 Welcome to the 29th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have no apologies this morning and Katie Clark will be joining us shortly. Our first item of business this morning is to continue our pre-budget scrutiny of the Scottish Government's 2024 to 2025 budget. I am pleased to welcome the following witnesses, Mr Theresa Medhurst, chief executive and Mr Jerry O'Donnell, interim director of finance with the Scottish Prison Service for their written submission. We have around about 68 minutes for this session, and I would like to begin, if I may, with a general question. Can I ask you to outline for us the main challenges for spending in relation to prisons in this financial year and your view on the budgets that you think you will need for 2024 to 2025? I will come to Mr Medhurst first. Good morning, committee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come and answer questions on the budget for the SPS. In relation to your first question, I think that our submission gave some high-level pressures that we are experiencing as an organisation that has probably compounded over the course of this year, in particular the population pressures. This year, at this calendar year alone, we have seen an increase in our population that would equate to somewhere like the size of Perth prison, so around about 700. We did tip over 8,000 Monday night into Tuesday of this week. In addition to that, we are a 24-7 operation, so we operate with that population and a staff group of about 4,500 every day of the year. There are a number of contracts and operations that we require to deliver and services that we require to deliver to that increasing population. So we have experienced significant inflationary pressures right across the budget that we have, and that has also put additional strain on service delivery because of the increased population pressures and the complexity. I should probably stress that at this point, it is not just about numbers. We did experience high population around about 2018-19. The difference now is the complexity of that population. That complexity comes with added costs, so things like increased costs for social care. We have increased needs to keep people separate, to keep them safe because of the different population types. All of that comes with cost pressures and infrastructure pressures. In addition to that, we obviously have capital, major capital projects. We concluded HMP Stirling, which opened this year, although there is phase 2 of HMP Stirling still to be finalised, which is the demolishing Cortenvale prison, and the new builds for Highland and Glasgow, which replace Inverness and Berline. The construction industry has experienced significant pressures around not just workforce but supply chains and additional costs around their infrastructure costs. Across a number of different areas, we have experienced significant pressure this year, and that has led to some challenges around our budget and our ability to live in our budget for this year. Obviously, we are unclear yet what the budget is likely to be for next year. Part of the challenge for us will be in where the population is likely to rise or fall at the moment. We have been engaged with Scottish Government just as analytical services for the whole of the period to better understand what the drivers are around the population increase, but it is really difficult for them to predict what we can anticipate and therefore difficult for us to plan for next year in terms of budget pressures and service delivery. Before I bring in Gerry O'Donnell, on the prison population issue, I know that it is complex and that there are multiple factors that impact on the population. Do you think that there is still an element of the population or that pressure that derives from the Covid pandemic that will ease in time, or is it not that simple? That is certainly what we, with the increasing court business, and there was funding that was sourced to increase the capacity both for summary and now for solemn cases. We did anticipate that the increase in sentence population should see a decrease in the remand population. While we are experiencing an increase in both short and long-term populations within prisons, we are not seeing any kind of reduction in the remand population. Prior to Covid, the proportion of the remand population would have been around about 15 to 17 per cent of our overall population. It is still sitting worryingly high at around about the 27 per cent mark. Last year, we received an uplift in our budget of £29 million. However, last year, at the spring budget revision, we required an additional £14.5 million of additional in-year funding so that we could have a balanced budget for last year. In real terms, the increase is around £14.5 million this year, which equates to about 3.4 per cent of an uplift. Again, it is a challenging situation, like last year, because we find ourselves with a number of cost pressures. Trees is highlighted about the prison population, which is arguably a new cost pressure this year because the increase has started from the beginning of this year. Today, we are now over 8,000 people in our care. We also have challenges around private sector contract inflation. One of our main contracts with HNP-ADOL is based on RPI plus 1 per cent, and the RPI is at 6.9 per cent in September, so you can imagine the impact that that is having when your budget increases to 3.4 per cent. We also have pay settlement increases that are above public sector pay policy. This year, we have added pressure with the Women's National Facility coming online, which has created additional staff costs this year. We have continued high inflation in areas and utilities, but particularly food costs. We have seen a dramatic rise in food costs in the past two years. It is not only with the population increasing the impact of that, but with food prices, we are looking at a overall of 40 per cent increase over two years. I think that there is also backlog inflation. We have got renewal of maintenance contracts that are coming through, and we are seeing price increases again this year. My concern for going into next year is that we need a settlement that is going to deal with those in-year cost pressures, but also adequately fund those increases for next year as well. I will open it up to members now. If anybody would like to come in. I will go to the Cymarlich prison transfer. In your statement, you have got, Cymarlich transfer into public ownership is one of the key pressure areas. Is a full assessment of any likely budgetary requirements for the transfer of the asset into public ownership is currently under way? Has that been completed because it is due to transfer in four months? That has not been completed, but it is well under way. There are differences in the operating models between SPS and Cymarlich. We are almost completed the work to better understand the implications of those changes in the models and how that can be recalibrated for Cymarlich, because they have a one-tier prison officer or prison custodial operative one-tier prison custodial officer cadre, while we have two tiers within our prison officer groupings. There are things that we had to work through to better understand what the implications would be, and as I said, we are almost at the point of finalising that but not quite yet. Therefore, we can cost that once that has been complete. I appreciate that the transfer takes place on 17 March next year, but there is a year during which we will recalibrate or harmonise the position with regard to staffing and other elements of their operation in order to fully bring it into SPS ownership or operation. It is obviously going to have an impact into this year's budget as well, so should that cost analysis not have been done already? We will only partially be, because it is 17 March, the only minor adjustments made in year. There was an outline cost provided for that, but it is only for a couple of weeks. Therefore, the more detailed work will have to be factored into next year's budget, and that will be done in time to feed that into the budget round for next year. There is no big impact in this year's budget, because it is transferring it from Serco into SPS? I am not sure if I understand the question, because clearly the contract is still operational, as it currently stands, while we have additional costs factored in to pay for the project teams that are developing the transitional arrangements. In actual fact, it is still running as a private sector contract at the moment, so I am not sure where you are seeing that there would be additional costs this year. We have a transformation budget in this year, which is approximately £1.4 million. That budget is for the team that is working on the transfer of the project, and it has taken into account the element of the last week of this financial year. It is fully costed this year in terms of our position. It is £1.4 million just to transfer it from Serco to SPS. That is to establish costs to ensure that we have fully developed the arrangements under which the private sector contract will cease and moves into public sector operation. It is quite a complex arrangement, because it is not just about the transfer of people, which comes with a range of sensitivities. However, there are systems and processes that are Serco's and Serco's-owned that we then have to retain, or we have to put in place our own systems and processes. All of that has had to be factored in, and that has taken the best part of the last two years. We have been planning for this for about two years. There is work being done on digital transformation and even buying uniforms for the transfer. There is a whole range of items. It is a small team that has been working on the project, but the staff cost of that team is in that £1.4 million. That is the kind of cost that I was talking about, because there will be basic things like uniforms, but there will also be procurement things. You are talking about the change in price in food. It has gone up 40 per cent, but I would imagine that all the contracts that Serco have are going to stop on the 16th, and you will have to have new contracts on the 17th. I would have thought that you would have had a better idea of what impact that will have on the budget, given that it is happening in four months. Some of those contracts will be almost like novated across. As an organisation, we are going through the budget process just now. All the kind of costs that are running in Kilmarnock are not in Kilmarnock. There is an impact across the organisation in the state's costs and other support service costs that probably were provided by Serco's head office in supporting Kilmarnock. Those costs are now part of our budget. We are going through that budget process, and we will have a clearer idea in the future of the exact budget that is required for running Kilmarnock as an operational establishment next year. As taking Kilmarnock back into the public sector, is that the best value for money for the public purse? Have you taken any best practices that are currently at Kilmarnock to look at maybe implementing them into the SPS system? I have heard figures of it that could cost £3 million to £5 million. I do not know if you can tell me a better figure, but I have heard that on-going costs are not including the £1.4 million, just for the transfer from Serco to SPS. I have heard that it could cost £3 million to £5 million extra additional costs to run the present SPS rather than Serco. Have you taken any best practice learnings from Serco? There are two elements to your question. The first one is about costs. The contract for Kilmarnock was originally set in 1997, and