Chamber and committees

Would you recommend that if that were the case?

Indeed. I am sure that we could have a whole session on whether public services are fit for purpose once people are released, and another one on rehabilitation and what we are doing right or not doing right in Scotland.

My final point is a grave one: deaths in custody. Across prisons and other forms of custody, it is estimated that there are around four deaths per week. Those are not solely in prisons, of course, but a worryingly large number of people are dying in the different levels of the prison estate. Is that part of your watching brief? Do you have any views on that, or have you performed any analysis of why those numbers are so high? Have you made any recommendations to the Prison Service or to ministers on how that number can be reduced?

No, I commend you for the work that you have done. However, clearly, all that work will be made more difficult with an increasing population, an antiquated estate and the lack of resource and assistance.

Good morning. I will start with the basics. From your briefing, it seems that Scotland has two issues: sluggish growth in gross domestic product, and low productivity. Is that assertion correct?

The consequentials could be used in that way. Have you had a discussion with ministers about that?

Before you do that, other members might want to speak about specific projects, which would give you an opportunity to elicit some of the detail.

I presume that, when you were looking at overall budgets five to 10 years ago, at the conception stage, buffer zones would have been introduced to cover potential rises in costs or inflationary costs—those could be rises associated with pure inflation or other associated rises. However, it seems that all the headroom has gone completely, and that that is the reason why you are now making prioritisation choices as opposed to wondering how to pay for things that have already been committed to.

Let us face it: very few large-scale infrastructure projects come in under budget, and all governments suffer from things tending to overreach massively. It is a common problem.

However, I want to work out what on earth the Scottish Government will do next when choosing where to spend its money. It had a £5.9 billion capital budget last year. Although, arguably, that will reduce over the coming years, it is still a substantial amount of money, but it is clearly not enough to complete the projects that have hitherto been committed to.

The Auditor General was critical that it is unclear how the Government chooses to prioritise infrastructure spending. What process will the Government go through to decide whether to replace a prison or to build a national treatment centre, for example? There are clearly competing calls for both, depending on which objectives it is trying to meet.

So will nothing be built at all?

I am sure that we can delve into that further. That is a worrying response.

On the capital maintenance backlog, the one thing that struck me as really concerning is in paragraph 26 on page 18 of the Auditor General’s briefing paper:

“The Scottish Government cannot currently provide an overall figure for the level of capital maintenance backlog across the Scottish estate.”

Is that because the information is not available or because the number is available but is just too scary? We know, for example, that the national health service backlog is over £1 billion, and I have heard figures of around £500 million for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I am sure that there are figures for the prisons, the police estate and the courts. That is before we even take into account things such as uncovering reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—in buildings, which is still happening almost weekly.

Are we looking down the barrel of a complete disaster in maintenance backlogs with which we will never be able to catch up? That is perhaps a question for Ms Stafford.

Have you been able to—or have you had to—quantify the financial effect of the Bute house agreement commitments on previous capital commitments? In other words, have you been able to calculate the cost of meeting different objectives—inclusive growth, wellbeing or other net zero objectives—that did not exist when the projects were initially costed? Have you been able to calculate the cost of those changes in government?