Chamber and committees

I hear that and I understand it. I heard very clearly the point that was made by my friend and colleague Fulton MacGregor about the comparative investment between community justice and custodial sentences. I understand that. We have increased the budget for community justice to £170 million a year, and it is almost an inevitability that, if we are expanding the use of community justice, we will need to fund the support that goes alongside that. That support needs to be iterative and considered. I believe that, if we are successful in the approach that I am setting out—a more preventive approach—it will become what Pauline McNeill is looking for.

I very much welcome Yi-pei Chou Turvey’s approach and the Liberal Democrat amendment, which we will support. I absolutely want to move to a more preventative approach. I have set out in my response to Pauline McNeill where we want to go and that we want the system to be more proactive than reactive.

Alyn Smith was very kind in his contribution. I thought it was a very complimentary and very thoughtful speech from the new convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I welcome him to that role and congratulate him on his election. He remarked that recorded crime has come down since 1991. Much of the increase in the recording of sexual and violent crime—there was an exchange between Alyn Smith and Stephen Kerr on that point—is due to a significant shift in prosecution. That is a legacy of the previous Lord Advocate and previous justice secretaries, which has generated an increased confidence in reporting, which is absolutely fundamental.

Carol Mochan’s intervention on Alyn Smith about women in custody was also very important. During my visit to HMP Stirling, which the previous justice secretary invited me on when I was the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I saw very clearly that many of the women in the justice system are victims themselves, so we have a big job of work to do in that space. Alyn Smith also made good points about older people in jail and moving upstream into prevention.

I recognise the point that Katherine Sangster made about the perception of whether sentences fit the crimes. However, I again point to the increase in the long-term prisoner cohort, which is up by 600 people in the past two years, while the average sentence length has increased by 37 per cent.

Similarly, David Linden was very thoughtful in his speech and he put the scale of our levels of incarceration into context. He also referenced the genesis of what I have set out today, which is the independent sentencing and penal policy commission. Its membership was comprised of a range of independent expert professionals: Martyn Evans, the former chair of the Scottish Police Authority; Catherine Dyer, chair of Community Justice Scotland; Cathy Jamieson, who is well known in this parish; Sheriff David Mackie; Dr Hannah Graham, the senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Stirling; and Lynsey Smith, the joint chair of the Social Work Scotland justice standing committee. I commend them for their work and I thank David Linden for raising the fact that their work is the genesis of what I am presenting today.

We need the whole Government and the whole of the public, community and voluntary sectors to move towards prevention. In my former life as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I often pointed to the fact that 80 per cent of the drivers of poor health are outside the control of the health service. I do not have a similar statistic to quote for the justice system, but the figure will be very similar. My portfolio and victims across society will be the greatest beneficiaries if we can move to a more preventative system, which is exactly what I am seeking to corral with colleagues in the Government; that is absolutely the focus of this Government.

Michelle Campbell referred to the £169 million that has been invested in community justice, her experience working in the health service, the drivers of mental illness, the link between mental illness and the justice system and the impact that we wish to see from the Promise. She was also right to emphasise that we must have prisons to deal with the most serious and dangerous offenders.

Fulton MacGregor has significant professional experience, as well as experience that has been gained through membership of the Criminal Justice Committee, and his speech was informed by that experience. He commented on the issue of investing in community versus custodial sentences. I readily understand that point and will, no doubt, engage with Mr MacGregor on it.

Mr Simpson suggested in his speech that this Government has somehow been soft on crime. On the basis of what I have set out, I cannot understand what planet that comment comes from. We have the highest levels of custody per head in western Europe, the long-term sentence population has increased by 600 in the past two years—that is equivalent to the size of Kilmarnock prison—and there has been a 37 per cent increase in the average length of sentences in the past decade.

One of the greatest drivers of the increase in the prison population has been the increased population of people who have been sentenced for sexual and violent crimes. I make no apology for that; I am pleased to see serious sentences for serious crimes. In the face of those facts, it is simply not credible to suggest that our justice system is anything other than robust in dealing with serious criminality.

I am determined to deliver a sustainable approach to the management of Scotland’s prison population and a prison estate that is safe and fit for purpose, with prevention at its heart and a clear focus on reducing offending and reoffending behaviour. That is how we serve justice and create a safer community. I therefore ask members to support us in consulting to bring about change in order to deliver a sustainable prison population, safer communities and a strong justice system.

It has certainly remained at the top of my to-do list. I would reflect on the fact that, after a month in post, I have presented to Parliament a plan to achieve a sustainable prison population.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have nothing further to add. The issues have been well aired and I am grateful for the indication of multiparty support for the motion.

I note my thanks and appreciation to the Parliament for expediting consideration of this legislative consent motion. It is regrettable that we are having to expedite scrutiny on an LCM, which is due to the UK Government’s timetabling for the National Security (State Threats) Bill. However, I want to make progress this evening to facilitate the passage of that bill.

Although I appreciate that the UK Government is of the view that the bill is reserved in its entirety, the UK Parliament’s accelerated timetable has put us in the unfortunate position of having to suspend standing orders to ensure that this Parliament is able to give its view on the bill before our recess. It is the UK Government’s intention to pass the National Security (State Threats) Bill before the UK Parliament begins its recess in July. Given that fact, the motion will be the Scottish Parliament’s only opportunity to express its view on whether to consent to certain provisions in the bill, as set out in my legislative consent memorandum.

