are able to do the best job that they can.
That is not the evidence that we have heard. I have another small question.
I will come back to you during the wash-up, because I want to bring in Mr Kerr for a very brief question—if we can have a brief answer—before moving on to the final section.
I want to come in on what Maggie Chapman has just said about that not being the evidence that we have heard. In fact, it is not the evidence that we heard from His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland, Craig Naylor, who, in response to questions from me and Maggie Chapman, made it clear that we are letting down the workforce, particularly in Police Scotland, which is in his purview. He said that “psychological support is patchy”. He said that only a small number of people get the support that they need to help them through the psychological issues that arise from policing due to the things that they deal with. He went on to talk about gaps in “day-to-day supervision”, the absence of objectives, performance management and checks on matters to do with wellbeing, conduct and discipline. He talked about an information technology platform for all of that that is more than 20 years old. It is clearly not a priority, cabinet secretary.
We will put that down as a comment rather than a question, because I want to move us on. It is important that Mr Kerr has put that on the record, but I want to go on to the final section, which is our wash-up, and to come in to land on some of the issues.
10:45
If Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are the poster children for public service reform—this question is directed specifically to Mr McKee—I note that the reform under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 took place prior to your entering the Parliament. What are your candid reflections on how the move to a single service has been for the police and fire services? With the benefit of hindsight, what lessons could we learn from that?
There will be individuals who are better placed to reflect on that than me. I would not call those services “poster children”, but I would say that they are examples of what can be done.
Looked at simply from the perspective of resource allocation, or the effectiveness of that allocation, it is important to recognise that significant costs have been taken out from areas of duplication in the services, which continues to be the case each year, and that resource is available for investing in front-line service delivery. Some aspects are very effective, such as the ability to co-ordinate more effectively—whether facing into organised crime or cybercrime—technology and sharing data. There are always things that you can do better and there will be lots of details that we can learn from, and it is valuable to take those lessons in terms of both the opportunity that is there and as we move forward to roll out restructuring across other parts of the public sector.
I have a final question for Neil Gray before I hand over to Ms McNeill; other colleagues might want to catch my eye, too. We heard from Karyn McCluskey about the lack of a long-term vision for justice. We have heard that a couple of times. Tell me if that is wrong. What is your long-term vision for justice?
The first thing to say is to supplement what Mr McKee has said about police and fire reform. If we had not done that more than a decade ago, we would certainly be doing it now.
On a vision for the justice system, before the summer recess, I clearly set out to the Parliament where I viewed the justice system in general; the interaction of the prison population with not just the prison system but the wider system; and how we must look at what prison is for, who it is for and how those interact. That is clearly looking to set out the changes that are required to ensure that we have a sustainable justice system that serves the needs of victims, witnesses and the public by providing safety, which is the first duty of Government.
We are into the final 10 minutes or so, and I want to give colleagues the opportunity to come in for one last bite of the cherry, as it were. Let us keep questions and answers brief.
I thank both cabinet secretaries for coming along today. Ivan McKee, you responded to the convener by saying that there is definitely something to be learned from the centralisation of the police and fire services. I agree with the centralisation—I wanted to say that for the record. However, some would say that the centralisation of both police and fire has gone beyond that; I will give you some examples to illustrate it. We have lost nearly 1,000 fire officers and nearly 1,000 police officers, give or take—there is a variation in numbers between 900 and 1,000.
This is why I think that it is an important starting point for the budget, and I will give three examples. Police cars in Scotland—to my knowledge, and I have been in one recently—do not have access to the police national computer when on the road, so officers cannot check a number plate. It seems to me that, in the centralisation and in avoiding duplication, there has been a serious level of cuts over the past 14 years and, in my opinion, some of that money should have been held back. I know that you cannot account for your predecessors, and I am not trying to make you accountable for that.
Ours was the last police service in the UK to roll out body-worn cameras, which I think is because we took too much money out of the service.
A report a couple of years ago said that police offices were in such a state of disrepair that it was causing depression among police officers, who were coming to work and not having the basic things that people would expect. The fire service would probably say the same. I want you to acknowledge that, in the past 12 or so years, we have gone beyond efficiency savings. There have been serious cuts over the years—the lack of investment in some areas is testament to that. I wanted you to think about that.
There are two separate issues there. One is that, if we had not done the reforms, we would be content to spend significant resources on things that were—
I agree.
That resource has been made available more widely.
There is a separate question about how much money is spent on the items that you have identified. If we had not done the reforms, we would be in a worse place, because we would be starting three steps back from the starting line before we even started to have that conversation. We would be spending money on duplication and the aspects that were taken out as a consequence of the reorganisation. It is important to consider those issues separately.
Yes. Whatever figure you accept—for example, the chief constable’s—the money does not really matter, because those were savings. What I am saying is that some of them were cuts, and there is no getting away from the fact that that was spent elsewhere in the budget.
I have a question for Mr Gray. Let us return to the issue of Barlinnie prison. You talk about a long-term vision and forward planning in penal reform and prison staff welfare. We all welcome that, but the evidence that we hear does not match it. What alarms me, and what I am confused about, is how you could consider keeping Barlinnie prison open, because of the Government’s lack of forward planning and long-term vision, when it is well documented that Barlinnie is not fit for purpose, and that it should be bulldozed and the staff and prisoners moved to more humane conditions. Why, in one breath, are you talking about penal reform and staff welfare, and, in another, considering keeping the building open and in operation?
