Seòmar agus comataidhean

Those issues are important. The Lord Advocate negotiates her budget with the Deputy First Minister in the same way that all Scottish Government ministers do. Although the justice portfolio budget has a direct bearing on the police, fire and courts services, that is not the case for the Crown Office. I am limited in what I can say about that because that is a discussion for the Lord Advocate with the Deputy First Minister.

I will not say too much about the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice (Scotland) Bill because we have a number of lengthy sessions ahead of us on that, but I hope that the bill will reach stage 3 in advance of next year’s budget. The implementation of legislation will certainly be a live issue for next year’s budget, and I will talk to the committee more about my initial thoughts on how the implementation of a landmark bill can be phased.

Notwithstanding the fact that people are imprisoned based on decisions made by the courts, I think that the current prison population is too high and I do not think that it is sustainable. When I went to work 20 years ago, the HMP Perth population was 5,500. This week, it is 7,964. A high prison population comes with risks. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland made that very clear, and has issued a clarion call for action. I intend to pursue that because a high prison population does not just present risks for the wellbeing of prisoners and staff; it is not in the best interests of our communities when it comes to reducing reoffending. When I met justice spokespeople a few weeks ago, I made it clear that the statement that I made to Parliament in October would not be my first and only statement to Parliament, and I certainly anticipate returning to Parliament before the end of the year.

There are, indeed, budgetary implications of having a high prison population. Some costs are operational costs for the Scottish Prison Service. As I intimated earlier, there are smarter ways to invest money to keep our communities safe, notwithstanding that there will always be a need for prisons and it will always be the case that prison is absolutely necessary for public protection.

I think that we are getting there. There is the prison population leadership group. We need to avoid people seeing the Prison Service as the end of the line once they have done their jobs—once people have been arrested and prosecuted and the courts have done their job. Of course those things need to continue to happen, but we must realise that having a growing and unsustainable prison population is not just a Scottish Prison Service problem. It is a justice problem and, ultimately, it will be a community safety problem.

On ensuring that all the arrows are flying in the right direction, I am confident that there is a growing realisation in the justice sector that our prisons are not the end of the line. Practitioners know that what happens in prisons matters because most people will come out, but it is also important to note that this is not just a justice sector issue. For example, my engagement with health services is particularly important. I will give an example.

As the Scottish Prison Service reconfigures the use of its current prison estate—there are limits to that—it is renovating part of Polmont to use spare capacity there. However, as the prison population increases in Polmont, that will place increasing pressure and demand on health services in NHS Forth Valley, which is a smaller health board. I have raised that issue in the cross-ministerial group on justice and health. That is just one example.

Yes. I believe that there is a growing understanding and appreciation that this is not just an SPS problem or a justice problem. I report weekly to the Cabinet on the situation in and around our prisons. Part of the work that we are doing to address the situation—both immediately and in the longer term—is that recalibration of what we need to do in justice, but we will also have very specific asks of other colleagues across Government.

I will double check that. I was not the cabinet secretary in 2019. A decision will have to be made as the contract comes to an end. When the contract comes to an end next year, it will be necessary to either bring HMP Kilmarnock into public ownership or go through a retendering exercise.

Thank you very much, convener.

As the committee knows, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 includes a range of temporary justice measures that are due to expire at the end of this month. The measures were introduced to make sure that our justice system had the tools that were needed to respond to the pandemic’s impact. Justice agencies have made significant progress towards recovery and the need for some of these measures has reduced.

Therefore, the regulations that are before the committee this morning will expire the measures that I believe are no longer necessary or proportionate. That includes four of the time-limit extension provisions that were put in place at the start of the pandemic.

The regulations will modify the expiry date in section 52(1) of the 2022 act so that the remaining provisions, which I believe are still needed, will stay in force until 30 November 2024. To inform decisions on which measures to extend, we reviewed the operation of the provisions and consulted stakeholders, and we engaged with justice agencies to understand the effect that each provision is having and the likely impact if it were not extended.

We also sought views from the legal profession, the judiciary, victims organisations and third sector organisations. The findings of our review and consultation are set out in the statement of reasons that has been laid alongside the regulations.

I will briefly highlight three key reasons that mean that we need to retain the provisions that the regulations will extend. First, we are still seeing the impact of the pandemic on criminal court backlogs, although substantial progress has been made. The backlog has fallen by about 15,700 cases since January 2022.

