Official Report 756KB pdf
Our next item of business is to conclude our evidence-taking as part of our pre-budget scrutiny. I am pleased to be joined by Angela Constance, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, and her officials Mr Don McGillivray, who is the director of safer communities, and Ms Gillian Russell, who is director of justice. Thank you for joining us.
I refer members to papers 1 and 2 and to the written submissions from a range of other organisations, which are set out in the annexe to paper 2. We are, as ever, grateful to everyone who sent in their views.
I intend to allow around 90 minutes for this session and I ask the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.
Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to colleagues. I appreciate the invitation to contribute to the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny.
Before looking forward to 2025-26, let me reflect on the current financial year. In recognition of the fundamental importance of the justice system in supporting safe, thriving and inclusive communities, we are investing almost £3.8 billion this year right across the justice portfolio. That investment is supporting vital front-line services, providing support for victims and witnesses and tackling the underlying drivers of offending.
Nevertheless, we are still feeling the effects of a period of high inflation. Driven by several external factors, that inflation has been particularly acute in relation to our capital budget and, although it has reduced, the budget pressures have remained. The United Kingdom budget is a step in the right direction but we still face significant cost pressures, including through the uncertainty that surrounds the impact of the national insurance hike on public services and the third sector, which means that difficult decisions will still be required. I remain committed to securing the best possible settlement for the justice portfolio and will align our plans with the available resources.
We are starting from a strong position. Crime is at one of the lowest levels of the past 40 years; the reconviction rate is at its lowest rate since records began; dwelling fires have been consistently reducing over the past 10 years; and significant progress has been made in tackling the courts’ backlog. We have also continued to support victims organisations as part of our commitment to put victims at the heart of our justice system.
Members are aware of the challenges around the rise in the prison population. I will continue to progress a range of actions to support a sustainable reduction in that population and, as you know, I am introducing an emergency bill that will change the release process for prisoners.
During the next financial year, I will continue to focus on delivering the priorities set out in “The Vision for Justice in Scotland” and in the programme for government so that we can deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland. That work will include: investing in our public services; prioritising the front line to keep our people safe; supporting our justice agencies to reduce court backlogs; continuing investment in the prison estate and the work towards replacing prisons in Inverness and Glasgow; and progressing delivery of the national community justice strategy.
I will also continue driving forward a range of initiatives on crime prevention and reducing reoffending, which are key to reducing demand across the justice system. I will continue working with our justice organisations and with my cabinet colleagues to ensure that we make the best use of resources to maximise the benefits to individuals and communities, while also supporting on-going reforms and transformation to deliver a more effective and efficient justice system.
I am happy, as always, to answer any questions.
We will move to questions. I remind members to focus on the budget and to keep questions and responses as succinct as possible because our time is limited.
I will kick off with a question about multiyear funding. The organisations that took part in our evidence sessions on budget scrutiny consistently told the committee about the benefits of multiyear funding and said that any move towards that should take place across the whole justice system.
Do you agree that that would bring benefits for long-term planning and managing resources and would give financial certainty? If so, can you provide an update on the Scottish Government’s position on that change?
In general terms, I am very supportive of longer-term planning and multiyear budgets, but putting that theory into practice is a different matter because neither I nor the Scottish Government are given multiyear budgets.
There is some suggestion that the UK Government is considering reviewing spending over a longer timeframe, which would certainly help. I very much agree that there is something inefficient about the annual budgetary process and that our justice stakeholders, justice officials and the Scottish Government as a whole would certainly welcome being able to take a longer-term view.
There are some examples of multiyear funding in Government. The victim-centred approach fund was a three-year fund and longer-term funding is particularly important for capital investment.
You mentioned the UK Government. The UK budget process has recently been completed but the Scottish budget has not yet been announced. Has there been any early consideration of the impact that UK budget announcements will have on justice? For example, we are aware of some possible concern regarding the impact that the budget might have on third sector organisations and know that those organisations are a big part of some service delivery within justice. Has there been any early consideration of what the budget for the justice sector might look like?
Obviously, we want to do as well as we possibly can for our justice agencies. We have a good record to build on in that regard. Crown courts, prisons and community justice courts all received a significant uplift—the fire service as well—and for some of those organisations there was a significant percentage uplift in terms of capital investment.
As you will know, the Scottish Government has welcomed the UK Government’s autumn statement. It is broadly in line with our planning assumptions. Nonetheless, the financial challenges continue. It is a very welcome step in the right direction, but one budget does not end the impact of austerity. We have seen an erosion of the Scottish budget, in particular since 2021, and that is around the cumulative impact of consumer prices index inflation, which has seen price increases of nearly 20 per cent. That, of course, has a huge impact on households but also on Government.
Thank you. I will move straight to members and bring in Liam Kerr.
Good morning. Police Scotland advised the committee that a flat-cash settlement, or a 3 per cent real-terms reduction in funding, would see officer numbers drop to as low as 15,100, or to below 15,000, respectively. It is important to be clear that Deputy Chief Constable Connors followed that up by saying that she did not believe
“that public safety would be compromised”
by such reductions, but that Police Scotland would need
“to prioritise and make more difficult choices around the threat, harm and risk.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 30 October 2024; c 9.]
Does the cabinet secretary accept the projections of those numbers in those financial scenarios? If so, what does the cabinet secretary understand that the police would have to do in terms of prioritisation and making those difficult choices?