I recommend that the Parliament agrees to the motion to provide legislative consent to those aspects of the UK Government’s National Security (State Threats) Bill that amend Scottish legislation—specifically, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The bill makes provision for the designation of bodies that are involved in threat activity that has been linked to a foreign power, within a framework that is modelled on proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. That means that the UK Home Secretary may designate a body if they believe that it may be linked with foreign-power threat activity and they consider that designating the body is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the UK. New criminal offences will apply in relation to those designated bodies, including proxies being used by states to carry out hostile activities in the UK.

The areas of law that are covered by the bill are largely reserved, or else the provisions extend to England and Wales only. However, the provisions that create offences that relate to designated bodies subsequently expand the class of prisoners to whom specific provisions will apply on release. The schedule to the bill amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to apply those measures in Scotland. That means that the sentencing and release regime for individuals who are convicted of the new state threat offences will be brought into line with the existing release process for some national security and terrorist prisoners. They would be referred to the Parole Board for Scotland after serving two thirds of their sentence. If not granted parole at that time, they would be reviewed for parole again up to 12 months following.

As a result, the Scottish ministers will be required to take on responsibilities for referring any such prisoners to the Parole Board for Scotland. That will extend ministers’ executive functions over the release of those types of prisoner. The Scottish Government therefore considers that the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is required in relation to the amendments, as the proposed changes would alter the executive competence of the Scottish ministers. The reasoning behind that view has been set out to the UK Government, but my officials have not received a response at this time.

The changes are expected to have little to no operational impact on the Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland or justice social work services in Scotland, given that few prisoners are expected to be sentenced under the new offences—just as, currently, no national security prisoners are held in Scottish prisons. However, although the operational impact that will result from the changes is expected to be minimal, I still advise the Parliament to give legislative consent to the relevant sections of the bill. It is important to maintain alignment with England and Wales in relation to the sentencing of individuals who are convicted of national security offences. Such offences are addressed on a UK-wide basis, which makes consistency essential in how offenders are treated in both sentencing and release arrangements. Consenting to the arrangements will ensure that Scotland is aligned with the rest of the UK on the sentencing and release of individuals who have been convicted of the new state threat offences that are set out in the bill, and on the introduction of the new powers that aim to disrupt and deter the activities of state-linked entities. That will strengthen the Scottish Government’s response to state threats and, ultimately, help to keep the people of Scotland safe.

In light of those points, I urge the Parliament to support the legislative consent motion.

I move,

That the Parliament, noting that the National Security (State Threats) Bill, introduced to the House of Commons on 9 June 2026, makes provision that alters the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, agrees to give consent to such provision as made by paragraph 5 to the Schedule to the Bill.

17:34

The Scottish Government is investing record funding of more than £1.7 billion in 2026-27, and the chief constable confirmed at the Criminal Justice Committee that the budget allocation will allow her to maintain officer numbers at around 16,500.

Police Scotland maintains that it has a healthy recruitment pipeline, with around 175 new officers recruited last month and further recruitment planned throughout the year. The chief constable confirmed to the Scottish Police Authority board last month that recruitment will have a particular focus on rural and island communities.

The location of resources, along with shift patterns, is an operational matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The review does not propose any reduction in fire and rescue cover in Hawick. Indeed, two fire appliances will continue to be located in Hawick. The SFRS has assured me that the proposed move to a day shift duty system is based on a thorough examination of the risks and historic deployment data across the Borders area and that it will not compromise the safety of the public or firefighters.

The SFRS is continuing to recruit whole-time and on-call firefighters to ensure that full crews can meet demand and that the right resources are in the right place at the right time.

Currently, the SFRS has 70 trainee firefighters going through initial training and is recruiting for a further 156 posts, which will be filled in 2026-27. The process has recently closed with some 1,400 applications having been received, which shows that working for the SFRS remains an attractive option for many.

The SFRS continues with its on-call improvement strategy to attract more recruits through targeted help with the application process and fitness criteria, along with introducing flexible on-call periods to make the role accessible to a larger number of people.

Colm Merrick is absolutely right that we have an exciting opportunity for Scotland to lead the way in investing upstream to deliver better outcomes downstream. We are providing the £200,000 kickstarter fund this year to develop a new £10 million social impact investment fund, which marks a real step change in how we support prevention and early intervention. Our model will draw on the Government outcomes lab’s world-class research so that we get the approach right from the outset. By embedding that evidence, learning from best practice and fostering collaboration, we will build a strong and trusted model that maximises impact and value. With the right foundations, that innovative approach will unlock new resources to provide safe spaces for young people and diversion from antisocial behaviour and criminality.

The data that I have before me, from March 2026, shows that the average wait time was 7 minutes, 52 seconds. While they are on hold for non-emergency calls, people are given alternative routes through which they can report issues. Katy Clark suggests that people are giving up but, in actual fact, they may be taking up those options and finding other ways to get in touch with the police.

As I said in response to Ms Haughey, I say to Ms Clark that we expect the resources that we are putting in place for Police Scotland to ensure the resilient and responsive service that meets people’s needs. That is an expectation that we will carry, with Police Scotland.