the prison started operating in 1999. It is a 25-year contract. The pricing mechanism and the arrangements were one of the first private sector contracts in Scotland. It would be markedly different today with today's cost pressures than it would have been in 1997 and 1999, when the contract was originally let. I can say to you that, with regard to Addiewell, which is about 14 years old, the price for Addiewell is higher than it is for Kilmarnock, and it is higher than for public sector prisons. Although there are no other direct comparators in Scotland, Kilmarnock is cheaper than the private sector contracts down in England and Wales, but, as I say, there is an iterative process of changes of contracts and updating of contracts. I do not know what the cost would be nowadays, but it would certainly be more expensive than it was or the current running cost would be, and we would anticipate that the cost would be much higher and more significant. With regard to the second part of your question about best practice, I am keen to explore learning that we can take from Kilmarnock, because there are a number of ways in which they operate that are quite different from being the private sector. The team is working really hard to identify areas of best practice that we not only explore when we take on the operation of the prison next year, but we look to explore whether or not that is something that we can extract and share across the whole of the prison estate. If I could come in and give a good example. The custodial management system that is operated at Kilmarnock, we have decided that we are going to keep that system and that allows those living at Kilmarnock to order their meals online, their visits and also canteen. That is an innovation that we are keeping in it. As part of our own telephony and cell project, that is something that we are wanting to develop as well. We are keeping some of the aspects of best practice. I am going to have to move on. I am sorry, but I have a number of members wanting to come in. I am going to bring in Pauline McNeill and then Fulton MacGregor. Thank you. Good morning. Just on that line of questioning that Sharon Dary undertook, you said that the Kilmarnock staffing structure had one tier whereas SPS had two. I was aware of that. It was one of the reasons that Kilmarnock was able to say that they ran it cheaper than SPS because they did not have the same grading structure. Does that mean that the figures that you have been outlining, that those figures are incorporated into that if you go to a two-steer structure, presumably it is a lower-pay or higher-pay structure? The financial envelope that we anticipate that we will require for the operation of Kilmarnock will include that information. That is why I said to Ms Dowie that we are in the final stages of developing that because it will need to take account that it also has operational support group who have no prisoner contact. Without our staff, anybody who is operational will have prisoner contact. There are some quite distinct differences that we have had to work through and ensure that the operating model reflects best practice but is also as cost-effective as it can be. I want to ask you about recent press reports about Berlin Prison in Glasgow. You have already alluded to that. There are issues with the construction industry. Could you elaborate a bit more about whether the timetable has changed again? What are the actual reasons that you are being given for the delay? I understand that the costs are going up for raw materials, but that is a case across the sector. Given that we are building one prison here and it is a priority, I really understand what seems to be repeated delays in bringing about the new prison. In Glasgow, when we talk about delays, our original timetable pack was on September 22, but that was very much an estimate. In terms of Glasgow, I would not say that there has been real significant delays. One of the challenges that we had this year was that our capital budget of £97 million meant that we could only undertake a certain amount of advance works. At Glasgow, we are still in discussions and finalising a design and then a price with the contractor. It is anticipated that we will do that in the next 12 months. We originally, going back to that original date, were based on the fact that by this month we would have a design for large parts of the prison, but we would have areas that had not been fully designed. Now what we have done is taking the decision that we are now going to finalise the whole design by April this year. Although I do not think that there has really been any delays in the design in terms of HMP Glasgow, yes, there has been that we have not done the amount of advance works that we had anticipated and therefore that will probably have some impact on the programme, but I would not say that it is going to have a significant impact on the programme. Would you agree that there is an urgency to get a replacement for Bolinne prison? Absolutely. I do not understand why there could be such a delay in the design of a prison. We have built prisons before. Is there a requirement to build something different here? Why would it take to April to finalise the design for even to put something in the ground? Again, the approach that we have taken with HMP Glasgow is that we have had early contractor engagement. A traditional approach is that you would go off to get an architect, designer to design you a building and then you would engage a contractor and you would then create that kind of vision into a kind of construction design. It is a lot slower. No, it is the opposite. I think that we are actually on track for our design because the things that we anticipated to the design by this month, we have achieved that, but what we are now doing is designing the whole facility. Our engagement with the contractor was some July last year, I think, it was the date. Yes, it does seem a year and a half. However, it is a significant project. I think that many other projects have had longer design periods from inception. There is maybe not the same urgency in other projects. Here, as we have discussed many times, it is absolutely a human rights disgrace what prisoners are putting up with. Obviously, I am passionate about this because I am a Glasgow MSP, so I say that openly. I am horrified that, in West Central Scotland, we have got people set on remand sent to this prison and I do not even fully understand all the complexities of this, but I am deeply concerned about what seems to be taking an eternity to build a prison and we have built loads of prisons before. I really cannot understand what you are saying to the committee, is there something special about this design? I understand what you are saying about the design. I equally understand what you are saying about the concerns around Berlin. I carried the responsibility and the risk should there be any infrastructure failures in what is unagent and the infrastructure that exists does become ever more fragile each year that it operates. I understand completely those concerns and I would be delighted if we could deliver Glasgow in a much shorter time scale. Why not? I am not trying to... I really do generally do not understand what the problem is, so the design is not going to be available to APRO. What does that actually mean in practical terms? When you get the design, does that mean that you can go ahead and build it? How long does that take? The design, although we have built prisons in the past, we have not built prisons of this size, so this is the biggest prison that we have built. The teams have looked very carefully at recent designs in other jurisdictions and we obviously needed to include learning and best practice from Covid. We understand the requirement to operate a prison in a much more discreet way with smaller populations. As you know, there are 3 to 400 in a hall and they come up and down the stairs to collect meals and back up again. Having much more discreet communities of around 20 individuals will feel much safer and will produce much improved support arrangements for individuals on their rehabilitative journey, whilst in custody. The other thing, though, is that we need to design in features that are compatible with net zero and all of that takes time to do, but the team are not—I can please assure you that the team are not sitting on their laurels and we are all committed 100 per cent to getting this through as quickly as possible, Ms McNeill. I don't doubt that. I really don't doubt it. I understand it. Is it 2026? Do you feel that the completion of the— Can I maybe—I know your very—I know your very passionate about this, but if you can maybe just— I'm wondering if you have said what I already asked you, which is—I know—can you give us a rough indication of the year? I can't remember the last date exactly. I'd need to come back to that. Ms McNeill, let me do that. I'm happy for Ms Methurst to follow up on anything in writing that you're seeking answers to. Fulton MacGregor and then Russell Finlay. Thanks. Good morning to both of you. I wanted to ask about the through-care services. Obviously, this is an issue that's came to committee before, and I know that there's been various exchanges on it. I suppose I could just start, which is generally—what is the update of the current position on through-care services? I might have missed it, so forgive me if I do, but I didn't see it in the submission. The through-care support officer arrangements that we had in place were set down in 2019 due to operational pressures that were being experienced at that time. Since then, there has not really been the opportunity to reinstate the through-care support officer arrangements. What we have done is to look at how best we can ensure that people are as well prepared as they can be pre-release, and there are through-care arrangements that are now supported by third sector organisations that come under the aim of Community Justice Scotland. They commissioned those through-care support service arrangements. If there comes a point in time that we can look at restating it, then clearly I would want to do so, but at the moment, with the considerable pressures that we're experiencing, it's certainly not in the near future. The decision not to reinstate us now, is that simply due to budgetary pressures? It's due to operating pressures, so the increase in the population, as I said, has put significant pressure on the organisation. We came out of the pandemic and hoped to achieve a stable operating period with the population in particular, and that has unfortunately not materialised. In addition to that, we have workforce challenges as other parts of the public sector are experiencing as well. At the moment, we normally tend to operate within a 1 per cent vacancy assumption, if possible. That is currently sitting at 2 per cent, so there are staffing pressures as well, which would not allow me to consider any other type of service delivery at the current moment in time. The through-care services from Community Justice that are in place, I believe, is still the wise group in SACRO. The management there, cost of providing through-care services, don't come out your budget at all, then? No, they don't, no they don't. In the wise group in SACRO, do they provide through-care services for everybody, for all populations? To be honest, Mr MacGregor, I don't have that information. At the moment, my understanding is that we still have support arrangements in place for women and for young people. How far that extends to the adult male population, I honestly wouldn't be able to answer that, but I can come back to that. If you could come back, that's fine, but