Given the operational seniority and expertise of the deputy chief constable, I would accept her narration of scenarios and would always accept her assessment of any impact on public safety. I appreciate that Police Scotland, along with other justice agencies, is, understandably, scenario planning. They will submit budget bids to the Government and be very transparent on that with the committee, as well. On the one hand, you will see their asks on what they could do with additional resource. You will also see in those budget bids what they assess as the consequences if they do not receive their bid in full or, indeed, in the scenario that you have laid out, Mr Kerr, in terms of flat cash or reduction. Obviously, the pay award is an important factor in all that.
In an endeavour to give the committee as much comfort as I can, and given that the budget is not done until it is done—this is pre-budget scrutiny—I point out that the police budget has increased, year on year, since 2016-17. In this financial year, we have seen a record investment of £1.55 billion. That is a big chunk of public money that goes into policing, which has resulted in an additional £75 million for front-line policing. The budget that I secured for Police Scotland last year has enabled the chief constable to meet her commitment to increasing officer numbers to 16,500. I know that she informed the committee that that has been achieved.
I do not want in any way to downplay the significance, if hard choices have to be made. Nonetheless, one could say that past behaviour is the best prediction of future behaviour.
Sticking with the investment that may or may not be coming down the line, in your response to the convener you talked, rightly, about the need for capital investment. The committee heard from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority that, as they put it, an increased capital allocation of £83 million is required to allow them to deliver a basic rolling replacement programme—an estates master plan. If they do not get that—if that is not what they see in the budget—what does the cabinet secretary understand will have to not happen as a result?
09:45
[Inaudible.]—as a result of the overall budget. The specifics of that will be for the chief constable, under the scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority, for very good reason. I point to the fact that, in the budget for this year, capital increased for policing by more than 12 per cent, so we are starting from a more positive base than might otherwise have been the case.
I am very supportive of the work that Police Scotland has taken forward and is endeavouring to take forward in having a longer-term view. It talks about the estates master plan, and there is no doubt that there are aspects of the police estate that need to be reformed, refurbished and repurposed. I am particularly in favour of co-location; I have seen the benefits of police co-locating with other public services—other justice services, in particular—in my constituency.
I am working closely with the police, as well as with other justice partners, on their asks. It is fair to say that it will be somewhat difficult to meet everybody’s ask for additional capital, but I will endeavour to do my very best.
I might press you for one more question, convener.
I say with deep respect, cabinet secretary, that the previous money will no doubt have been very welcome. I have no doubt that the police will have been pleased to receive the sums that you talked about, both in capital and resource. However, this session is about looking forward and about what is coming up in the budget. The committee has heard that, if the police do not get what they need for resource, there will be a drop in officer numbers; if they do not get the £83 million capital allocation, there will be a problem with the rolling replacement programme.
Cabinet secretary, you accepted the seriousness to the police of not being able to deliver one or both of those, in the event that the budget does not deliver the money. What representations have you made to the finance secretary in relation to those specific asks from the police? Have you said to the finance secretary, “This is what we need to see, because the consequences of not seeing that are a disaster”?
I have an on-going dialogue with the finance secretary, as you would expect. That is particularly intensive in this part of the budget process, but bilateral and cross-Government discussions continue all year round. That is part of the necessity of the annual budget process. In many ways, you are never far away from budget planning and looking ahead. I take the point that we are all trying to look to the future, although I think that it is fair and appropriate that I point to our current investment.
I reiterate to Mr Kerr and the committee as a whole that the front line is an absolute priority. That is reflected in the programme for government and the vision for justice. To demonstrate the seriousness with which I take the front line with respect to police and other justice agencies, I say that the current budget has enabled the chief constable to reach her aspiration of 16,500 police officers and that, in this financial year, Police Scotland is having its highest year of recruitment since its inception in 2013.
Good morning to you and your officials, cabinet secretary.
You said that there was a 12 per cent increase in capital for Police Scotland in the past financial year. Given that that was, of course, in the context of a 9 per cent decrease for the Scottish Government overall, that 12 per cent increase clearly shows that investment in policing is a priority for the Government. However, as you have laid out, there is a need, whether it be in the estates review or otherwise, to continue to enhance and rationalise appropriately for a 21st century police force.
In relation to capital, the SPA and Police Scotland mentioned to the committee not only that multiyear funding would be beneficial, but that using the powers in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 to enable the force to borrow and hold reserves could make a difference. Will you comment on those proposals that the SPA made, and can you give us any update on the conversations that the Scottish Government is having, particularly with the SPA? I appreciate that the overall call from the SPA was for more capital investment at a UK level, which would help the Scottish Government provide more capital funding.
I recognise that there have been significant consultations on the modernisation of the police estate. For a start, there are serious dignity at work matters and issues with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. I am also aware—because I answered a parliamentary question on it in the chamber a few months back—that the rationalisation of the police estate released £31 million for reinvestment in policing.
I have had conversations with Police Scotland and the SPA on a number of occasions about borrowing and the holding of reserves. I have also had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the same matter, and I will be facilitating on-going discussions about reform, borrowing and flexibility between the SPA, Police Scotland and the cabinet secretary.
It is fair to say that this is a particularly tricky area, and it is not the first time that justice officials have explored it. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to Police Scotland’s frustrations, because it makes sense to have flexibilities and, particularly when it comes to capital, multiyear funding. We have seen a medium-term increase in the capital that will become available to the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but we await further clarity on the UK Government’s longer-term capital plans.
The difficulty with borrowing is that the UK Government sets the limits of the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers and, because Police Scotland is classified as a public body, any borrowing that it incurs will count against the Scottish Government’s balance sheet. I think that the overall limit in any year for Scottish Government borrowing is £450 million, which is a small amount.
So what makes it tricky is the fact that the Scottish Government is constrained in its capital borrowing powers.
I do not think that I am giving away any state secrets when I say that the Scottish Government has long called for reform of borrowing limits on its overall budget.
Clearly, that would make a difference to the estate and to Police Scotland more generally.
It would make a huge difference.
Mr Macpherson, do you want to keep going and ask an additional question about the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?
In a similar vein, there has been much public deliberation about the capital position of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The SFRS has told the committee that it has a backlog of around £818 million, and that it requires investment to increase by £80 million annually in the next 10 years, compared to the £43 million that it currently receives. What is the Government’s response to that deficit and to what the SFRS has said that it will require for its capital backlog to be met? What is the Government’s position on the need to fund and modernise the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, while ensuring that risk is mitigated and that suitable cover is available in both urban and rural Scotland?
I understand the position that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is facing. I am also very mindful of the extensive parliamentary interest in capital investment for the SFRS. Mr Macpherson correctly narrates that the capital budget for the service was increased by £10 million to £43 million. Apart from the Scottish Prison Service, it had the highest capital increase among the main justice agencies.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is facing a range of significant issues in and around its capital estate—I do not demur from that view. It has commenced work on a programme to address the need for separate areas in order to avoid contamination; I also know that it has ambitions for a hub approach and, indeed, I have visited fire stations, particularly in rural areas, where there is co-location.
Right now, we are wrestling with the fact that there are significant asks for capital right across the justice sector, and I will have to endeavour to negotiate the best possible capital deal that I can and be as fair as possible to all our partners. There is a particular issue with the cost of construction materials, as a result of which capital investment will not go as far as it has in the past. For example, the cost of pre-cast concrete has gone up by 62 per cent. Those are the sorts of things that you find out, Mr Macpherson, when you are in the depths of capital budgets.
I do not demur from the fact that, although we have seen welcome movement, capital remains challenging in essence, because of some of the difficulties with the construction industry and inflation.
Lastly, in the context of a borrowing position that is, in my view, wrongly constricted by the UK Government, if that Government’s plans for the period—whether they be multiyear or just for single financial years—continue to move towards a position where increased capital resources are available and there are Barnett consequentials as a result, will making improvements to the SFRS and the police service’s capital position be top priorities for the Scottish Government? I am assuming that the answer is yes.
10:00
The justice agencies are always my top priority. As you will know, consequentials come to the Scottish Government, and, because we are democratically elected, we make choices accordingly. However, the point about having robust infrastructure that supports the safe delivery of services to our communities is important. We know that the risk profile is changing, and there are changes in relation to how the SFRS wants to model the service and pursue its work. Of course, we want that to be reflected in its facilities, both to improve working conditions and to serve communities.
Katy Clark has questions on the SFRS, too.
As you have said, cabinet secretary, this has been an area of great concern to you and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and very powerful representations have been made, particularly in relation to decontamination. It may well be that we are far more aware of the risks than we were a few years ago. It is clear that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is potentially exposed to legal claims, but I do not think that that is the avenue that the Fire Brigades Union wants to go down at all; it wants to ensure that there are safe systems of work. I think that you are aware of the support that you have from MSPs in that area.
However, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service says that in order to achieve a balanced budget, it has had to delay bringing new employees into the service and has introduced a 10 per cent vacancy factor in support staff functions. There seems to be an issue in relation to not only capital budgets but revenue budgets. Given the parliamentary representations that have been made, can you tell us a bit more about the Government’s approach to overall funding of the fire service? It seems to be a significant area of concern.
One of the challenges that the SFRS and other large justice agencies such as Police Scotland will face is that their biggest cost is staff and pensions. Eighty per cent of the resource across the justice portfolio goes on staff and pensions, and in some justice agencies, that figure is even higher. That means that when there are budget pressures, whether they be expected or unexpected, the biggest lever that any justice organisation has is to slow down recruitment. That is not where I want matters to be; having the right support on the front line is pivotal. We will, of course, continue to work with the Fire and Rescue Service and its FBU partners and constantly look at the current challenges.
I support the work that is taking place to reshape the service. In essence, it seeks to ensure that resources are in place to deal with those risks. I know that, with the best will in the world, we cannot predict every risk at every moment in time, but there is a good wealth of information and evidence that points to a changing risk profile. There has been a 19 per cent reduction in the number of incidents that the Fire and Rescue Service is called out to attend, while the amount of fire incidents has reduced by 10 per cent and is now at its lowest on record.
One issue that has been difficult to progress, but which I would certainly like to see progress on, is the expanding role of firefighters. I see an appetite for change from the FBU and the SFRS, and we need to find a way of unlocking that progress. As the Government as a whole grapples with the affordability of pay in the public sector, we might be able to link negotiating future pay deals to workforce reform.
The fact is, though, that fire service terms and conditions are agreed at a UK level. Nonetheless, we have in the past engaged at a UK level around the reform of the firefighter role. It seems to be one way of unlocking the service’s potential.
I appreciate everything that you say, but you are also aware of some of the increased risks that we face, such as wildfires. There was also the flooding in Valencia—we do not know why that has happened, but we know that such events will increase with climate change.
