Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.