we can also get that information from other sources. One of the things that I'll be asking the cabinet secretary about later, and we had Community Justice in last week, is the whole direction of the justice system in Scotland, number one. Obviously, for less people to be in prison, I know even yourself, reason, others agree with that, but it does feel like we need to invest more in community justice in order to achieve that. At the same time, it's the first thing to go when things get tough. Do you recognise that as part of the decisions that the SPS made when it came to through-care? That was an absolutely invaluable service, and I think that it's a service that has been highly praised across the board, HMPIS, as well. I've said that it's highly regrettable, and most folk who have come in and spoke to us at some point have praised the standard of the through-care service that they used to have in place. What account did you take, were those factors taken into account when you made those decisions around through-care? At the time that the decision was made, as I said, the organisation was under considerable pressure with regard to the population. When we have significant population rises, the increased pressure that is experienced within the system affects not only the population and the people in our care, but it also affects the staff group. That is why we need to ensure, as far as possible, that we retain the maximum operating capacity that we can to ensure that people are kept safe—that's our staff and those in our care, as well. What happens is that there is a focus, as you rightly say, on doing what we have to do, so what we are legally required to do, and a lot of the transactional work that we are required to do takes up significant amounts of staff time. As a consequence of that, there is a deterioration in the amount of time that staff can spend on relationships and supporting people, and that leads to a deterioration in the sense of wellbeing for staff and prisoners. The decisions of that nature are not taken lightly, but have to be taken on the basis of the pressures that are being experienced by the organisation. It was unfortunate that through care support was one of the things that had to go, but we have to keep our prison safe and protect the public. All those things we are expected of us on a daily basis, and therefore we have to prioritise that work. I saw that, and it seems to be that the Belgian prison populations continue to cause a whole host of issues. I have two questions, one relates to Comarnac and one relates to Glasgow. The staff at HMP Comarnac are extremely anxious about the forthcoming transfer to the SPS, and I think that nothing that they have heard today will go any way to reassuring them. The SPS has known about this transfer since 2019, yet just months out from it happening. We are being told, staff are being told, that you have no idea how much is going to cost to make the transfer or how much the running costs are going to be to the SPS. Is that not a complete dereliction? We have engaged with staff at Kilmarnock in a meaningful way for more than a year now. We have had two engagement sessions, which I have attended on both occasions. We have had over 100 staff attend both of those. The most recent one was in September. The team has ensured that there have been regular communication, monthly communication with the staff group. The concerns and the issues that they are raising with us are not about the running costs or the costs to deliver the services. They are clearly more personal to them. We are about to enter a phase of one-to-ones with each of the staff to have informed discussions about what the transfer means for them and the choices that they will need to make about their personal circumstances. We have also committed to providing rosters for them prior to the transfer in the middle of March. Those are the kinds of things that are important to staff. What does that mean for me? How is it going to affect the quality time-off that I have with my family so that things like rostering are really important? Those things that are important to staff as individuals, we are responding to. We are taking on-board questions. There is a mechanism through which Serco staff can contact the project team direct and they can raise any questions or concerns as well as do so through the local management team. I do not want to interrupt with a very little time. The staff indeed have concerns. For example, they are going to lose their body worn cameras. They are going to go from an electronic system for HR holidays and so on to a paper-based SPS system, which seems regressive to me and to them. However, I am surprised that the SPS is sitting in front of us today unable to see how much the transfer is going to be or how much the running costs are going to be. Can you explain that? I can come back to that as well, Mr McHugh. We are not just going to come up in the last minute with a figure. The work has been going on for several months in preparing the budgets. It is tying in with the operational decisions on how we are going to operate the facility. As I said earlier, there is an impact across not just the establishment budget at Kilmarnock, but across all the budgets and across the SPS, which impact on our utilities budget or all the support services budgets. As part of a process, all that budgeting work comes to a conclusion around December in time for the annual budgeting process. Work has gone under way. As part of that process, we will get information and we will then look at the challenge of that information. I would say that we are looking at the budgets and we are analysing them, and we will come to a figure that we can accurately report. Thank you. The SPS has known about it for four years. It is four months away and we still do not know those numbers. I will move on to HMP Glasgow. In your early answer, Mr O'Donnell, you said that you— I know that this is important to discuss, but I am trying to make sure that we are focusing on pre-budget scrutiny. I am quite happy for Ms Metterson and Mr O'Donnell to follow up specific queries that relate to staff in writing. I really want this to be about budget. Absolutely. The next question is specifically about budget for HMP Glasgow and the impact that I will have on the SPS. The SPS capital budget for £24.25 was £192 million, £25.26 will be £80 million. I have not done this in chronological order, but £23.24 is £97 million. The total for those three years is less than the projected or speculated £400 million that the new HMP Glasgow is going to cost. First of all, is £400 million the most up-to-date figure and how on earth can you expect to pay for it given those sums? Two questions from you, Mr Finlay. The budget or the figures for Glasgow will be known once we have finalised the design and that has gone out for costing, so we are still working through that process. Is the £400 million figure a figure that you are familiar with that came from the SPS as a guide price? There were figures that were given in part of the infrastructure investment programme, which was again an indicative figure, because the detailed work in relation to both the outline business case and the design had not been developed at that stage. That is now well in train and will come to a conclusion next year, so at that stage we will have an understanding of what the full implications are for the cost. The background to this is that the governor of HMP Barlinnie said over the summer that a catastrophic incident in the prison is a question of when not if. HMP Glasgow, the replacement prison, was due to open in 2026, yet here we are now saying that it will be another 12 months before we even know the cost of that. As for an opening date, nobody knows. Is that a fair representation? I do not think so, Mr Finlay, if I can counter that, because the delivery date for Glasgow will be very much dependent on the second question that you asked, which was about the capital allocation that we are provided by Government over the next few years. That will determine the cash flow and therefore the timescales for delivery. Given the very real concerns around cost and we do not know how much it will cost, are you having conversations with Government about additional capital funding to meet the cost of HMP Glasgow? We are in constant conversations with our colleagues in Scottish Government over both the capital budget allocations and the revenue budget. I want to ask you about your contract with GeoAmy, which I understand is around £240 million. There have been highly publicised problems with GeoAmy, but one lawyer described it as an absolute disgrace. In your written submission, you said that additional funding is likely to be required for that. I wonder whether you could reassure us or tell us how you would look to improve the service and what additional funding are you looking at? There has been a lot of work undertaken this year, in particular Ms Mackay, because we operate the contract, but it is on behalf of the justice partners, so there are other key players. Any adjustments to the contract or adjustments to service are agreed through that partnership arrangement, so it is more complex than an SPS-owned and run contract, if I can explain that to begin with. Two of the biggest challenges with the GeoAmy contract was awarded in 2019, and we hit the pandemic in 2020. Obviously, court services and a lot of other services that GeoAmy would have expected to deliver against the original contract went down, and we were in a period of significant change in adjustment. Even since we have left the pandemic behind us, the way that all the business that is incorporated in that contract was set in 2019 has changed, it has reconfigured, so that court business is not operating in the way that it operated before, where you would have big vehicles turning up at Burlunay and Edinburgh and being full and distributing people around courts. The way that the courts have reset means that it is much smaller numbers requiring additional or more intense staffing profile. Our business has changed significantly in terms of our demands in relation to things such as hospital escorts have increased and they are quite staff intensive. All of GeoAmy's work is fairly staff intensive, and they have experienced workforce challenges as well. What that has meant is that their workforce has dropped by 25 per cent, so it is operating at a level that means that the service delivery is not able to manage the demands that we are placing on them. That has required recalibration not just within the contract but within justice partners as well to reset the demands on GeoAmy as well as provide some additional resource in order to ensure that they can improve their staffing profile because it is boots on the ground that will make the difference. That has recently been agreed. We were able to secure additional funds from the Scottish Government to support that. We have made agreed changes to the contract arrangements with our partners and with GeoAmy that are now in place. The workforce was also balloted on additional increase in their pay rates, which went through resoundingly this week. We are seeing the slowdown of the attrition from GeoAmy's staff has started to happen, although it is small numbers. Nevertheless, there are additional 20 staff this month than they had a couple of months ago. Things are improving. We are monitoring on a month-to-month basis and we are reviewing the revision in the contract arrangements on a four-monthly basis to ensure that the performance levels absolutely increase. On a four-monthly basis, you said that it means that you are monitoring it. If you do not see an improvement, is