Chamber and committees

My colleague Neil Rennick may be able to say more about the figures, but the extent to which that has been a priority throughout the pandemic is evident when we look at the balance of cases. To clarify, the success that I mentioned relates to summary courts. There has been a reduction of 12,000 cases—from 44,000 to 31,000, more or less. That is proceeding well. However, we do not see the same level of progress when it comes to solemn courts, so a change has been made by the court service to switch resources in order to effect a similar reduction in the solemn side of things—which may include some of the cases that Rona Mackay was talking about.

It might be worth hearing from Neil Rennick about domestic abuse cases.

I think that you know about the processes for accountability that are in train, and I have nothing to add to that.

The resource spending review was based on information coming from the UK Government, and it was about trying to set out a path for the next few years to give some context. The budget itself is separate from, but related to, that process. Between and within portfolios, it is, naturally enough, possible to change those totals. That is part of the process that we are currently undergoing, in discussions with police, fire and the Scottish Prison Service. It is not fixed in stone as per the RSR.

As I have said, the intention is to have HMP Highland as the first net zero prison. Deciding to develop a district heating system for an individual institution is probably outwith the justice portfolio. It would require the cross-Government working with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport that I think you are hinting at. Your point is perhaps whether—especially in relation to Glasgow, which has our largest prison population—having such a system could produce wider benefits. We are still in the formative stages of the process on Barlinnie. Perhaps Donald McGillivray or Neil Rennick will want to say more about that.

There will be substantial calls on the Government to do many things. Those calls will come not least from your party, which will demand, as ever, that health consequentials are passed directly to health and that, as they say, we do not pass go. I concede that it is the Government’s priority to ensure that health consequentials go to health services.

You mentioned the sum of £1.5 billion over two years. I have just mentioned the additional cost of £1.7 billion that we face this year due to the erosion of value caused by inflation. Therefore, there is no question of that money being a bonanza that we can expect to resolve the pressures in our portfolios. However, I will fight my corner for the justice budget and for the police, firefighters, prisons and others. I will fight my corner for the court service, where we are doing tremendous work, with the astonishing reduction in the backlog of summary cases of 12,000 in one year. Of course I will do that.

You used the word “shocking”, and I think that the budget that we have had from Westminster is certainly shocking. Many Government departments, as well as Scotland and Wales, have said that the pressures that we are facing this year are extraordinary. I am sure that you know the situation: the Scottish Government cannot change taxes during the year, and we cannot increase borrowing to cover pay. To have a £1.7 billion diminution in our budget and for that not to be recognised is shocking, I think, and that is the source of many of the pressures that we currently face. My job is to ensure that justice is well served by the budget process and that we maintain and improve the public services that we have under the justice portfolio.

The approach to pay rises will, necessarily, have to take inflation into account. As you will know, the UK Government has projected the start of a significant fall in inflation during the middle of next year, if memory serves me correctly. Inevitably, the approach to pay rises will take into account the real cost of living.

Briefly, there is of course a correlation between the impact of pay rises, our ability to pay for them and the overall budget. I have mentioned that, in the justice portfolio, around 70 per cent of our costs are people costs—whether directly in salaries, in pensions or in other costs. Those costs are significant, and they squeeze out the opportunity to do other things.

When it comes to the pay settlement that we reached this year—I imagine that the same process will inform how we approach further pay rounds—we recognise that police officers, prison officers and firefighters face increases in the cost of living, including in energy costs. We are trying our best to reflect that within the budget.

Although I neither recognise nor agree with your figures, you mentioned a correlation between paying more for pay and a squeeze on other things. This year, as I have mentioned, there has been £700 million of additional pressure so far, but that has not caused the reduction in police officers. That reduction was caused by the fact that Tulliallan was being used for the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and because of the restrictions of Covid. However, Tulliallan has now gone back up to its regular intakes of 300.

However, there is no doubt that there is such a correlation. I do not think that any Government has projected what it will do on pay over the next three or four years. I also make the perhaps obvious point that a 5 per cent pay increase this year does not disappear next year but is built on, so the pressures will grow.

It is our job to make sure that the number of officers in the police service establishment does not fall below the level that we think—and, more importantly, that the chief constable thinks—is necessary to do the job.

We have seen a substantial reduction in that over time as a result of Covid restrictions and a lessening of the need to appear in person for many of those practices. I have had extensive discussions with Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, and it is evident that the biggest problem that GEOAmey has is staffing. We have had a couple of suggestions about how it might best address that situation. The SPS is working closely with it to try to deliver a prisoner transport system that supports the justice system and protects the public. It is developing quite creative modelling to lessen the impact of the staffing issues, including scheduled weekly meetings to develop short, medium and long-term plans to improve the contractual delivery.

I might ask Neil Rennick to confirm the length of the contract. However, as per the contract, performance levels are monitored by the SPS, and any service failures are managed within the terms of the contract. We are aware that GEOAmey is about 70 staff short of the requirements needed to meet its prisoner escorting contractual agreement. Therefore, those things must be managed.

To be perfectly clear, we do not think that GEOAmey is at it. We know about the pressures with regard to getting staff, and we are trying to work our way through that issue.

Neil, do you know how long the contract is?

The SPS has been engaged in discussions with the main subcontractor, Serco. That is really around the transfer being effected in a way that looks after the interests of the staff while looking after the safety of prisoners, too. The SPS is embarked on that process.

The member rightly mentions the costs of inflation. On the idea that we would somehow avoid those costs of inflation were we to go back to or maintain the private contractor, I do not know any private contractor that would want to bid for a contract that did not recognise the costs of inflation. I referred to that in the exchange that I had with Pauline McNeill on Addiewell.

You should bear it in mind that the Kilmarnock iteration of PFI came many years—nine years, I think—before the deal was done for Addiewell, by which time contractors were keen to ensure that the inflation costs were part of the bid that they made. I am not sure that there would be the savings that have been hinted at by trying to ignore inflation. In any event, as regards this Government’s position, we believe that prisons should be in the public sector.

We are not proposing a cut, although you could argue that that might end up being the case, depending on whether there is a real-terms increase. The difference between real terms, which accounts for inflation, and flat terms is an important distinction to make. However, there are some flexibilities between resource and capital that we are examining closely. One example is body-worn cameras. There is obviously a capital cost to those but there is also a substantial revenue cost and we are looking to see what we can do to maximise the capital contribution.

It seems to me that, especially after the early part of the previous decade, between 2010 and 2016—I know that that is going back in history somewhat—we regularly had better capital allocations than resource allocations from the UK Government. We also had fairly frequent allocations of financial transactions, which can be applied only in limited ways. However, now, there is a much greater tightening of the grip on capital provision.

I make the point that the indicative capital funding envelope has been maintained from the spending review that was published in February last year. That maintains essential capital funding for the core justice services. That will always be a priority over new initiatives. It includes core services such as estates, technology and fleet. We have also confirmed more than £500 million of capital for our prisons, including the modernisation of the prison estate, which has been on-going for some time.

It is true to say that the spending power of that capital budget has been eroded by inflation and now pays for significantly less as the cost of raw materials increases. However, we remain committed to substantial capital investment in the justice system. We have to keep it under review and how that is done will be part of our discussion and negotiation with the different parts of the portfolio.

We want to see how the existing ones are working first of all. They are absolutely ground breaking—nowhere else has done anything like that—so it is only right that we ensure that they are having the intended effects before we move on to a further roll-out. That roll-out is intended, but it will be based on our experience with the two units that have been up and running.