���˿���

Thank you. That is helpful.

I will let other members come in; I might come back in later.

I want to follow on from my previous line of questioning around scenario planning. Is there any concern from the Prison Service that, due to the events of the past two and a half years, during which you admit that the rehabilitation service that you would like to have provided has been lacking, coupled with the real potential for reverting to a Covid-like clamp down on what happens in prison, that might create a pressure pot leading to increased violence in prisons, further attacks on staff or even the potential for rioting?

Last week, we heard quite clearly from other justice partners that a flat cash settlement or a real-terms cut in your budget would equate either to a reduction in head count or to a pay freeze. It is as simple a choice as that. In your scenario, which of those is most likely, given your commitment to a pay award that is above the public sector pay policy? What are the effects of any potential pay freeze or a reduction in staff if either of those scenarios play out?

What sort of action?

I will start by looking at some of the budgetary pressures and the scenario planning that you have done. You are quite clear in your submission that

“Due to the nature of our functions there is no or at most, very limited, opportunity to the scaling back of our operations without significant risk to health and welfare support ... reputational damage, the loss of”

services

“and risk to operational stability across the estate.”

Will you elaborate on what you mean by that?

To clarify your projections—my colleague Russell Findlay covered some of this—you modelled three scenarios: realistic, optimistic and pessimistic. Initially, I had the impression that you had modelled on the basis of a realistic outcome, but the commentary in your submission tends to lean more towards a pessimistic outcome. Where do you sit on that scale at the moment? Whether your outlook is realistic, optimistic or pessimistic, there is still a funding gap in each scenario.

I am sure that that will be noted by the Government and that you will make your case diligently.

My final point is on an important general theme. A lot of the work that the committee does is centred on outcomes for the general public, including victims of crime. Notwithstanding the evidence that we took last week, what I take from your written submissions is the warning about the risk to the victim-centred approach that your organisations currently take. Any loss of skills or expertise or staffing resource would put massive pressure on that and would perhaps undermine much of the effort that you are making to move towards a more trauma-informed practice of working.

What reassurance can you give the public that, even though you are staring down the barrel of difficult budgets over the next few years, should it transpire that you experience real-terms cuts, victims will still remain at the heart of the justice system, no matter what happens? I am sure that many people who are watching this session will be worried and concerned about the direction of travel.

I want to bring the conversation back to the budget, as pre-budget scrutiny is the purpose of our evidence session. I refer our witnesses to the forecasting and modelling evidence that they gave in their submissions. I will start with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. In its evidence, the service states that the budget resource that it needs

“to deliver justice, tackle case backlogs, investigate COVID deaths and to maintain pay parity ... is as follows”.

From the table that you have provided, I estimate that a cumulative figure of £766 million will be required to perform those duties. A flat cash settlement would deliver £680 million. That is a shortfall of £87 million. You go on to state that that would affect your ability to meet your statutory obligations. What are your statutory obligations? What will an £87 million shortfall look like as regards your ability to deliver services?

That is important because, over the past four or so years, more than 100,000 working days have been lost due to staff absences. That it mostly to do with mental health, although it also to do with physical attacks as well, so that is clearly already an issue for staff.

Will you give me an indication of what staffing levels are like currently? What is the scale of vacancies or understaffing in each custodial institution and across the spectrum of the estate?

I struggled to find a forecast for the next couple of years in your submission, but, reading between the lines, I note that you say that, for 2023-24, you require an uplift in your budget of £40 million to maintain existing services. I presume that that is just for one year. What does the figure look like for the next couple of years over the period of the RSR? How does that equate to what you are forecasting as your budget requirements? In other words, what is your total ask of Government versus what the RSR says will be delivered, if it comes to pass?