there an end to the set? Is there a cut-off point where you say that things have not improved? Another question was about GeoAmy's staffing. Do we know why it reached such a crisis point? Was it due to Brexit or not paying their staff enough? They are a private company, so it does not seem like a satisfactory arrangement. I am hoping from what you have said that you have been in discussions with your other partners. It is not quite a complex picture, but are you confident that things are going to improve with them from now on? I think that the changes that we have made should see an improvement. We are seeing already some green shoots of that improvement and the fact that the staff did accept, because they were made a pay offer earlier in the year that they did not accept, but they are doing so now. Their pay rates are not a factor, but equally I think that workforce expectations have changed, so people want flexible working, they want the ability to have some home working as well, and clearly GeoAmy can offer some of those flexibilities that potentially other employers can offer. The four monthly reviews are very much set in mind with the thresholds that we expect them to meet. If those are not met, we can either go back to the original contract, which will mean that there will be significant penalties applied to GeoAmy, but there are in the background on-going discussions around mitigations and contingencies that are taking place with our justice partners. Were any other alternative suppliers looked at during the period of trouble, once it was clear that there were such problems? I understand that you told us the reasons for those, but are you stuck with GeoAmy, or can you look around? What I would say to that, Ms Mackay is nothing's off the table, we are looking at all available options to us. I have two more members wishing to come in if I can just ask for fairly succinct responses to questions. John Swinney and then Katie Clark. I wonder if I could ask what is the month during the year at which the inflation rate for the private sector contract, private prison contracts, is set? It varies for the Arribel contract, it is September. I believe that GeoAmy, GeoAmy and Kilmarnock are December. I take it that those provisions are built into the contract at the point of negotiation. The private sector contracts were inflation-proofed at the time of the agreement of the contracts. I wonder if you could explain to me what is the risk transfer involved in that, whereby the private sector is protected from the rampant inflation that the public sector is having to face? The issue is that it is a 25-year contract, and at the start of that contract, a forecast is taken out. At that point, the risk is determined. I suppose that in a period in which there is low inflation, low CPI and RPI, there is a greater risk with the private sector contract, the private sector. However, in that period of time, when RPI and CPI are at higher levels, then obviously there are significant cost increases for the public. How I would interpret that, Mr Donnell, which I think is a completely fair observation from you, is that the private sector is essentially insulated from the effect of inflation and the public sector carries the can. The argument that those contracts represent some degree of risk transfer is complete baloney. If I could move on to the capital cost issue, have you any current experience of what is the real increase in capital costs in the current environment? I am probably talking there about this financial year versus what you would have expected capital costs to be three years ago. Are you able to give the committee for a particular project? We expected it two years ago to have cost £20 million, but it has in fact cost us £20 million plus x. Are you able to furnish the committee with any live examples of that? I think that that would be a helpful piece of data. I think that, post-pandemic, there was probably a backlog of projects. I think that one of the challenges has been that we are in a highly marketplace where there is a lot of construction projects going on. Therefore, going out to tender in the supply chain makes it very difficult to get competitive prices back. Quite often, you will only get one supplier coming back with a price. It is very difficult to get competitiveness in there at times. I think that there are significant supply chain issues in the construction industry in terms of labour. That is, as a result, a pre-pandemic with Brexit and freedom of movement. I also believe that construction and inflation are significant in terms of fuel and energy costs. It is a marketplace that has seen significant rises in inflation, as in many other marketplaces as well, but particularly in construction. It has made costs of projects significantly more expensive than a few years ago. The long and the short of it is that, for the Scottish Prison Service, finding itself in a position to deliver capital projects in the aftermath of Covid is stung by the combination of an intensely competitive marketplace because of the backlogs of construction projects. Supply chain cost increases that are fuelled by Brexit, the loss of freedom of movement, the increase in fuel costs, all of which are beyond the control of the Scottish Prison Service and the challenges about securing appropriate workforce to deliver those projects. That is the context in which you are trying to rejuvenate your estate. I want to ask about budgetary issues relating to Greenock. You have outlined to Pauline McNeill the long lead-in times that projects can incur, and there are plans for a new build at Inverclyde. Can you say whether any work has started in relation to that? In terms of the current estate and the fabric of HMP Greenock and the conditions that your staff and the prisoners are having to endure, can you outline the budgetary implications? A substantial work, as I understand it, is going on in relation to the walls. Could you give an update in relation to that and the budgetary implications? I will take that question, Ms Clark. In Greenock, in terms of a replacement prison, I think that it is still in the future pipeline, but no dates have been set. In maintaining the existing establishment, we have undertaken a number of areas to improve the establishment. There are a number of cells out of use because of darkness, et cetera. Budgetary constraints prevented us from doing full... I do understand all that, but could you maybe say how much you have spent and how much you envisaged spending? If it is that you are not able to do the work that you really think is necessary, that would be helpful for the committee to understand. I do not have exact numbers, so I can provide you with information in due course, but I can say that we are going out to tender for roofing works. Kitchens are being redesigned, and work has been undertaken this year to bring cells back into use. I am sorry to cut your short. We are tight for time, but if you could share that information with the committee, that would be very much appreciated. As you know, the Scottish Government policy is very much in favour of rehabilitation. However, there is a disconnect between policy and what is happening in the justice system, both within the prison estate and outside of the prison estate and in other parts of the justice system. In relation to the prison service, how are you dealing with that disconnect and what are you doing to try to ensure that you are able to expand the rehabilitation programmes that are available within the prison estate? To use an example, we are often told that sex offenders who are voluntarily asking to have access to programmes and other forms of rehabilitation are not able to get that because it is just not there. Do you perhaps explain how you are trying to make that shift within the budgets that you have? I suppose that a couple of things on that, Ms Clark. What we are doing in prisons at the moment in Scotland is that we have been recalibrating some of our delivery around rehabilitation to focus on health, wellbeing and people who use drugs and alcohol. There has been much more focus on that, given that a significant proportion of our population is affected. In relation to programme delivery and progression, prior to the pandemic, because of the slow steady increase of long-term prisoners, we had had pressures in those areas anyway. We had looked at a number of different ways and means that we could readjust not just the programme delivery but how we constructed our resource to do so. That was paused by the pandemic but clearly during that time there has been created an even bigger backlog. As a matter of priority, we are focusing some time and resource on our case management system and on our delivery of programmes in order to ensure that we are future-proofed and not just dealing with the backlog. What does that mean in budgetary terms? There are two issues—either putting more money in or trying to make better use of the money that is already there for that purpose. Can you say that you are putting any more money in and are you able to do that, given all the pressures on you, or are you having to cut back in financial terms and are you trying to do it better to make it more efficient? Can you explain briefly the strategy? It is all of those things. It is making better use of our staff time. I move to incel technology, which would free staff up from transactional work and allow them more time to do the relational work-in-case management systems, allowing greater access to online services such as education services, because our learning strategy is being revisited and the contract will be re-elected. There are a number of different strands to that, but I would be happy to give you more detail on that. That would be helpful. I may be asking how long is a piece of string, but it is clear that there is a disconnect and it is clear that the service is not being provided in the way that I suspect all of us would like it to happen. There is an unlimited amount of money, and I am sure that you can spend on those things, but have you looked at how much it would cost to deliver an adequate service in terms of programmes and other forms of rehabilitation? Can you advise the committee on what you think we should be spending, compared with what you are able to spend? I understand completely the pressures on the service, particularly as prison numbers are increasing and are likely to continue to increase. I am not being critical, because I understand the pressures, but I am trying to understand what that disconnect is and whether that is something that you are doing work on and actively engaging with, and whether you can share that with the committee, perhaps in writing. I would be happy to respond to all of that in writing. We will have to draw this session to a close. Thanks to our witnesses for attending this morning, and we will have a short suspension to allow a changeover of witnesses. I am pleased to welcome our second panel to the meeting this morning for our final evidence session on pre-budget scrutiny. I welcome to Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Ms Katrina Dallrymple, interim director of justice and Mr Donald McGovery, director of safer communities at the Scottish Government. I will allow around 90 minutes for this session. My intention is to broadly cover the following areas in turn, so if you can bear with me. We will start with Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, then we will move to community justice questions, then policing, courts and prosecution services, prisons and then any other parts of the justice sector that members may wish to ask questions around. As you can see, we have a lot of