Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am conscious of other public sector infrastructure projects that have been impacted by events such as inflation, construction labour shortages, Brexit and all the rest of it. Given the lengthy lead-in time for infrastructure projects, it is difficult to rule out the prospect of an event interrupting plans. People sometimes start building infrastructure projects and then find something of historical or architectural importance. All sorts of things can happen.

Perhaps I can give you some assurance that the Scottish Government executive team is very interested in the matter and it has had some discussions and opportunities to delve into the plans as they exist right now to ensure that they are as robust and as realistic as possible, because that is in the interests of all the justice partners.

Yes—that is true. When I visited our prison establishments on my summer tour, I looked very closely at conditions and where we are with making improvements to the estate, as well as our ambitions for HMP Glasgow and HMP Highland. I know now that, according to the Office for National Statistics, there is a 65 per cent increase in the number of vacancies in construction, and the Building Cost Information Service materials cost index shows a 47 per cent increase overall, with an 82 per cent increase in structural steel, a 39 per cent increase in pre-cast concrete and a 32 per cent increase in gravel and sand. All of that has an impact not just on our ambitions in justice, but across the Government.

In my engagement with all the justice partners, I am endeavouring to ensure that all the arrows are facing in the right direction—

I will see what can be shared. I know that part of the financial considerations would be that the more recent private prison HMP Addiewell is certainly more expensive than HMP Kilmarnock, because it will be reflective of more recent market conditions. There will be some information that we can share, and I hope that it will be helpful.

The Government can keep the three remaining time limits under review, and we propose to continue only three out of the seven original time limits. They can be extended only year by year, so they can be extended until next year and thereafter they can be the subject of only one further extension. Any permanent changes to those time limits would require primary legislation; we do not have plans to introduce primary legislation on time limits. We want to get back to the pre-pandemic normal.

I will answer what I think is within my remit. First and foremost, I want, at the earliest opportunity, for us not to have coronavirus time-limit regulations in place. I want them for no longer than they are needed. I want to get back to our original legislation and the standards that are set out in it. This goes back to my experience from the prison system—although that was not yesterday.

I am aware that time limits can always be altered case by case. I do not have statistics to hand, but such alteration is far from uncommon. One of the reasons why I want us to continue with the three time limits is that I want to avoid misuse of precious court resources that should be focused on the backlog and on getting through trials, and I want not to clog up the system with procedural hearings.

On your reflection on increasing investment in the Crown Office, I think that it is a matter of record that in the past five years its budget went up by 50 to 75 per cent—notwithstanding that demands on its workload have most certainly increased, for reasons that were outlined in an earlier evidence session. To be helpful, the committee might wish me to ask the Lord Advocate to reply to Ms McNeill or to write to the committee. I have endeavoured to answer your question as best I can, from my position.

Yes. I read a very helpful quote from a High Court judge, who said that the advantage of having national jurisdiction for callings from custody is that, where there are a number of warrants and indictments from various courts across the country, they can be heard in one place. I am also an advocate for, where possible, not bussing prisoners around the country. I do not think that that is efficient or effective.

Fiscal fines have existed for many decades for less serious crimes and, as I have indicated, they are likely to be crimes that could perhaps be dealt with by the justice of the peace court. There are limits on the type and the nature of offences that would be subject to fiscal fines. They are not for any offence, but maybe officials can give you some further reassurance.

I heard you raise that in earlier committee sessions. I am happy to write to you offline, but my understanding is that you lodged amendments at stage 2 and stage 3 but then did not move them. That related to an exchange that you had with Keith Brown, but I am happy to supply the information that I have been privy to on that.

The draft order is an order in council made by His Majesty under powers in the International Organisations Act 1968. The nature of the reserved-devolved divide means that, where privileges and immunities relate to devolved matters in Scotland, the function of advising His Majesty on the order is devolved. A parallel order has been made and is in force in the rest of the United Kingdom and for non-devolved Scots law. This order confers no new privileges and immunities but simply expands the range of meetings where they apply in line with the 1959 Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

To assist the committee, I will say a little more about the background to this order. In the 1959 agreement, the UK agreed to provide privileges and immunities to representatives of agency members attending

“any international conference, symposium, seminar or panel”

convened by the agency. That language was not entirely reflected in the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, which implemented the agreement obligations into UK domestic law. The discrepancy recently came to light during the development of the host country agreement requirement to hold the 2023 IAEA fusion for energy conference in London, as it is at odds with the agreement obligation. It was agreed with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that that should be remedied by each Administration to the extent that it has power to do so.

Separately, this order makes consequential amendments resulting from the parallel UK order. That is to restate the provisions of the 1974 order that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and is an opportunity to clarify the definition of representatives of members so that it more fully reflects the wording of the 1959 agreement. Passing this order will correct an historical error and ensure that we are able to fully meet our international obligations.

As a good global citizen, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to bring the order to the Parliament for consideration and I commend it to the committee.