On the staffing budget, are the delays in bringing in new employees and the 10 per cent vacancy factor in the fire service representative of the justice sector or are they outliers? Is that happening across the justice sector?
I accept the point about wildfires and flooding. Climate change is certainly with us. The other aspect that I have in my portfolio is resilience. There were 16 storms last winter; I hope that we will not have 16 storms this winter, but we shall wait and see.
It is a matter of public record that, at the start of this calendar year, Police Scotland paused recruitment to bring itself within budget after significantly overspending in the first quarter of the previous financial year. That is why the chief constable, to her credit, has had such a focus on taking a balanced approach throughout this financial year. I was just making the broad point that, if the biggest lever is staff, that can be the lever that justice organisations will utilise.
I am conscious that we have more firefighters per head of population than other parts of the UK, but that just reflects the rural nature of some of our country. Although the public sector workforce has increased since the pandemic, that has not been the case in the justice system. I certainly make that point in my negotiations, where I want to focus on the front line, support for police numbers and the number of firefighters.
Some members are interested in asking questions on the courts and prosecution service.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Last week, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said that it is at the point of beginning to pilot a virtual domestic abuse court, but that it needs an agreement on funding. Will you provide a wee update on that? Obviously, women’s organisations and others welcome virtual courts.
I had a meeting—probably about a year ago—with Sheriff Principal Pyle, at which he talked me through the plans and the aspiration for the virtual domestic abuse court.
More recent information that I have received indicates that it is hoped that the pilot will be introduced in Aberdeen alongside the roll-out of the digital evidence sharing capability. I note that, as part of its case for funding, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has made an ask of £6 million for reform funding. I will continue to work with it to work through its bid, as I would with all partners. I have not had any formal approaches about specific funding for the pilot, but I know that my officials have a meeting arranged to catch up on the project at the end of November.
That is helpful. The Lord Advocate’s references to the court of appeal on corroboration in relation to sexual offences could result in a greater number of cases being prosecuted. Is the Scottish Government thinking about the budgetary implications of that? Will that be factored into the budget proposals?
I know that the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service are engaged on the matter, and I have seen the written evidence from the Crown Agent and the SCTS. The Crown Agent narrated that, in reviewing the law of evidence, the appeal court has expanded the scope of the sexual offence cases that can be prosecuted, and the SCTS has reflected that that could result in increased demand on the solemn courts. I know that my officials will be meeting the Crown Office in the near future. That change is very recent, and there is no modelling that shows how the appeal court’s ruling will play out.
I am flagging the possibility that that might require extra budget. It is a case of shifting sands; it is all in the mix.
Most people would expect that change to have an impact, but there is no modelling as yet that suggests what scale the impact would be, either for the number of cases or the financial impact.
Rona Mackay has raised an important point. The SCTS has told us that, if there is a flat-cash settlement in the forthcoming budget, that will lead to a reduction in court and tribunal business equivalent to the removal of 10 solemn courts. It suggested that that could lead to a three-year wait for cases to get to court. What impact would a flat-cash settlement for the SCTS have on the cabinet secretary’s wider planning on work to sort out the challenges and backlogs that our court system currently faces?
As other partners have done, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has illustrated what, in its opinion, a flat-cash settlement would mean for it. In the event of such a settlement—we are talking about an “if”—we would, as you would expect, discuss and test the SCTS’s assumptions. I do not want to give the impression that I am disbelieving of the consequences of a flat-cash settlement, because it is clear that that would have consequences; I am simply pointing out that we are having on-going discussions to understand more about people’s positions in the event that that happened.
More importantly, all our endeavours with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service have been to address the backlog. That has been the number 1 focus, and it remains a priority. Progress has been made on that backlog; it is down from its peak by 46 per cent.
In addition, in all fairness, I must acknowledge that the level of demand that is experienced by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service will not return to pre-pandemic levels in the future. We are working hard to reduce the backlogs, but we also recognise that there is a new level of demand on the service. I think that we are all at one on that.
10:15
On a related point, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told the committee that it needs to receive an increase in resource funding of £16 million. If that does not happen, the consequence would be that work would be
“slowed down, shelved or stopped completely.”
What work have you advised the finance secretary would need to be slowed down, shelved or stopped completely if the forthcoming budget does not show a £16 million uplift?
I will make two points in response to that, one of which is that the budget for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service does not sit in my portfolio, so I do not have a direct role there. I do not negotiate the Crown Office budget. That is for the Crown Agent and the law officers to do. As ministers, they engage directly with finance colleagues on that. I am not the minister in charge of those negotiations or representations.
However, I am sure that we all agree that we need to take a whole-systems approach to the justice system. You will have heard me say in relation to challenges such as that of the prison population that we need to stop looking at the justice system in its component parts and look at how it all works together. Therefore, I cannot underestimate the importance of the work that the Crown Office does and its impact on the court system and, potentially, the prison system. It is a demand-led organisation. We know that the sexual offence casework has increased. As with the other justice agencies, the vast majority of COPFS’s resource goes on payroll; I think that the figure is 82 per cent. I also point to the fact that, since 2016-17, its resource budget has increased by 85 per cent.
I am not sure that I can say much more than that, because it is not my budget.
Can I clarify that point? The Crown Agent puts it to the Lord Advocate, and it is for the Lord Advocate to negotiate with the finance secretary for budget—is that correct, or have I misunderstood?
What I am clearly saying is that I am not the minister who negotiates the Crown Office budget. I think that I have narrated that correctly. The Crown Office would inform the law officers.
