Chamber and committees

We are engaging closely with the SPS on that. I meet the chief executive frequently—every three weeks or so—and am aware of that ask. I am conscious that we are just over halfway through the financial year, so I want to understand more about the SPS’s ask, particularly between now and the end of the financial year.

The underpinning challenges for that pressure relate, of course, to the prison population. If you have more people, you have more people to look after, feed and clothe.

I will not go into the detail, because the Public Audit Committee did a lot of work on GEOAmey, but there was additional work in and around the prisoner transport contract that required intensive attention from the prison service. That has had a good, positive outcome.

Social care costs have been higher than expected, and I am keen to understand more about those costs. As always, we will do our best.

I have had some discussion with SPS about it, but it has been more about the potential benefits of different types of technologies. There is an on-going discussion about technology more broadly, particularly in preventing contraband coming into prisons.

I am aware that the initial findings of the pilot did not show an overall reduction in violence, but Ms Dowey is absolutely correct that it did show a reduction in violence towards staff. The pilot period has therefore been extended and I am very interested to see the outcome of that.

Your point about the structural issues is important, which is why we need people to work together and have dialogue. I did my best and I thought that I answered Ms McNeill’s questions on the overall investment. We are investing heavily in a demand-led budget.

I acknowledge the point about working conditions. Forgive me if I use the example of defence agents. I think that I would be right in saying that the majority of lawyers are now female, and certainly the majority of law students, for some time, have been female. However, there is still a gender imbalance among criminal defence agents, which speaks strongly to working conditions and working hours. I am not deaf to that.

On getting into discussions about specific fees for a specific level of activity, that needs people to be prepared to engage in the nuts and bolts of that, as well as, understandably, to campaign, lobby and narrate what the challenges are. The minister and I are willing to have that engagement.

Given the overall pressure on public finances, resource does not come alone. Resource comes with reform, so it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If you want more reform, what will that mean for resources? Is it just a call for increasing the quantum? We have increased the quantum. We are putting more money into legal aid year on year. If people are still not satisfied with that, we need to get into the detail of what lies below the top-line budget figures and what we need to change. Are there savings that can be made in one part of the overall quantum that will allow the reprioritisation of resources in another?

I am trying hard to convey that I will do what I can, as the minister will, and as I will ensure that my officials will, so that we have that dialogue, but dialogue is a two-way street. It is not just me sitting here talking.

I want to deliver the best possible budget for the Scottish Prison Service and community justice services. Despite the improvement of various community provisions and disposals, and the fact that we are seeing increasing capacity and levels of business in community justice, we also have a rising prison population, and I need to address both.

Members will be aware that our overall investment in community justice is £148 million. That was an additional £14 million last year, on top of the £15 million recovery resource. The recovery resource is committed until, I think, 2026-27. In the past seven years, community justice funding has increased by £41 million, which equates to 43 per cent.

We are seeing an increase in capacity in community justice. I am thinking specifically about criminal justice social work services, where the head count is up by 280. That is welcome, given the increasing demands on those services. There is also a move from temporary contracts to permanent appointments in local services. We are beginning to see an increase in stability in community justice. In addition, I cannot forget the importance of the voluntary sector in that sphere.

With regard to outcomes, I want to build on the progress that has been made in investment and increasing capacity. I also want to build on the progress that has taken root around electronic monitoring, which is increasing year on year. Electronically monitored bail and bail supervision are now rolled out across all 32 local authority areas. The trend of increase in orders over the past decade is up substantially, but it is also up by 33 per cent since 2021-22. The most recent year-on-year increase is 8 per cent.

In short, we are seeing a good expansion of the footprint of community justice, and I need to continue to expand that.

[Inaudible.]—as a result of the overall budget. The specifics of that will be for the chief constable, under the scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority, for very good reason. I point to the fact that, in the budget for this year, capital increased for policing by more than 12 per cent, so we are starting from a more positive base than might otherwise have been the case.