ground to cover, so I ask members as usual to keep questions as succinct as possible. If we do not manage to get through all the questions, we can send the remainder in writing seeking a response. I will now start with a general opening question, and then I will open it up to members for anything similar before I move on to the fire and rescue service. Cabinet Secretary, it will be of no surprise that virtually every organisation that we have heard from has painted a stark picture of their finances with capital budgets under significant pressure. All have said that their finances are insufficient and many have said that they have cut as far as they can. What is the possibility for a change that might address that? Have you had any discussions so far with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the scope for further investment, particularly if that was on a spend-to-save basis? Good morning, convener, and thank you very much for that. As you specifically mentioned capital budgets, I will start my remarks with that. It is no secret to say that capital is under extreme pressure. The UK Government has not inflation-proofed capital, so what we will see for the financial year 24-25 is nearly a 4 per cent real-terms reduction, and we will see nearly a 7 per cent real-terms reduction by 27-28. The capital position is particularly stretched, particularly severe. We have some prominent commitments, particularly in and around the prison estate. I have had many discussions with the Deputy First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. As you would expect, there is an intensive amount of engagement at this stage prior to the budget. Obviously, the budget will be published in due course, and it will be for Parliament as a whole to scrutinise that and to agree to that budget or not. I will go straight to other members for their questions. If there is nobody looking to ask a general opening question, I apologise, Russell. We will move to fire and rescue services, and I will bring in Katie Clark, then Sharon Daly and then I will come to you. Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware of the campaign for additional funding from the Scottish Government for the Fire Service spearheaded by FBU Scotland, and no doubt you have seen their firestorm report. There have been a decade of real-term cuts to the fire service, and it is fair to say that there is a lack of investment, particularly capital investment and other investment, over many years, so what you are now facing is cumulative. Do you believe that we are now in a position where we are legally exposed as a result of, for example, the failure to provide a safe system of work and the failure to have adequate decontamination available for firefighters? I acknowledge that, in the same way that households up and down the country are challenged because of a cost-of-living crisis, and public services are, indeed, across the board, challenged on the back of a decade of austerity. I should point out that, in terms of this Government's record in investing in justice, we have continued to make year-on-year increases in investment. Focused on fire, because we will be coming up with other issues. I am, indeed, focused on fire because it is a general point that is applicable to fire. The fire budget for this year increased by £14 million in comparison to the previous year. The point that I would like to make is that the budget for this year was certainly in a better position than it was at pre-budget scrutiny. There is a very important role for pre-budget scrutiny. We will continue to work with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Ministers continue to receive assurances, whether that is from His Majesty the Inspectorate or, indeed, Chief Fire Officers, that we have a safe service. There are, of course, choices and challenges to address. No-one, for one moment, is disputing that, but we have continued to make year-on-year increased investment into fire services. Indeed, when you compare the current budget from 2017-18 investment is £55 million higher. Of course, people are entitled to argue for more. There will be an issue for Parliament to identify if we are investing more in one area, where that comes from, bearing in mind that the Scottish Government as a whole has to operate within a financial envelope and that our abilities to raise revenue are somewhat limited. Do you accept that fire fighters currently lack suitable decontamination facilities? That is an important issue in terms of the welfare of staff. It is an issue that the Scottish Government is engaged in, both with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I know that operational procedures are in place, particularly for some of the more rural stations in and around decontamination procedures. It is important that, as a Government, we have contributed to research on the health impacts for fire fighters and are supportive of additional health screening. Fire fighters have told me that guidance has not been issued. I understand that it has been worked on. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could get back in terms of guidance being issued by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. He told the committee that its capital funding has remained at £32.5 million over the past seven years, yet it needs at least £60 million per annum of investment. Does she feel that that level of underfunding is acceptable? I would dispute whether it is underfunded. You are right to point out that people will always make a case for more. That is the function of pre-budget scrutiny. It is rare for any organisation to be able to address all their capital needs within one year. That is why, when the Deputy First Minister publishes the budget, she will also publish multi-year indicative spend on resource and capital. In the longer term, that does not replace the annual budget process, but it allows people the opportunity to plan ahead. As I said, capital is extremely stretched. Capital funding has been maintained at £32 million for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but there is deep pressure on capital budgets. I am going to have to bring in other members, but if we have time at the end, I will be very happy to bring in members back with any outstanding questions. Sharon Dawey, Russell Findlay. The committee's last pre-budget scrutiny, Ross Haggart, stated that the fire service may have to save £14 million next year on the basis of the flat-cash budget, and that was a conservative estimate. That would equate to 339 full-time equivalent officers and 18 fewer appliances that could be crude. What is your response to that comment? I am conscious that many organisations, including the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, have submitted their evidence to the committee. Much of that is based on the resource spending review of May 2022. I would point to the fact that the current year's budget was in a better place than the resource spending review that was published in May last year. I will continue to do my best to argue and negotiate for the best possible deal for all justice organisations. What I would say is that, as with any estimate of savings that will have to be made, they are based on various assumptions, whether that is around inflation, pay increases, future financial commitments and future budgets—all variables—that can change, as we have seen with this year's budget, because we have seen some of the highest levels of inflation in more than a generation. That, of course, has had an impact on the Scottish Fire Service and, indeed, other justice organisations. Are you concerned about the safety aspects of them not getting enough budget? If appliances are unable to be crude, it is going to be an increase in response time, particularly if I get quite a big rural area that I cover. The response times would be reduced there, so are you worried about the ability of the fire service to respond quickly to fires if they do not get further funding that they need? It is important to remember that the number of fires has reduced in the last 20 years. That, of course, is to the credit of firefighters. It is my understanding that it was many years ago that the fire service moved away from having targets around response times. Instead, it has a targeted approach around risk and the allocation of resources. I do not know whether it was this justice committee or a previous one that was not convinced that time targets around response times were the best way to go. I bear in mind that, in terms of the preponderance and incidence of both dwelling fires and primary fires, we are in a safer place because fires have reduced, but, nonetheless, community safety is a priority. We will continue to do what we can to support people with as much resource as can be afforded. The retained duty service, which provides the primary fire cover for around 80 per cent of the geography in Scotland, is losing one-tenth of its own coal firefighters every year and cannot recruit or retain enough replacements. What additional funding could you provide to address the vacancy level and ensure that the terms and conditions are standardised for retained firefighters? It is important to acknowledge that this is not so much a resource issue. It is much more an issue in and around recruitment that exists across the UK. When I visited the Inveriri fire station, a month or so ago, they spoke to me about the challenges for rural communities, particularly in terms of recruitment and retention of retained firefighters. It is something that we are actively engaged with SFRS on what more can be done in and around recruitment and how to more effectively recruit and retain staff. The FBU's firestorm report is sobering and, indeed, deeply concerning. Of course, inflationary issues have contributed to the capital backlog, but this has been a decade of accumulated underspend. The most recent figure put forward by the FBU is actually over £800 million. I think that that is something that SFRS does not disagree with. Firefighters say that they are being put at risk because of this. They say that the public are being put at risk by this. They say that firefighters are also not having the required decontamination facilities. Given the scale of the backlog, is it now reached a point where you are having critical discussions with Scottish Government about additional funding, more over and above what might be committed in the budget? Is there now an argument for this being subject to perhaps the Royal Commission? I would dispute that, Mr Finlay, with respect. Which part is disputed? The Royal Commission. You do not think that there is a need? No. There is, of course, a place for in-depth inquiries, but they do not come without a financial cost. If you had to ask me to make a choice between investing in front-line services or some further inquiry, I would opt to invest in front-line services. It is important to recognise that fires and fire-dress domestic premises have reduced in the past five years. I accept the point that, in terms of facilities, workers are afforded dignity, safety and privacy. Despite a challenging situation in the past, we have maintained capital spend £32.5 million. It is not just the inflationary pressures, although I point to the inflationary pressures on the construction services and the cost of basic materials to replace. Buildings has certainly rocketed, thanks to record-breaking UK-wide inflation and, indeed, other matters such as Brexit. However, there has been a proactive decision by the UK Government not to increase capital funding and not to inflation-proof that, so that gives us some challenges. We will have to prioritise in terms of safety, because safety is a priority. We also have His Majesty's aspect of fire services, which provides independent oversight of fire and rescue services, which should give us all some assurance. I mean, it has been a decade of underspend year after year after year, and that is the decisions made by the Scottish Government. On that basis, is there an argument that more money should be forthcoming to go some way to addressing this £800 million-plus backlog in capital expenditure? I will not argue with you that we have certainly had a decade of austerity, and that has had an impact on decisions that we were able to make and decisions that we will be able to make going forward. However, as I pointed out in an earlier answer, I will always do my best to negotiate the best possible deal for all justice organisations and that our discussions within Government are indeed intense on those matters. I am particularly bearing in mind the volume of pre-budget evidence that has been submitted to the committee. I am going to move us on and ask members to come in on questions around community justice. I am going to kick off with Fulton MacGregor, then John Swinney. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to cabinet secretary and officials. We had community justice in last week, cabinet secretary, and you might have seen the evidence session. What we heard during that was quite a strong case that perhaps there is a disconnect of some sort between policy and tension of the Scottish Government within the justice sector, and how it is operating in terms of budgets. What it really meant was that, while we were focusing—or we have to focus because of large numbers of prisons and things like that, the community justice sector budget has remained very small in comparison with the rest of the sector and fairly static. It is hindering the chances and the opportunities to change the shift between the way that we all want it. I have probably asked that question a long way around the apologies, cabinet secretary, but is that something that you would agree with? Would you agree with that kind of overall analysis? I think that there is an alignment with the justice vision and with the national strategy for community justice and the delivery plans in and around that. There is nothing new in the delivery plans, but they are continuing the put in our words and practice. There is the transformational change programme, particularly around shifting the balance from prison to community justice. I would say that the overall budget for this year for community justice is £134 million. That includes the continuation of additional investment of £15 million, which essentially began in 2022-23 to support pandemic recovery efforts and to bolster capacity. However, there is no doubt about it that the early intervention that we want to see within justice services applies beyond justice services. The broader Government agenda in and around early intervention and prevention, whether that is in health, early years, social security employability, is all crucially important, too. What I would agree with is that there is a very strong argument to be picking up the pace in achieving our ambitions and in and around community justice, bearing in mind the situation that we are in with a growing prison population. Is there any plans in this budget about how we might pick up the pace? Even to give an example, in the previous session, the Scottish Prison Service asked about throughcare. The throughcare service that the prison service previously ran was a very well highly respected one. It has obviously been pulled as a prison population has grown and the pressures are put on its staff, but it seems to be that whenever something has to give, it seems to be the community justice side that has to go. That is an example of that. Is there anything that can be done through the upcoming budget to try to increase that pace? I do not think that there is any doubt—I do not think that a single member around us would doubt—that the Scottish Government's policy intentions in this area are to reduce our prison population and enhance community justice. The budget for the next financial year is still to be published and agreed. In terms of the changes that the SPS made to their throughcare arrangements, they date back to 2019. What I will be ensuring is that the calendar years 24 and 25 will be our implementation period for the bail and release act. I do not need to rehearse the arguments that were made in this committee underpinning the focus on throughcare and starting to plan for people's release on admission to prison if they are subject to remand or, indeed, a determinate sentence. I do think that when I undoubtedly will be coming back to Parliament to discuss issues in and around how we address our rise in prison population, and I am strongly of the view that the actions that we take to address that now also have to be actions that will address the issue in the future as well. We need to adopt approaches that are not just short-term responses but are also for the longer term. I just wanted to ask about the multi-year funding model for third sector bodies. Do you agree that, if it was multi-year, it could be helpful longer term or are you quite happy with the current model? The reason why I ask that is because, even in the last session that we were talking about, the throughcare model has been replaced by third sector organisations such as Sacro in the wise group who I do think do an absolutely fantastic job. Do you think that there is an argument for multi-year funding for those sort of organisations within the justice sector? I do think that there are very pragmatic arguments in favour of that in terms of a newbill, and, as you suggest, Mr McGregor, on voluntary organisations has been put in a more secure, stable footing. We have adopted that approach with the victim-centred approach fund, which is a £48 million fund over three years, but I am just going to be really upfront with committee and direct. Multi-year funding is somewhat challenging when you operate in a single-year budgeting. If I give you an overview of the justice portfolio budget, I mean that well over 70 per cent of that goes towards staffing costs. We have obviously had very welcome pay increases for front-line staff. We will then have around 15 to 20 per cent that will meet our statutory commitments, and then around 5 per cent of what our budget goes towards voluntary organisations. It is very obvious that there is intense financial pressure on the Government and on public services after the impact of austerity Brexit and the spiralling and punitive impact of inflation. I certainly do not underestimate the financial pressures on the Government. In that context, it strikes me that the comments, cabinet secretary, that you put on the record about the importance of picking up the pace on preventative services is absolutely critical, because it looks to intense purposes that the Government is in a bit of a bind with a rising prison population, which is a more expensive problem to service than preventative services, which are much more affordable and, in some circumstances, produce better outcomes. What I am interested in is what impetus is being given across Government to make the shift into preventative services that the cabinet secretary highlighted, because I recognise that this is not just a justice compartment issue, this is a wider issue across Government. Is the Cabinet focusing its discussions on how that shift might be made to reduce the higher-cost custodial service that is being supported with a greater priority being allocated towards preventative interventions? To be blunt, doing nothing in terms of doing more to move towards preventative services in early intervention is not an option. We can see that with the very obvious example around the rising prison population, and it could also apply to other justice services as well. In essence, in terms of that broad strategic approach, we need to reduce demand for some services. We can only do that by acting earlier. In terms of our precious resources, we also need to have a longer-term vision in and around spend to save, whether that is around some digital investment, for example. However, the evidence tells us that, while there is always a place for prisons and there will always be people who will require to be in custody, that the use of a robust community supervision is far more effective at reducing re-offending than, for example, a short-term custodial sentence. In some circumstances, prison is indeed an expensive way of making things worse. In terms of the cross-government point, I think that that is well understood. If I use one example, the overrepresentation of care leavers in our prison system, so that means that investment in community justice or the rehabilitation programs in prisons is not just important to me, it is also an investment in and around the early years, supporting families and the promise. There is obviously work that we are doing within justice around the Bairnshouse pathways. All of that will lead to a different approach in supporting children and victims. The proceeds of crime money goes towards investment in diverse activities for young people. In its history, hundreds of thousands of young people have supported, and the current programme will benefit around 33,000 young people across the country. Is this the moment for the Government to be bold about the challenge that puts in front of a range of organisations, all of whom are in front of this committee asking for more money, to say that we have got to have a shift of our focus because we cannot go on like this? Indeed. I say this with the greatest respect to the many valued stakeholders who have come to committee and given detailed evidence, both in person and in writing, but if I add up all of those asks, I cannot meet all of those asks. I might as well just be, you know, I have just been dead straight with committee about that. That means that we will have to do things differently and leverage incentives in the resources that we have to see where people can do things such as spend to save, where we can continue. Our journey with public sector reform is not over. We will still have examples, whether that is injustice or across the public sector, of services being delivered in a way that may meet the needs of the institution or the organisation, but not the individuals in that, you know, the perennial challenge of being able to support people earlier on in their life's journey, which will prevent problems further down the line. Is there an argument then where better outcomes are being achieved for money to be allocated to other purposes because better outcomes are being achieved rather than an argument that there can only be an increase in money allocated to a particular organisation or policy area because that is what gets argued for in the pre-budget process? The ultimate assessment always has to be better outcomes. Crimes are going down, fires are going down. How do we have services where we are reaching people earlier? How do we have services where it is appropriate? We are preventing people going to prison because that is not just in the interests of individuals, it is in the interests of our communities and our country. We need to move a debate from quantum to quality and to one of change, not with the understanding that there are undoubtable difficulties with the financial envelope that is available to us. In 2019, the Parliament passed legislation to enable GPRS electronic monitoring and bracelets that monitor alcohol used to be used. Both of those technologies obviously have the capacity and potential to reduce re-offending. I met and visited