As I said in response to a question from the convener, no decision has been taken in that space. It is still the intention that Barlinnie prison will close on the opening of HMP Glasgow. The investment that has been made in Glasgow will provide more modern and up-to-date standards, including the provision of facilities for an ageing cohort, who require additional social care in our prison system.
That being said, our responsibility, which His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons holds us to account for, is to ensure that, whatever facility we have available to us, it meets the highest possible standards. That would be the case regardless of any decisions on keeping Barlinnie prison open or what we need to do to provide additional prison capacity. We need additional prison capacity, and work is ongoing in Government to establish where that capacity can be generated. I have spoken to the committee previously about modular units, the potential for new house blocks and what we need to do around penal reform to ensure that prison is there and available for those who the public need to be protected from. We need to ensure that the significant serious escalation—
You do see my way of thinking.
Of course I do. I perfectly understand the premise of Ms Bland’s question, convener. That is not in dispute. Barlinnie is a Victorian jail—I have seen inside it and it is clearly not up to modern standards. The point that I am making is that, regardless of the decision that is taken on Barlinnie or anywhere else, we need to ensure that the facilities that we have available to us meet modern standards. That will be our consideration in decision making on where capacity can be generated.
Cabinet secretary, you talked about penal reform. We are aware of the need for the reform in the court system that Malcolm Graham has set out. I know that you are well acquainted with that. If you wanted to say anything on that, I am sure that the committee would be interested.
I want to touch briefly on police and fire, and follow up on what some of my colleagues have said. Notwithstanding the fact that there is always room for improvement, have we reached a position where the police and fire services have done their public service reform? You said that, if we had not done that centralisation during Parliament’s past, we would be looking to do it now. What concerns the committee, based on the evidence that we have heard, is that the police and fire services feel that they have more than done their bit to find savings, modernise and do what has to be done. However, the pressure on both services with respect to risk, resilience and public safety seems to be the most acute that it has been during my time in Parliament, so can you reassure us that you are mostly looking elsewhere when it comes to public service reform, because those two services have really played their part?
I know that the deputy convener understands the point that public service reform is about outcomes and not only about generating savings or making efficiencies. The police and fire services have, of course, generated savings: we have established the savings generated by the police service in the past decade and a half, so they have done their bit, in that sense.
To say that public service reform has been completed in those areas would be to miss the opportunities that are available from digitisation and from the data-sharing arrangements that can be put in place. That takes me back to the deputy convener’s first point, because the modernisation of the courts service is an opportunity, as is the work on data-sharing arrangements and joined-up justice that has been taken forward by Malcolm Graham. Those elements are still there for us to work on because they are still aspects of public service reform. We cannot see that work purely in terms of savings or efficiencies, because that is not the driver of public service reform: it is about how to generate better outcomes so that we have better public services at the end of the process. I know that that is the driving force behind Mr McKee’s work. Mr Macpherson’s point about the police and fire services generating savings is well made, but we will not stop doing the work of public service reform that will improve their ability to provide better services. That work is on-going.
I appreciate your putting that on the record.
The thematic focus of today’s meeting is pre-budget scrutiny. I appreciate that you cannot talk about specific discussions, but is there an understanding within the Cabinet of the sheer demand and increasing complexity faced by the services in this portfolio? Is there an understanding that others may have to tighten their belts to make resources available for this area of society and of Government delivery?
Mr McKee is free to contradict me, but I have not been shy in coming forward about the challenges that the justice system faces and I do not think that I am betraying Cabinet confidence in saying that.
I would not contradict that. Mr Gray has been forthcoming on that subject, because that is his job.
I have a couple of important points to make about your earlier question and to reinforce what Mr Gray said. It is clear that a lot of structural reform has taken place in this area and similar work has been done in other areas, such as colleges regionalisation. Mr Gray will also be familiar with work in other areas. For example, in the economy portfolio, the enterprise agencies have done significant work to reduce costs, share services and work together.
There are good examples and it is important to learn from what has been done as we take the work forward. I understand that some portfolios have moved forward faster than others, but it is important to say that more can be done. Members have given examples today of opportunities that still exist to make services more effective and efficient and of work that is still to be done. That is all part of public service reform.
I know that we are at the justice committee talking to the justice secretary about the justice budget. However, the final point that I will make goes back to the point that I made right at the start. If we cannot get ourselves into a place where we are able to join up budgets and get them to deliver more effectively, and where we stop looking at it through a siloed lens, we will not succeed in relation to the broader public service reform work.
That goes back to some of the points that colleagues raised around the need for the NHS, with its enormous resource, to do more to assist justice services in relation to mental health.
Yes. That is one example. There are also many others. However, Ben Macpherson is right that it is important to join that up; otherwise, none of it will succeed.
I am grateful for the time that you have given us this morning. We have covered a lot over the past two hours.
The committee will next meet on 11 November, when we will consider a draft report on our pre-budget scrutiny for 2027-28. Do members agree to consider that draft report in private at next week’s meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
11:00
Meeting suspended.
11:07
On resuming—