I am very supportive of the work that Police Scotland has taken forward and is endeavouring to take forward in having a longer-term view. It talks about the estates master plan, and there is no doubt that there are aspects of the police estate that need to be reformed, refurbished and repurposed. I am particularly in favour of co-location; I have seen the benefits of police co-locating with other public services—other justice services, in particular—in my constituency.

I am working closely with the police, as well as with other justice partners, on their asks. It is fair to say that it will be somewhat difficult to meet everybody’s ask for additional capital, but I will endeavour to do my very best.

I will make two points in response to that, one of which is that the budget for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service does not sit in my portfolio, so I do not have a direct role there. I do not negotiate the Crown Office budget. That is for the Crown Agent and the law officers to do. As ministers, they engage directly with finance colleagues on that. I am not the minister in charge of those negotiations or representations.

However, I am sure that we all agree that we need to take a whole-systems approach to the justice system. You will have heard me say in relation to challenges such as that of the prison population that we need to stop looking at the justice system in its component parts and look at how it all works together. Therefore, I cannot underestimate the importance of the work that the Crown Office does and its impact on the court system and, potentially, the prison system. It is a demand-led organisation. We know that the sexual offence casework has increased. As with the other justice agencies, the vast majority of COPFS’s resource goes on payroll; I think that the figure is 82 per cent. I also point to the fact that, since 2016-17, its resource budget has increased by 85 per cent.

I am not sure that I can say much more than that, because it is not my budget.

Good morning, convener. As the committee knows, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 includes a range of temporary justice measures, which were introduced to make sure that our justice system had the necessary flexibility to respond to the impact of the pandemic.

Since then, justice agencies have made significant progress towards recovery, and the need for some of the temporary measures has disappeared or reduced. Last year, the Scottish Government made regulations that expired several measures. Our continuing determination to reduce the number of temporary measures is shown by the expiry regulations that the committee is considering today, which expire two further measures because those are deemed no longer necessary or proportionate—including one of the extended time limits that were put in place at the start of the pandemic.

The proposed extension regulations would extend the remaining temporary measures so that those stay in force until the end of 30 November 2025. My decisions on which measures to extend are based on consultation with justice agencies, the legal profession, the judiciary, local government, and victim support organisations and other third sector bodies. The statement of reasons, which I laid alongside the regulations, sets out in some detail the findings of that consultation and review. For now, I will outline briefly why we need to retain the provisions.

We continue to see the impact of the pandemic on criminal court backlogs. Considerable progress is being made on reducing those backlogs. The total number of outstanding scheduled trials fell by more than 40 per cent between January 2022 and August 2024. However, modelling by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service predicts that backlogs of solemn trials will persist above the target baseline until 2026-27.

The measures in the extension regulations will continue to help in the effective use of court resources. For example, the availability of higher maximum fines will mean that more summary cases can be diverted from prosecution, which will reduce the number of cases that need to go to court.

The two extended time limits—which, under the extension regulations, would continue for one final year before reverting to their pre-pandemic level—will increase the courts’ capacity to hear trials rather than spend time on procedural matters. That will help the throughput of cases and protect victims’ access to justice.

I am committed to the reversion of the time limits next year; indeed, there is no ability under the 2022 act to extend them any further, and ministers have no intention of legislating to make them permanent, so they will end no later than 30 November 2025. However, justice agencies are clear that the extended time limits will continue to play an important role in helping the courts to manage the current solemn case load. The data that I offered shows the progress that has been made so far, but we should allow the justice agencies to continue their work to reduce the backlog. Their view is that, without the provisions, the timescale for reducing the solemn case backlog would be extended, and that there would be a risk that some cases would not proceed at all.

I am sure that none of us wants to jeopardise the courts’ capacity to focus on the throughput of trials. It is plain to me that the two remaining extended time limits must be continued for one final year, after which they will expire.

The other measures in the extension regulations include the conduct of business by electronic means, attendance at court by electronic means, and a national jurisdiction for callings from custody. Although the pandemic was a catalyst for introducing those measures, they have shown their value in modernising our justice processes and making those more efficient. They deliver better outcomes and experiences for people who use Scotland’s justice services. It is right that we look to extend the use of those valuable measures, which will promote the on-going recovery of the justice system and ensure the continuation of modernised practices that were much needed and welcomed.