GPRS relatively recently and I understand that they have not been asked to start work on those initiatives. I know that the cabinet secretary visited shortly before me, so I suspect that she has been looking at those issues. Is she now trying to get this work started? There are two aspects to Ms Clarke's question. I visited the premises in East Kilbride to be able to appraise myself of the further advantages of GPRS technology. I have commissioned my officials to explore that work. I would hope to keep Parliament abreast of that. We have seen success in the increase in electronic monitoring with Bail. It is a good example of the use of technology that is not just the benefit of individuals and families but the long run to communities. It is an important part of the jigsaw in terms of community payback orders. Community payback orders can have a wide range of conditions attached to them, and I would like to see the fuller spectrum of conditions utilised. That is something that I have just recently discussed with Social Work Scotland about how we can move forward and do that. If I could ask a very general follow-up question in relation to that, this Parliament passed that legislation in 2019. A huge amount of scrutiny goes into legislation. The expectation from MSPs when we pass legislation is that it will be enacted pretty much immediately. It seems to be a theme that legislation gets passed and it does not necessarily happen. Is that something that the cabinet secretary is concerned about? Well, Ms Clark, I am always a woman in a hurry, but there are obvious financial constraints, which inevitably means that choices are made and around the implementation of legislation. That is nothing new, but in broad terms, Governments should be upfront when legislation is going through what our anticipated implementation timescales are. Sometimes, for very good reasons, there has to be a phasening of reforms and legislative changes. Particularly with the pandemic, there has to be a phasening of reforms so that we do not overwhelm systems. I will bring in Rona Mackay and then we will move on to questions around policing. I would like to ask a couple of questions around the Scottish Government's commitment to combat and violence against women and girls. I wonder if you could identify or break down how that budget has been spent and what you imagined. I appreciate that you might not have that to hand in writing if you do not have it. That is my first question. I know from my previous posts of the importance of the equally safe fund, the delivering equally safe fund, that is obviously work that is of paramount importance to the justice sector. Although it sits in another portfolio, the delivering equally safe fund is £19 million per year and it supports 121 projects from 112 organisations. In terms of my own portfolio, I mentioned the Victim Centre approach fund, which is the £48 million over 23 years. There is a big part of that, £18.5 million, which is for specialist advocacy in response to gender-based violence. How does that line up with the Istanbul Convention, which was passed fairly recently, and what their estimation would be needed? I was an advocate in a previous life for the incorporation of the Istanbul Convention and worked very closely with Westminster colleagues to pursue that UK level. The Istanbul Convention is looking for action around prevention to combat all forms of violence against women and girls and, in particular, for policies to be integrated on a cross-government basis and to measure the impact for programmes as well. The final question would be that Scottish Women's Aid has raised on numerous occasions the issue of the domestic abuse survivors being able to access eligibility to legal aid. I wonder if you could enlighten us about any plans to address that situation and the availability of legal aid solicitors, because that seems to be a huge gaping hole in the Justice Department. We have a very generous legal aid system that compares well to many or most of our European counterparts. Our civil legal aid has a very wide scope. There has been a number of uplifts to legal aid, four uplifts since 2019, and there has been an additional resource of £31 million since 2021, and the latest uplift of £11 million from memory creates a 10 per cent increase. We invest heavily in legal aid, and we support the Scottish Women's Rights Centre as well. There is a pilot project that we are supporting with up to £400,000 over a period of three years. That is a pilot that has been established through the Scottish Legal Aid Board to support Scottish Women's Aids and the provision of legal advice to women affected by gender based violence. That has been taken forward in collaboration with many of the Women's Aids and a Firm of Solicitors. On the point about solicitors, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety jointly chairs a working group that is about the future of the legal profession, which is about diversity and capacity. That is quite encouraging. The funds that you mentioned might go somewhere to some way to alleviate the issue of the lack of legal aid solicitors available in time, and it would help women who have suffered violence. We are going to move to questions around policing. We have three more areas that members are interested in, such as policing courts and prisons. We have a wee bit of time, but I will bring in Russell Finlay to kick things off. The Scottish Police Federation, David Kennedy from the SPF, described policing in Scotland as having been the phrase-used asset stripped over the past decade with over 140 police stations being closed and a reduction in the number of officers. We have heard similar concerns in the past from the previous chief constable and others in policing. I wonder generally what the Government is intending to do to deal with the capital backlog in relation to policing. I would dispute the phrase asset stripped. It is true and a matter of public record that the formation of Police Scotland into a national police service from eight legacy services has indeed resulted in savings of £200 million a year, which is a resource that is available for other public services. That is a good example of public sector reform, where savings have been released. We can also take assurance from His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary of Police in Scotland, who has, time and time again, spoke of our outstanding operational policing services. I have spoken a fair amount of length around the challenges in and around capital. The Police Scotland has its estate strategy, which has a firm focus on co-location and co-location of public services, not just because of the financial challenges that we face, but because more collaborative work always seems to be a sensible proposition to me. I know that Police Scotland has probably instigated over 60 co-location projects, but there is one in my constituency. Rheshaping the estate in light of capital challenges seems like a sensible thing to do, but it can also lead to a better way of working. On the police officer numbers, we have 370 more officers than we did in 2007. Police Scotland has, since the beginning of 2022, recruited nearly 1,500 new recruits. We have 30 police officers per 10,000 of the population in comparison to 25 per 10,000 of the population south of the border. In terms of what it is achieving in terms of the investment and in terms of police numbers, I would contend that it is secure and stable. We can debate police officer numbers all day long and interpret statistics in our own way, but we can agree that Police Scotland officers uniquely in the United Kingdom do not have the protection of body-worn cameras. The provision of those was a commitment made by the First Minister on at least two occasions, but the most recent response to the budget for Police Scotland is that it may not have the money to implement those and to bring those in to give officers the protection. Is that something that you are concerned about, that specific area, and is there anything that can be done to assure officers that they will get those cameras? We have still to set the budget, but I accept the point, Mr Finlay, that body-worn cameras are a priority for the Scottish Government. The First Minister, as you said, has spoken of that on a number of occasions. In terms of the evidence that Police Scotland has given to the committee, it may be clear that it is also a priority for them. Body-worn cameras are a good example of investing to save. They are a good example of reforming how the business has done. It will lead to more effectiveness and efficiency, perhaps around the provision of evidence. There is also an important point about officer safety. Do you have any idea of likely timescale? Can you give any suggested timescale? The programme for government made a commitment about beginning to roll out body-worn cameras and that the Government would support Police Scotland to begin that process in 2024 to 14,000 police officers. Is that the beginning of the process? Sorry, yes, yes. Is the completion likely? We would not want to be taken forever and a day about it, but that will be finalised once the budget is finalised. I hope that I can convey to you, Mr Finlay, and also to police officers that body-worn camera investment is indeed a priority. I wonder if I can maybe just come in and follow up on the discussion around police officers and staff numbers. We know that those numbers have been falling under, but they are predicted to be cut as a result of budgetary constraints. I wonder what your views are on the impact on policing in communities, which we know is something that communities and the public like to see. I am aware that things like ICT development, for example, where police officers now have electronic notebooks, as opposed to the old-fashioned paper notebooks that they used to use, and that development and investment in ICT has significantly enabled police officers to remain in communities, as opposed to having to always come back to the police station to write up notes, to write up details of cases and inquiries. I am interested in seeking an assurance from the cabinet secretary that where possible those numbers will be retained and not cut. The assurance that I can give to the committee that I will work as hard as possible to get the best possible budget for Police Scotland. I want the new chief constable to be able to make decisions as she sees fit in and around police numbers and the deployment of those resources. I know from my engagement thus far with the new chief constable that she is particularly focused on community policing and presence as a priority. It is always the case that, in the lead-up to budgets, people make predictions and predictions have to be made on assumptions. However, I point to the fact that, where we ended up this year, there was a better financial position and that the most recent quarterly statistics around police numbers show a stabilisation at £16,600. We all value each and every police officer. We want to support them to work in communities, whether that is via technology or other means. John Swinney would like to come in and then we will move on. The cabinet secretary referred to the chief constable's priority around community policing, which I understand is welcome. The criminal threat that we as a society face is much broader than just community policing. The sophistication of online activities to threaten the population and the necessity for Police Scotland to have the necessary online skills might not lend itself to the traditional definition of police officers. Police officer numbers being the best indicator of the strength and effectiveness of Police Scotland. To