The law officers negotiate directly with the finance secretary; in fact, it is in a separate chapter in the budget.
I am very grateful. My final question is about an interesting point that came up during our evidence sessions. John Logue of the Crown Office advised the committee that the ending of extensions to statutory time limits in solemn cases in November 2025 presents it with “significant risk”, as he put it. What is your response to that? What can the Government do to avoid that situation?
I have now had the experience on two occasions of taking extensions to the coronavirus regulations through this committee. The time limits issue has been the focus of much attention—indeed, it has probably been the issue that has been debated most in this committee. Since the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 was passed, we have all known that the measures in it were temporary and that they could be extended on a year-to-year basis up to and no later than the end of November next year.
Many MSPs have pressed me on the issue of time limits, so I am pleased that, this year, we have got to a position in which five of the seven time limits have been lifted. For one year only, we still have the two remaining time limits for solemn cases.
This is a transition year. In my engagements with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, I have made it aware of the strength of feeling that exists in Parliament about time limits. Regarding the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, there are some parts of the coronavirus temporary measures, such as those to do with digitalisation, that we will want to build into the system, because we do not want to turn the clock back. Right now, however, I have no plans to make the last two remaining solemn time limits permanent.
The committee and the Parliament will scrutinise the criminal justice modernisation bill, but I have been clear on the issue of time limits in what I have said to the committee and in my comments in Parliament. I am conscious that Mr Kerr spoke on the relevant Scottish statutory instrument a week or two ago, although his concern was about fiscal fines. Bearing in mind the content of the committee’s scrutiny, I took more time in my statement to talk about time limits than about fiscal fines.
Fulton MacGregor has a quick supplementary before we move on to the subject of prisons.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a quick supplementary that relates to the area of the Crown Office and prosecution, and it comes ahead of a question from John Mason that you will answer at question time later today. It relates to the amount of time and cost that is involved in police officers attending court. The issue has come up in our pre-budget scrutiny sessions, and it is one that comes up regularly.
During our evidence sessions with the police and the Crown Office, their representatives said that they were making progress in that area. I want to get your views on that. Is the Government doing anything to support that process or to hurry it along?
I am very supportive of the calls that have been made by the chief constable, the SPA and the Scottish Police Federation for reform in that area, which is one that the police and, crucially, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service are taking very seriously. There are two crucial reforms in that area. One of those relates to DESC—the digital evidence sharing capability—which involves the digital sharing of crime scene evidence with the courtroom. That leads to earlier resolution of cases, and it also has the benefit of taking up less witness time.
Crucially, bearing in mind that the majority of cases are at summary case level—65 per cent of courts’ business is at summary level—the work on summary case management has been judicially led, which is to the credit of the Courts and Tribunals Service. Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar has blazed a trail in that work. The evaluation of the pilots that have taken place in Glasgow, Dundee and elsewhere has shown some positively stark outcomes in reducing the time for which professional witnesses are required to come to court. In part, that is to do with the earlier resolution of cases, which has resulted in a reduction in the number of trials to be fixed. It is part of our transformational change programme 3, which is all about the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
The digital evidence sharing capability programme, which is being rolled out between this summer and next autumn, is enabling plans for the roll-out of summary case management. Those are very important reforms, because we do not want police officers to be called to court and to then be turned away without giving their evidence. We do not want that churn in the system. Significant reform is under way in that area, and it is vital that we continue to support that reform.
Do you have an early indication of how much that might save in time or in cash, or will we simply have to wait and see?
There are some very encouraging numbers on that. I am happy to send that information to the committee. In September, a report was published that said that, in the 19 months of the pilot, among the outcomes that were achieved,
“It is estimated that 530 summary trials did not require to be fixed”;
if summary case management
“had been in place at a national level during the pilot period, it is estimated that at least 3270 trials would not have been fixed, a potential 5% reduction in fixed trials;”
and summary case management
“mitigated the impact of higher levels of complaints registered in 2023/24 so that the volume of outstanding scheduled trials reduced by 31%”.
There are also statistics, which I do not have in front of me, on the reduction in witness citations for professional witnesses and victims. Those are encouraging as well.
The committee might be interested in some follow-up on that, cabinet secretary, as that is an area that we have been looking at closely.
There was a 34 per cent reduction in the first citation of police witnesses and a 25 per cent reduction in the first citation of civilian witnesses in domestic abuse cases in the aggregated pilot courts. We will provide further information about that. The BBC covered the pilot extensively not that long ago. It is really good work, and our partners—the police and the Courts and Tribunals Service—need to be commended for it.
Thank you for that.
We will move on to questions on prisons. We still have a wee bit to get through, and we have about half an hour left, so I ask for succinct questions and responses.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The SPS advised the committee that it was in discussions with the Scottish Government over an additional in-year funding requirement of £20 million this year. Will you give us an update on whether that will be available for the SPS?
We are engaging closely with the SPS on that. I meet the chief executive frequently—every three weeks or so—and am aware of that ask. I am conscious that we are just over halfway through the financial year, so I want to understand more about the SPS’s ask, particularly between now and the end of the financial year.
The underpinning challenges for that pressure relate, of course, to the prison population. If you have more people, you have more people to look after, feed and clothe.
I will not go into the detail, because the Public Audit Committee did a lot of work on GEOAmey, but there was additional work in and around the prisoner transport contract that required intensive attention from the prison service. That has had a good, positive outcome.