Permanent reform will require primary legislation. Last month, we introduced the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which proposes making permanent those measures that have a proven broader and longer-term benefit. To be clear, convener, that bill does not make any provision to continue extended time limits. As I said, those cannot be retained beyond the end of November 2025.

It is clear that, collectively and as a package of temporary measures, the extension regulations are vital in supporting our justice system’s continued recovery and resilience in the coming year.

Good morning, convener. As the committee knows, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 includes a range of temporary justice measures, which were introduced to make sure that our justice system had the necessary flexibility to respond to the impact of the pandemic.

Since then, justice agencies have made significant progress towards recovery, and the need for some of the temporary measures has disappeared or reduced. Last year, the Scottish Government made regulations that expired several measures. Our continuing determination to reduce the number of temporary measures is shown by the expiry regulations that the committee is considering today, which expire two further measures because those are deemed no longer necessary or proportionate—including one of the extended time limits that were put in place at the start of the pandemic.

The proposed extension regulations would extend the remaining temporary measures so that those stay in force until the end of 30 November 2025. My decisions on which measures to extend are based on consultation with justice agencies, the legal profession, the judiciary, local government, and victim support organisations and other third sector bodies. The statement of reasons, which I laid alongside the regulations, sets out in some detail the findings of that consultation and review. For now, I will outline briefly why we need to retain the provisions.

We continue to see the impact of the pandemic on criminal court backlogs. Considerable progress is being made on reducing those backlogs. The total number of outstanding scheduled trials fell by more than 40 per cent between January 2022 and August 2024. However, modelling by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service predicts that backlogs of solemn trials will persist above the target baseline until 2026-27.

The measures in the extension regulations will continue to help in the effective use of court resources. For example, the availability of higher maximum fines will mean that more summary cases can be diverted from prosecution, which will reduce the number of cases that need to go to court.

The two extended time limits—which, under the extension regulations, would continue for one final year before reverting to their pre-pandemic level—will increase the courts’ capacity to hear trials rather than spend time on procedural matters. That will help the throughput of cases and protect victims’ access to justice.

I am committed to the reversion of the time limits next year; indeed, there is no ability under the 2022 act to extend them any further, and ministers have no intention of legislating to make them permanent, so they will end no later than 30 November 2025. However, justice agencies are clear that the extended time limits will continue to play an important role in helping the courts to manage the current solemn case load. The data that I offered shows the progress that has been made so far, but we should allow the justice agencies to continue their work to reduce the backlog. Their view is that, without the provisions, the timescale for reducing the solemn case backlog would be extended, and that there would be a risk that some cases would not proceed at all.

I am sure that none of us wants to jeopardise the courts’ capacity to focus on the throughput of trials. It is plain to me that the two remaining extended time limits must be continued for one final year, after which they will expire.

The other measures in the extension regulations include the conduct of business by electronic means, attendance at court by electronic means, and a national jurisdiction for callings from custody. Although the pandemic was a catalyst for introducing those measures, they have shown their value in modernising our justice processes and making those more efficient. They deliver better outcomes and experiences for people who use Scotland’s justice services. It is right that we look to extend the use of those valuable measures, which will promote the on-going recovery of the justice system and ensure the continuation of modernised practices that were much needed and welcomed.

Permanent reform will require primary legislation. Last month, we introduced the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which proposes making permanent those measures that have a proven broader and longer-term benefit. To be clear, convener, that bill does not make any provision to continue extended time limits. As I said, those cannot be retained beyond the end of November 2025.

It is clear that, collectively and as a package of temporary measures, the extension regulations are vital in supporting our justice system’s continued recovery and resilience in the coming year.

No, thank you. I think that I have done my winding up.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 2 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Amendment 3 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

After section 2

Amendment 50 not moved.