However, the committee will know that the modelling of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service predicts that solemn-proceedings backlogs will remain above pre-pandemic levels until 2026. The temporary measures that we wish to extend have an important role to play in ensuring that court resources are used efficiently. Without them, the timescale would be longer and there would also be a serious risk that some cases could not proceed at all.

The regulations are particularly important for extension of the statutory time limits for certain criminal proceedings. The regulations seek to retain three of the seven extended time limits. Those extended time limits will increase the courts’ capacity to hear trials rather than procedural matters, which helps with throughput of cases and protects victims’ access to justice.

As the statement of reasons explains, without the extended time limits for the prosecution of certain summary-only offences, many prosecutions for drink-driving and drug-driving offences could be abandoned because those time limits cannot be extended case by case.

We all want a return to pre-pandemic time limits as soon as possible, but none of us wants to jeopardise the throughput of trials or to put prosecutions at risk. It is clear to me that the three remaining extended time limits need to be continued at this stage, although we will, of course, keep them under review.

The second key consideration is protection of health. The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023, which was passed by the Parliament in June, includes a permanent power allowing for the early release of some prisoners in certain emergency situations. However, that power is not yet in force. The temporary provisions on emergency early release of prisoners therefore remain an important safeguard, in response to a threat from Covid, in making sure that we can act to protect the lives of those living and working in prisons. Although, of course, I hope that the likelihood of such a threat arising remains low, the harm that could be caused by not having the measures available could be severe.

Finally, our review highlighted that there is support for making some of the temporary measures permanent. That is beyond the scope of the regulations, but this week we launched a public consultation that proposes making permanent the temporary measures that I believe can deliver significant longer-term benefits and help to make our justice system more resilient, efficient and effective. The regulations are binary: we can either extend or expire provisions but we cannot modify them. The consultation offers us an opportunity to hear views on how we might adapt and improve provisions so that they deliver even better outcomes and experiences for the people who use them.

In the meantime, I believe that the package of measures that will be extended by the regulations is critical to helping to support our justice system’s continued recovery and resilience in the coming year.

I am happy to answer any questions.

That is a good point. I will ask officials to answer that.

Fiscal fines have existed since the 1990s. These regulations, as we have heard from officials, are continuing the increase in the fines from £300 to £500. On the point about stand-alone legislation, the letter that I sent to the committee earlier this week already advises that the measures in the coronavirus regulations that we believe would improve the efficiency and resilience of the justice sector will be a matter of public consultation. There will be a public consultation on our proposition to make some of those measures permanent. Depending on the outcome of that public consultation, legislation will be required.

There is an alignment between the justice vision and the national strategy for community justice, and the delivery plans in that respect. There is nothing new in the delivery plans, but they are continuing to put our words into practice. I would also highlight the transformational change programme, particularly the way in which it shifts the balance from prison to community justice.

The overall community justice budget for this year is £134 million, which includes the continuation of an additional £15 million of investment that began in 2022-23 to support pandemic recovery efforts and to bolster capacity. However, there is no doubt that the early intervention that we want to see in justice services applies beyond those services. The Government’s broader agenda in relation to early intervention and prevention, whether in health, early years, social security, employability and so on, is crucial, too. I do agree, though, that there is a very strong argument for picking up the pace in achieving our ambitions for community justice, bearing in mind the situation that we are in with a growing prison population.

To be blunt, I would say that doing nothing to move towards preventative services and early intervention is not an option. Indeed, we can see that in the obvious example of the rising prison population, and the same could apply to other justice services. In our broad strategic approach, we need to reduce demand for some services, and you can do that only by acting earlier.

With our precious resources, we need, where possible, to have a longer-term spend-to-save vision through, for example, certain digital investment. The evidence tells us that, although there will always be a place for prisons and although there will always be people who will be required to be in custody, the use of robust community supervision is far more effective at reducing reoffending than, for example, a short-term custodial sentence. In some circumstances, prison is an expensive way of making things worse.

I think that your cross-Government point is well understood; indeed, I would highlight as an example the overrepresentation of care leavers in our prison system. Therefore, it is not just investment in community justice or rehabilitation programmes in prisons that is important to me, but our investment in the early years, in supporting families and in the Promise, and there is also the work that we are doing in justice on the bairns’ hoose pathways. All of those things will lead to a different approach to supporting children and victims.

Moreover, there is the proceeds of crime money that is invested in diversionary activities for young people. Over its history, it has supported hundreds of thousands of them; indeed, I think that the current programme will benefit around 33,000 young people across the country.