Chamber and committees

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[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 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.

Good morning, convener. As the committee knows, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 includes a range of temporary justice measures, which were introduced to make sure that our justice system had the necessary flexibility to respond to the impact of the pandemic.

Since then, justice agencies have made significant progress towards recovery, and the need for some of the temporary measures has disappeared or reduced. Last year, the Scottish Government made regulations that expired several measures. Our continuing determination to reduce the number of temporary measures is shown by the expiry regulations that the committee is considering today, which expire two further measures because those are deemed no longer necessary or proportionate—including one of the extended time limits that were put in place at the start of the pandemic.

The proposed extension regulations would extend the remaining temporary measures so that those stay in force until the end of 30 November 2025. My decisions on which measures to extend are based on consultation with justice agencies, the legal profession, the judiciary, local government, and victim support organisations and other third sector bodies. The statement of reasons, which I laid alongside the regulations, sets out in some detail the findings of that consultation and review. For now, I will outline briefly why we need to retain the provisions.

We continue to see the impact of the pandemic on criminal court backlogs. Considerable progress is being made on reducing those backlogs. The total number of outstanding scheduled trials fell by more than 40 per cent between January 2022 and August 2024. However, modelling by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service predicts that backlogs of solemn trials will persist above the target baseline until 2026-27.

The measures in the extension regulations will continue to help in the effective use of court resources. For example, the availability of higher maximum fines will mean that more summary cases can be diverted from prosecution, which will reduce the number of cases that need to go to court.

The two extended time limits—which, under the extension regulations, would continue for one final year before reverting to their pre-pandemic level—will increase the courts’ capacity to hear trials rather than spend time on procedural matters. That will help the throughput of cases and protect victims’ access to justice.

I am committed to the reversion of the time limits next year; indeed, there is no ability under the 2022 act to extend them any further, and ministers have no intention of legislating to make them permanent, so they will end no later than 30 November 2025. However, justice agencies are clear that the extended time limits will continue to play an important role in helping the courts to manage the current solemn case load. The data that I offered shows the progress that has been made so far, but we should allow the justice agencies to continue their work to reduce the backlog. Their view is that, without the provisions, the timescale for reducing the solemn case backlog would be extended, and that there would be a risk that some cases would not proceed at all.

I am sure that none of us wants to jeopardise the courts’ capacity to focus on the throughput of trials. It is plain to me that the two remaining extended time limits must be continued for one final year, after which they will expire.

The other measures in the extension regulations include the conduct of business by electronic means, attendance at court by electronic means, and a national jurisdiction for callings from custody. Although the pandemic was a catalyst for introducing those measures, they have shown their value in modernising our justice processes and making those more efficient. They deliver better outcomes and experiences for people who use Scotland’s justice services. It is right that we look to extend the use of those valuable measures, which will promote the on-going recovery of the justice system and ensure the continuation of modernised practices that were much needed and welcomed.

Permanent reform will require primary legislation. Last month, we introduced the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which proposes making permanent those measures that have a proven broader and longer-term benefit. To be clear, convener, that bill does not make any provision to continue extended time limits. As I said, those cannot be retained beyond the end of November 2025.

It is clear that, collectively and as a package of temporary measures, the extension regulations are vital in supporting our justice system’s continued recovery and resilience in the coming year.

I will come on to talk about some of the broader reasons and the broader landscape in a way that I hope will be helpful.

I am aware that the new UK Government is considering a new offence, which will apply to all public officials. Members might wish to note that the Law Commission’s recommendations include several categories in the list of public office holders, which go well beyond policing roles.

I will give a bit more detail. The UK Government is considering that the offence would apply not just to the police. It would include, but not be limited to, Crown servants, including ministers of the Crown; any person employed in the civil service of the Crown; any constable and any other person employed for the purposes of any police force; elected officials and their employees; and members of Parliament. The question that we could be challenged with is why we are starting with the police and not the politicians. Broad consideration is therefore being given to the matter at the UK level, and the Scottish Government will engage with that as appropriate.

If the offence was to be created under the bill, it would apply to constables only, which would result in piecemeal legal reform and would single the police out as the only public office holders that the provision should apply to, when a principled view would suggest that other holders of public office should be equally liable for misconduct. As I said, my officials will work with UK Government officials on the topic.

Amendment 61 would require the Scottish ministers to report on misconduct in public office within one year of royal assent, and particularly on whether there should be a statutory offence of misconduct in public office for the police and, if so, what steps would be taken to introduce it. In my view, that is not the way to make the legislation, because it could, in theory, cut across a whole range of public offices. The police might also rightly raise the question of why we were singling them out.

In all fairness, there is much to be done in this area, following a series of inquiries and reviews. However, the amendments are using a specific bill about the police to seek to enact piecemeal and knee-jerk change, rather than having a proper consultation and consideration and taking a mature and co-ordinated approach to law reform in this area for all public office holders. I therefore urge members to oppose Mr Findlay’s amendments 60 and 61, but I appreciate his interest in the area, because I think that it is important for standards in public life.