Social care costs have been higher than expected, and I am keen to understand more about those costs. As always, we will do our best.
10:30
In its evidence, the SPS also said that it was carrying out its own pilot for body-worn cameras. It stated that early signs indicate that the pilot has impacted staff safety. Obviously, with high prisoner numbers, that is really important. If the pilot is successful once it is complete, SPS would require to make a budgetary submission to the Scottish Government. Has the SPS had any conversations with you about the pilot and the budgetary request? If so, do you expect to be able to give it to the SPS in next year’s budget?
I have had some discussion with SPS about it, but it has been more about the potential benefits of different types of technologies. There is an on-going discussion about technology more broadly, particularly in preventing contraband coming into prisons.
I am aware that the initial findings of the pilot did not show an overall reduction in violence, but Ms Dowey is absolutely correct that it did show a reduction in violence towards staff. The pilot period has therefore been extended and I am very interested to see the outcome of that.
I have a question that sticks with the Scottish Prison Service. In its evidence, it advised that it will require an increased budget of £387 million in 2025-26. The bulk of that would be for the construction of HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow—we understand that a contract has yet to be signed for the replacement of HMP Barlinnie. Will the cabinet secretary give us some more detail about the costs of its construction and whether they will be met, regardless of whether they increase beyond the current capital budget ask by the Scottish Prison Service?
As I said earlier, I am aware of all the justice partners’ asks for capital. Nonetheless, we have clear commitments around HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow, the replacement for HMP Barlinnie. The current contract for HMP Highland is now signed, so we have contractual obligations in and around the funding.
If there were to be any additional costs in a contract that is signed and agreed, it would tend to be when there are overruns. I went to visit Inverness during the summer and I have been reassured that the revised timetable for HMP Highland is making good progress. I have been up to Inverness twice now.
The only minor caveat that I am always alert to, as the resilience minister, is the impact of weather on construction projects. That would be the only worry at the back of my mind about HMP Highland. However, we are anticipating that it will cost £209 million, which is baked in as a result of the contract.
I am told that the contract for HMP Glasgow is at an advanced stage. There are issues around commercial sensitivity. The design is complete and it informs the contract, so the detail of the contract will inform costs, the allocation and phasing of resources and the timeframe. We are committed to the replacement of HMP Barlinnie, which is a Victorian prison.
The discussions continue with Kier, the contractor for the stage 2 construction contract. It is important that we continue, because prisons are not cheap. If you look at the cost of prisons south of the border, you will see that any prison is a substantial investment. We need to make absolutely every effort on due diligence, value for money and the shaking out of any savings where we can do so. Once that contract is signed, I will be able to talk more about time and cost.
Thank you for that.
Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of press reports that indicate, not for the first time, an on-going crisis in legal aid. Some press reports have said that, since 2021, we have lost more than 400 solicitors from the system. Not all of those were lost because of the legal aid situation, I am sure, but certainly a high number were. There has already been a 23 per cent drop in the number of cases that solicitors have been paid for, so there has been less demand on the budget. However, that is a flat-line budget, so, in effect, there has been a cut to legal aid.
What approach is the Scottish Government taking to the crisis, given that it has not allocated an increase in the legal aid budget, and what is the thinking behind that?
I will focus first on the financials. It is important to recognise that the legal aid budget is demand led and that—unlike elsewhere—we have maintained the scope and resourcing of legal aid. To demonstrate that demand-led nature, the final spend for the previous financial year was £151 million, whereas the budget was set at £141 million, if I recall correctly. Demands for legal aid are one of the pressures in the justice portfolio. The figure could, of course, change, but the spend on legal aid is projected to come in at £171 million by the end of this financial year.
That is the other issue for the justice portfolio as a whole. As well as 80 per cent of our resource going on staff costs, a chunk of resource is demand led. Legal aid is demand led; criminal injuries compensation is demand led; and, on top of that, there are contractual obligations—for example, on HMP Highland, GEOAmey and so on. We have not cut the legal aid budget in any shape or form.
I note Ms McNeill’s comments about solicitors. I will look at those overall figures. I have recently had reason to look at the figures for criminal defence agents who operate in the legal aid sphere. For the past three or four years, that has been largely stable, at around 800. Having said that, I recognise that there are challenges for the profession and, in particular, for criminal defence agents.
Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Fees for defence solicitors in particular have been in crisis for many years. The key question, which I do not think has been addressed by the Scottish Government, is in the way in which the rate is set. In the criminal justice system, prosecutors are paid a certain salary, but defence solicitors do not seem to have kept pace with the people that they are working alongside in the criminal courts. That is why we are losing solicitors from the profession. I know that the cabinet secretary will share my view that, if there is to be fairness in criminal justice for accused persons, it is important that we retain good solicitors in the profession. How will the budget address that specific point, and what are the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that?
I cannot comment on the salaries of, or payments to, people who work in the Crown Office or in prosecution. However, there have been changes over the past few years. As a result of the Evans review, I think, it is possible to claim interim payments. There have been legal fee uplifts since 2019; their compound effect is just over 25 per cent.
I certainly appreciate the point about the workforce, and that matter has been raised in my discussions with criminal defence agents. I agree that they need to attract people to that aspect of their profession. The working group on the future of the legal profession, which is led by the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, is important in that regard. It is important that all stakeholders, including ministers, continue to engage in the challenges—people will always want to discuss the quantum of funding. However, we should also be prepared to discuss the prospect of reform, to ensure that we have a sustainable legal aid system and stability in the professions that support the people who seek justice, as well as the accused, because—Ms McNeill is right—that is fairness. At the end of the day, we want a legal aid system that supports the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole.
