Chamber and committees

I do not think that I am giving away any state secrets when I say that the Scottish Government has long called for reform of borrowing limits on its overall budget.

It would make a huge difference.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to colleagues. I appreciate the invitation to contribute to the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny.

Before looking forward to 2025-26, let me reflect on the current financial year. In recognition of the fundamental importance of the justice system in supporting safe, thriving and inclusive communities, we are investing almost £3.8 billion this year right across the justice portfolio. That investment is supporting vital front-line services, providing support for victims and witnesses and tackling the underlying drivers of offending.

Nevertheless, we are still feeling the effects of a period of high inflation. Driven by several external factors, that inflation has been particularly acute in relation to our capital budget and, although it has reduced, the budget pressures have remained. The United Kingdom budget is a step in the right direction but we still face significant cost pressures, including through the uncertainty that surrounds the impact of the national insurance hike on public services and the third sector, which means that difficult decisions will still be required. I remain committed to securing the best possible settlement for the justice portfolio and will align our plans with the available resources.

We are starting from a strong position. Crime is at one of the lowest levels of the past 40 years; the reconviction rate is at its lowest rate since records began; dwelling fires have been consistently reducing over the past 10 years; and significant progress has been made in tackling the courts’ backlog. We have also continued to support victims organisations as part of our commitment to put victims at the heart of our justice system.

Members are aware of the challenges around the rise in the prison population. I will continue to progress a range of actions to support a sustainable reduction in that population and, as you know, I am introducing an emergency bill that will change the release process for prisoners.

During the next financial year, I will continue to focus on delivering the priorities set out in “The Vision for Justice in Scotland” and in the programme for government so that we can deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland. That work will include: investing in our public services; prioritising the front line to keep our people safe; supporting our justice agencies to reduce court backlogs; continuing investment in the prison estate and the work towards replacing prisons in Inverness and Glasgow; and progressing delivery of the national community justice strategy.

I will also continue driving forward a range of initiatives on crime prevention and reducing reoffending, which are key to reducing demand across the justice system. I will continue working with our justice organisations and with my cabinet colleagues to ensure that we make the best use of resources to maximise the benefits to individuals and communities, while also supporting on-going reforms and transformation to deliver a more effective and efficient justice system.

I am happy, as always, to answer any questions.

As other partners have done, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has illustrated what, in its opinion, a flat-cash settlement would mean for it. In the event of such a settlement—we are talking about an “if”—we would, as you would expect, discuss and test the SCTS’s assumptions. I do not want to give the impression that I am disbelieving of the consequences of a flat-cash settlement, because it is clear that that would have consequences; I am simply pointing out that we are having on-going discussions to understand more about people’s positions in the event that that happened.

More importantly, all our endeavours with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service have been to address the backlog. That has been the number 1 focus, and it remains a priority. Progress has been made on that backlog; it is down from its peak by 46 per cent.

In addition, in all fairness, I must acknowledge that the level of demand that is experienced by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service will not return to pre-pandemic levels in the future. We are working hard to reduce the backlogs, but we also recognise that there is a new level of demand on the service. I think that we are all at one on that.

What I am clearly saying is that I am not the minister who negotiates the Crown Office budget. I think that I have narrated that correctly. The Crown Office would inform the law officers.

Police officers work hard and their pay and terms and conditions should reflect their exceptional endeavours and the public service that they give day in and day out. The offer of 4.75 per cent recognises their contribution and is fair and affordable. It is above inflation and is in line with the UK Police Remuneration Review Body’s recommendation, which we take into consideration. We do not have to do that. We just look at it for benchmarking purposes.

Most people would expect that change to have an impact, but there is no modelling as yet that suggests what scale the impact would be, either for the number of cases or the financial impact.

With regard to the distribution model, Mr MacGregor, given your previous occupation, you will be aware that the Scottish Government allocates the criminal justice social work grant and additional money to local authorities. Funding that is outwith the criminal justice social work grant, such as that for the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—is distributed via the standard local authority mechanisms.

The funding review group, which includes the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland, agreed a distribution model in 2017. Recognising that that was a few years ago and that a lot has changed, it has been reviewed by a technical advisory group, which is consulting justice stakeholders on the review. After that consultation, the findings will be returned to the funding review group.

People talk about consolidating and baselining. I do not want to answer a question by asking one, but the funding route of the criminal justice social work grant provides certainty and surety, because it can be spent only on justice services. There is other resource that supports justice services. If people wanted to bring funding together and baseline and consolidate it, I would understand the logic of that, but I would not be supportive of it if it meant the removal of ring fencing.

The cost of implementing legislation is factored in. The cost of the 2023 act when it is fully implemented is £5 million a year. The cost of legislation that we have firm plans to implement informs our budget decisions. It is not necessarily an additional £5 million, bearing in mind that existing resources can be used for more than one purpose and we always look to make efficiencies. However, we cannot ignore that cost.

I cannot comment on the salaries of, or payments to, people who work in the Crown Office or in prosecution. However, there have been changes over the past few years. As a result of the Evans review, I think, it is possible to claim interim payments. There have been legal fee uplifts since 2019; their compound effect is just over 25 per cent.

I certainly appreciate the point about the workforce, and that matter has been raised in my discussions with criminal defence agents. I agree that they need to attract people to that aspect of their profession. The working group on the future of the legal profession, which is led by the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, is important in that regard. It is important that all stakeholders, including ministers, continue to engage in the challenges—people will always want to discuss the quantum of funding. However, we should also be prepared to discuss the prospect of reform, to ensure that we have a sustainable legal aid system and stability in the professions that support the people who seek justice, as well as the accused, because—Ms McNeill is right—that is fairness. At the end of the day, we want a legal aid system that supports the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole.