Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. If the regulations that the committee is considering today are approved, they will enable the use of GPS monitoring devices for the first time in Scotland, for the monitoring of people as part of the criminal justice system.

We have laid the Electronic Monitoring (Approved Devices) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 under the negative procedure. Those regulations amend the Electronic Monitoring (Approved Devices) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 to approve GPS-enabled devices as the types of electronic devices that are designated as approved for the purpose of electronic monitoring. The Electronic Monitoring (Use of Devices and Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, which is an affirmative instrument, will govern the use of those devices. The regulations will work together to prescribe the terms of use of GPS devices for monitoring compliance with certain conditions of a home detention curfew licence on release from prison.

The Electronic Monitoring (Use of Devices and Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 limit the use of GPS to monitoring conditions imposed when Scottish ministers release an individual from custody on HDC licence. The regulations also allow for a continuity of current monitoring arrangements by allowing existing radio frequency electronic monitoring devices to continue to monitor the court disposals set out in section 3 of the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019, and the conditions imposed on an individual when they are released on licence, which are set out in section 7 of that act.

The regulations also clarify the maximum period for which information obtained through the use of radio frequency and GPS-enabled electronic monitoring devices will be retained, and the purposes for which the Scottish ministers, or those acting on their behalf, may share that information.

I invite the committee to consider the regulations.

It is fair to reflect that GPS and other forms of electronic monitoring are used widely elsewhere on these islands and across Europe. We have certainly learned much from the pursuance of GPS in England. For example, we will not require people to be tethered to a wall to charge their devices. One of the valid lessons that we have learned is that if we do not treat people like human beings, their prospect of success diminishes. I am sure that Ms Clark appreciates that point.

The numbers in the initial phase will be quite small, because home detention curfew is a bespoke intervention. Yesterday, out of the total prison population, 138 people were out on home detention curfew. Members will be aware of the steps that we have taken in recent times to increase the use of home detention curfew. However, we anticipate that, at any one time, there will probably be up to about 20 people on GPS monitoring and home detention curfew.

We want to have an initial phase that lasts for around a year. Once we are absolutely sure that there are no issues with the operational processes of engagement, the important next stage would be to scale that up in relation to other orders. Much depends on what we learn. It is important that, due to the complexity of operational processes among justice partners, in the first instance, we use GPS with one order, as opposed to rolling it out across a range of orders.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.