Liam Kerr has a follow-up question.
I remind the committee up front that I am a solicitor, although I have not done legal aid work for 20 years and I do not do criminal defence work.
Cabinet secretary, I understand and respect the answer that you gave to Pauline McNeill. However, the questions that she put to you are key. We know that there is a huge problem with the lack of numbers of solicitors who enter criminal defence, and evidence shows that that is due to unsustainable working conditions and—according to the dean of the Faculty of Advocates—inadequate remuneration. You will be very aware that Aamer Anwar & Co recently pulled out of doing legal aid work, because those solicitors cannot continue to fund it themselves. That has led many commentators to talk about an inability to access justice.
None of us—least of all you, I know—wants such a situation in Scotland, so give me a direct answer, please: will the Scottish Government do anything about legal aid in the forthcoming budget, and anything about the structural issues that underlie the situation in which we find ourselves?
10:45
Your point about the structural issues is important, which is why we need people to work together and have dialogue. I did my best and I thought that I answered Ms McNeill’s questions on the overall investment. We are investing heavily in a demand-led budget.
I acknowledge the point about working conditions. Forgive me if I use the example of defence agents. I think that I would be right in saying that the majority of lawyers are now female, and certainly the majority of law students, for some time, have been female. However, there is still a gender imbalance among criminal defence agents, which speaks strongly to working conditions and working hours. I am not deaf to that.
On getting into discussions about specific fees for a specific level of activity, that needs people to be prepared to engage in the nuts and bolts of that, as well as, understandably, to campaign, lobby and narrate what the challenges are. The minister and I are willing to have that engagement.
Given the overall pressure on public finances, resource does not come alone. Resource comes with reform, so it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If you want more reform, what will that mean for resources? Is it just a call for increasing the quantum? We have increased the quantum. We are putting more money into legal aid year on year. If people are still not satisfied with that, we need to get into the detail of what lies below the top-line budget figures and what we need to change. Are there savings that can be made in one part of the overall quantum that will allow the reprioritisation of resources in another?
I am trying hard to convey that I will do what I can, as the minister will, and as I will ensure that my officials will, so that we have that dialogue, but dialogue is a two-way street. It is not just me sitting here talking.
We have just over 10 minutes left and still a wee bit to cover. I want to pick up on community justice. Last year, in the Government’s response to our pre-budget scrutiny, there was an indication that the Government would increase investment in community justice services as a way of contributing to shifting the balance away from custodial sentences. Obviously, we have a difficult situation with the prison population. With that in mind, I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s aspirations for what she would like to see this coming year in community justice provision. How might you contribute to shifting the balance away from custodial sentences in the budget process?
I want to deliver the best possible budget for the Scottish Prison Service and community justice services. Despite the improvement of various community provisions and disposals, and the fact that we are seeing increasing capacity and levels of business in community justice, we also have a rising prison population, and I need to address both.
Members will be aware that our overall investment in community justice is £148 million. That was an additional £14 million last year, on top of the £15 million recovery resource. The recovery resource is committed until, I think, 2026-27. In the past seven years, community justice funding has increased by £41 million, which equates to 43 per cent.
We are seeing an increase in capacity in community justice. I am thinking specifically about criminal justice social work services, where the head count is up by 280. That is welcome, given the increasing demands on those services. There is also a move from temporary contracts to permanent appointments in local services. We are beginning to see an increase in stability in community justice. In addition, I cannot forget the importance of the voluntary sector in that sphere.
With regard to outcomes, I want to build on the progress that has been made in investment and increasing capacity. I also want to build on the progress that has taken root around electronic monitoring, which is increasing year on year. Electronically monitored bail and bail supervision are now rolled out across all 32 local authority areas. The trend of increase in orders over the past decade is up substantially, but it is also up by 33 per cent since 2021-22. The most recent year-on-year increase is 8 per cent.
In short, we are seeing a good expansion of the footprint of community justice, and I need to continue to expand that.
Katy Clark has a question on disposals.
On the issue of footprint, there seems to be quite a difference between England and Scotland in relation to some of those areas. When I submitted freedom of information requests on, for example, the levels of compliance with electronic monitoring that had been ordered by the courts, the figures in Scotland showed 72.6 per cent compliance, which compares with 97.2 per cent in England. Those figures are for March 2022.
In relation to restriction of liberty orders, there seems to be a significant geographical spread, and it is the same with electronic monitoring. The lowest level of compliance was in Grampian, where the level of compliance with restriction of liberty orders and electronic monitoring was 71.8 per cent, which compares with 100 per cent in the High Court.
There are similar figures in relation to whether offenders are asked to undertake community service orders that have been ordered by the court. I know that you will be alert to that and I presume that there are budgetary implications. Can you say a bit more about that? There does not seem to be consistency in relation to some of the disposals that are ordered by the court being required of the offender. Is it to do with budgets and lack of resource? Is that now being dealt with by targeting resource to ensure that the orders that the courts give are complied with? Clearly, it is not the offender’s fault if they are not told that they have to have a tag—they have no control over that; that is a matter for Government. Can you say a bit more about that? Some of the statistics are quite alarming.
I will address the issues of compliance and consistency. You are correct to raise those issues with me, but I suggest that they are also an issue for the statutory agencies—I would just put that on the record.