Section 3—Duty of candour

The amendments in group 3 respond directly to the recommendation that was made by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland to ensure that there is a requirement for all constables and staff to obtain and maintain vetting, as well as to ensure the power to dismiss should they be unable to maintain vetting. The committee also recommended that and, during the stage 1 debate, I committed to lodge amendments on the issue.

The public rightly expect the police workforce to act with integrity and professionalism at all times. The amendments will ensure that all police constables and staff will have to go through a regime of on-going vetting that will continue throughout a person’s professional life, rather than ending at recruitment. Currently, only constables and staff in specific roles undertake regular revetting.

Under the amendments, the chief constable must develop the necessary elements for a robust regime, including vetting periodically and where there is reason to revet, dismissal and entry on to the barred list as appropriate. By requiring a statutory vetting code of practice for constables and police staff, and a new regulatory regime for constables in particular, we can be confident that Police Scotland will have an effective scheme that requires constables and police staff to maintain vetting clearance. The amendments clarify that, where clearance cannot be maintained, there is a route to dismissal.

I will take the amendments in turn. Amendment 43 introduces a new chapter on vetting into the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, including a section 36C, which sets out what the vetting code of practice “must” include and what it “may” include. The code must include provision for on-going vetting of staff periodically and with reason, and for dismissal to follow where appropriate. Although the duty to prepare the code lies with the chief constable, there is a duty to “involve” the SPA in the preparation of the code, and the SPA “must” assist the chief constable in that regard. The code may also set out additional detail about on-going vetting, which will apply to both staff and constables, to encourage a coherent overall picture for all who are involved in the policing of Scotland.

Proposed new section 36D of the 2012 act sets out how the code will be prepared, including that it must be fully consulted on with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, staff associations, trade unions and minority staff networks before the code is published. Section 36D also requires the chief constable to review the code at least once every five years to ensure that it is current and up to date, and to revise it if necessary.

As the committee is aware, police staff are employees of the SPA, which is responsible for setting their terms. The chief constable has the power to dismiss staff under section 21(3) of the 2012 act, and dismissal for a failure of contractual vetting would be a potentially fair reason for dismissal in terms of general employment law. However, police staff are under the ultimate direction and control of the chief constable. With such a code of practice, she would be able to ensure that staff will undergo vetting periodically, can be revetted if a reason to do so arises, and can be dismissed for a failure of vetting where appropriate.

Amendment 44 introduces a regulation-making power, via a new section 50A of the 2012 act, to make similar provisions for constables as the code will make for staff. The Scottish ministers must lay regulations that provide for the vetting of police constables periodically and if a reason for a review is identified. Those regulations must also provide for the dismissal and demotion of constables where appropriate. A regulation-making power is required because police constables are office-holders, not employees, and their terms and conditions are set out in regulations.

Following the dismissal of a constable for being unable to maintain vetting, it is important that they are unable to gain employment in policing across Great Britain. Amendments 45 and 46 enable a police constable who is dismissed following a failure to maintain vetting to be added to the barred list. That enables other policing bodies to be made aware of the risk that is associated with the individual. The amendments make the treatment of a dismissal for vetting under the barred list equivalent to that of a dismissal for misconduct. That recognises that there is an equivalent need for others to be alerted to the risk that is posed by those who cannot maintain vetting clearance.

We expect legislation to be brought forward that will place police officers in England and Wales on the barred list there if they cannot maintain vetting, so amendments 45 and 46 will provide a consistent approach to vetting across Great Britain. I hope that members will agree that those amendments are pragmatic and right in principle, and I urge members to vote for them.

Amendment 47 updates the long title of the bill to ensure that it encompasses the new provisions for vetting, the need for which is reflective of the significance of the provision for a new vetting regime. The amendment does not affect the short title of the bill, which remains the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) Scotland Bill.

The amendments are an important addition to the bill and will provide the chief constable with the ability to have a robust vetting regime that will examine the on-going suitability of serving constables and police staff and dismiss those who might pose a risk to the police service. I hope that the committee will agree with and support the amendments.

I move amendment 43.