But you are the person who we would raise the issues with.
Yes but, on the point about consistency, that is where the performance framework is really important. A funding formula distributes the criminal justice social work grant on the basis of case loads, among other things. The important layering of the community justice national strategy and the delivery plan is underpinned by the performance framework. The indicators measure performance around an area and shine a light on who performs well and what areas perform less well. I am not necessarily pointing the finger at people. There can be particular challenges associated with rurality, for example.
In this budget scrutiny process, though, the budget is the major factor.
I was about to get to that. I do not believe that it is all about the budget. I am not for a minute denying the importance of the budget in relation to sustainability, increasing capacity and flexible use of resources to get the increased budget to the front line. Of course, we do that with the criminal justice social work grant because it is ring fenced. I know that not everybody likes that word.
There are recruitment challenges, which can be harder in some parts of the country, but I am not denying that the quantum of budget has an impact. In every portfolio in which I have had the privilege of serving, I have found that, even though we are a small country, we have regional variation in practice and delivery. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but I am never convinced that it is all about money. Money is part of it, but it is not all about that.
That is why we need scrutiny and a focus on community planning partners. Community Justice Scotland has a statutory role in promoting and sharing good practice, highlighting the evidence and advocating for change, but we should not forget the role of community planning partners, who, under the community justice legislation, also have a responsibility to support community justice priorities.
We have a couple more areas of interest. I will bring in Fulton MacGregor on criminal justice social work, and then I will bring in Sharon Dowey on a couple of legislation questions, if Sharon still wants to ask them.
I will try to be as quick as possible, convener.
Cabinet secretary, can you provide an update on the work around reviewing the distribution of section 27 funds in relation to criminal justice social work? Social Work Scotland told the committee that it would like all justice social work funding to be consolidated and baselined in the local government settlement.
With regard to the distribution model, Mr MacGregor, given your previous occupation, you will be aware that the Scottish Government allocates the criminal justice social work grant and additional money to local authorities. Funding that is outwith the criminal justice social work grant, such as that for the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—is distributed via the standard local authority mechanisms.
11:00The funding review group, which includes the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland, agreed a distribution model in 2017. Recognising that that was a few years ago and that a lot has changed, it has been reviewed by a technical advisory group, which is consulting justice stakeholders on the review. After that consultation, the findings will be returned to the funding review group.
People talk about consolidating and baselining. I do not want to answer a question by asking one, but the funding route of the criminal justice social work grant provides certainty and surety, because it can be spent only on justice services. There is other resource that supports justice services. If people wanted to bring funding together and baseline and consolidate it, I would understand the logic of that, but I would not be supportive of it if it meant the removal of ring fencing.
That is really helpful.
I have one further question. A new UK-wide protection system will be introduced during 2025-26. Will any further funding be available to justice social work services as an implication of that?
Convener, given the direct nature of my questions and as the cabinet secretary mentioned my previous occupation, I should point members to my entry in the register of interests.
I was not dropping hints that Mr MacGregor should declare an interest, but I am glad that I prompted him.
We are supportive of the multi-agency public protection system—MAPPS—which is UK led and upgrades the violent and sex offender register, ViSOR. In essence, it is a more efficient way of exchanging information that is highly relevant to public protection. Although the decisions on what use could be made of the system are for the police, the SPS, local authorities, health boards and other bodies, we support the use of MAPPS, principally because we supported Scottish agencies’ use of the ViSOR system.
There is Scottish representation on the programme boards. There are representatives from the Scottish Government, local government, police and health. To be fair to the UK Government, we are still in the process of clarifying costs and the model. However, the allocations to local government for community justice this year included additional allocations in anticipation of pressures, particularly the work to support any move to MAPPS.
We are slightly over time, but I still want to bring in Sharon Dowey. I ask for succinct questions and responses.
I will try to be as succinct as possible.
My question is on the impact of legislation and the costs surrounding that, cabinet secretary. Will the Scottish Government provide any funding to cover the costs arising from the further implementation of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023?
The cost of implementing legislation is factored in. The cost of the 2023 act when it is fully implemented is £5 million a year. The cost of legislation that we have firm plans to implement informs our budget decisions. It is not necessarily an additional £5 million, bearing in mind that existing resources can be used for more than one purpose and we always look to make efficiencies. However, we cannot ignore that cost.
The lowering numbers of police officers are well documented. There was a commitment to put 1,000 more on our streets. Do you have any optimism that we can get back to the 17,496 officers that we had in 2013? I ask that given the antisocial behaviour that we have seen on the streets recently, such as around bonfire night.
I refer Ms Dowey to our more recent manifesto commitments and our programme for government commitment, which was to provide resource to enable the chief constable to return police officer numbers to 16,500. I am pleased that the chief constable has advised that that has been achieved.
We hear from police officers that they are stressed and need more numbers. They obviously feel undervalued. At the moment, salary negotiations are going on for them. Has that process been accounted for in the budget? Do our police officers deserve a better offer than the one that is on the table?
Police officers work hard and their pay and terms and conditions should reflect their exceptional endeavours and the public service that they give day in and day out. The offer of 4.75 per cent recognises their contribution and is fair and affordable. It is above inflation and is in line with the UK Police Remuneration Review Body’s recommendation, which we take into consideration. We do not have to do that. We just look at it for benchmarking purposes.
I thank you and your officials very much for your time, cabinet secretary.
We will have a short suspension to allow for the changeover of witnesses.
11:07 Meeting suspended.