what extent is that changing nature of crime reflected in the dialogue with the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority and reflected in the budgetary choices that might be made? What I observe and am part of across government and with my dialogue with the new chief constable and the previous one and my on-going involvement with Police Scotland is that at a strategic level they are focused on community policing, but that also applies to the threats that we experience on a more global or a more national basis. The advantage of having a national police force is of course around the more flexible deployment of resources. Mr Swinney is correct that the nature of crime is changing and we will have to look at cyber crime as an example of that. That will require different forms of expertise and that is why it is important that I secure the best possible deal possible so that the chief constable, who is better placed with respect than anybody sitting around this table including me, will make decisions on how best to combat that threat that we face at a community or a national level and how to deploy her resources to best effect. Is the nuance that I am trying to get across of the nature of the skills that are required in Police Scotland for the policing challenge of today, best served by a discussion about what are the number of police officers that we have available to us? I suppose that within Police Scotland what I think Mr Swinney is driving at is that in terms of keeping our communities safe the debate is much broader than police officers because it also has to include police staff and other associated professionals who will bring various forensic skills to bear. If there are normal questions on policing that members would like to ask, we will move on to questions around courts and I am going to bring in Russell Finlay. I was not expecting that, if someone else has got one but I can certainly try and come up with it. I had a general question that might fit for courts. The most recent ruling in relation to corroboration not being required in some rape cases, SCTS, expect this will result in a significant number of new prosecutions. Is that something that the Scottish Government has analysed in any way and discussed with Scottish courts in terms of new workload and the cost of that? It is a very recent judgment and I am conscious that it has immediate and retrospective effect that the judgment and we will apply beyond sexual offences cases. It will be a matter for the Lord Advocate in terms of how she pursues prosecutions. I will have meetings and catch-up sessions with the Lord Advocate. It will be for her to perhaps look at modelling to anticipate the impact that that would have on prosecutions, but it does have an immediate and retrospective effect. There is potential for this to be significant in terms of volume of additional work, but we just do not know what it is too early to say. It is too early to say, but it has potential to increase prosecutions. I am just going to ask if any other members would like to come in on courts at all. Pauline McNeill, I think that you were... It is just a question that relates to the SSI as well that we will be dealing with later on. The committee is going to be asked to vote for an SSI to extend the time limits in court proceedings, but I will just ask you to direct the cabinet secretary. It is one of the reasons that we have been asked to do this, because the Scottish Court of Tourism does not have the budget to get these time limits nearer to what the legal requirement is. No, I do think that this is about our on-going recovery from the pandemic, and we will obviously discuss this in greater detail later. Originally, there were seven time limits, seven extensions to time limits with committees approval. We will remove some of those further to this hearing of committee, and we will have in place three out of the seven. We are making progress, and we are making progress because the court backlog programme is making progress. That backlog is down by a third since the start of last year, and we have either actually increasing resources has went into the solemn cases in terms of two additional high courts and six additional sheriff summary courts. We are lifting the time limits because the test of when they were applied was whether it was necessary and proportionate, and we are lifting those time limits because it is no longer necessary and proportionate, and the remaining ones, which we will discuss later, is that we believe that those continue to be necessary. Before we move on to our final area around prisons, I wonder if I can just ask the cabinet secretary about some of the evidence that Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have given the committee. In their evidence, they have set out increased costs in terms of developing evidence by commissioner, a greater number of solemn cases being prosecuted, additional work that would be required as a result of the changes introduced by virtue of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice reform bill. Another issue is about the increase in death reports and investigations. What priority is the cabinet secretary giving to those individuals of areas of work and ensuring that the required resources are in place? Just to point out, those issues are important, but the Lord Advocate negotiates her budget with the Deputy First Minister and says that all Scottish Government ministers do. So, while the justice portfolio budget will have a direct bearing on police, fire and course, it does not for the Crown Office. I am limited in what I can say in and around that, because that is a discussion for the Lord Advocate with the Deputy First Minister. Obviously, in terms of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice reform bill, I am not going to say too much because we have a number of lengthy sessions ahead of us, but that bill will hopefully reach stage 3 in advance of next year's budget in terms of some of the discussion that we have heard in and around the implementation of legislation. That will be a live issue for certainly next year's budget, and I will talk to the committee more about my initial thoughts about how the implementation of what is a landmark bill can be phased. We are going to move on to our final area for questions and prisons. I wonder if I can maybe just kick things off before I bring other members in with a question around the prison population, which we heard a little bit about this morning in our previous session. Does the cabinet secretary feel that the current prison population and remand prisoner levels are acceptable and sustainable, and does she have specific plans to address that? When will those be set out for Parliament to consider, and are there any budgetary implications for justice organisations arising from those? Notwithstanding that your people are in prison 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 my work 20 years ago in HMP Perth, the prison population was 5,500. It is now this week 7,964. A high prison population comes with risks. Her Majesty's spectra of prisons made that very clear. She issued a clarion call for action, and it is one that I intend to pursue. At the end of the day, a high prison population does not just present risks for the wellbeing of prisoners and staff. It is not in the best interest of our communities in terms of reducing re-offending. When I met justice spokespeople a few weeks ago, I made clear that the statement that I made to Parliament in October would not be my first and only statement to Parliament. I would certainly anticipate returning to Parliament before the end of the year. There are indeed budgetary implications of a high prison population. Some of that is just 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. Thank you very much. I am going to bring in some other members now. I think that we have Pauline McNeill and then Russell Finlay. Thank you very much. Cabinet secretary, I had an exchange with Theresa Mayrthurs and Jerry O. Just about the plans for HMP Glasgow. I am sure that I do not need to rehearse the urgency that is required here and the pressure on the prison population, standards of prisons and so on. When I tried to press them on the completion date, because there has been some press around this, and it is just unclear to the committee what the date is or the ambition for the date is, but what Theresa Mayrthurs said is that it will depend on the capital allocation. I am not really sure what she meant by that, but I presume that she meant in discussion with the Scottish Government on what capital allocation will be available, presumably in the year of build. It is really hard to fore this. First of all, is the Scottish Government prepared to make the capital allocation when it is required for the build of HMP Glasgow? The replacement of HMP Barlinny, I can assure Ms McNeill's committee, is indeed a priority. It is a priority that will have consequences for other actions that we won't be able to pursue as quickly as we wanted within the prison estate. I can assure you that a new facility to replace Barlinny is a priority. It will be a large infrastructure project that will require funding over a number of years, and it will require a sustained commitment. We won't know timescale until we know costs, and we won't know the costs until we get the final designs. The bottom line is that there perhaps is not as specific information as people would desire. We are all keen for that specific information, but we need to know the final design, so we know the final anticipated cost, because costs of infrastructure projects change, as we know. Once we know costs, we can work out timescale, and we can work out the capital budget accordingly. It is not a one-year investment. Does that mean that the anticipated date of 2026 is not a real date anymore, or is that just fluid? I know that there have been various dates produced and bandied. To be absolutely clear with the committee, we want to get to the costs, so that we can get to implementation, so that we can make those plans in the capital budget, so that there is an up-to-date timeline for everybody to work towards. We have been told that the design will be expected to complete April of next year, so we are not having any idea whatsoever about how we build it. I understand that it is a big infrastructure project, but will you press the relevant people to give an answer from April forward as to run some estimate about when a project like that can start? If you have a design plan at that point, presumably, you can then cost it. In my interests, I am particularly motivated to see those final design plans as soon as possible so that we can then have a more definitive view of costs. Once we know costs, we can then plan accordingly, but it is an absolute priority. I am taking it from what you are saying to committee that if it is a priority to see the design plans in April, then you will start to release the relevant capital for that to get work started. I just did not want you to be under the impression that this was a one-year-only capital investment. I am learning, but it is not fair for the committee to be left for the perception by the Government or the SPS that it is just like a moving thing all the time. I know that it is complicated, but I feel up to this point that there is a bit of smoke and mirrors to pin anything down at all for a project that is meant to be a priority. I would not be a builder. I would share some of that frustration, but I know that the Scottish Prison Service, particularly the Governor of Berlin, is very focused on that. We have to accept that the pandemic and the construction materials price index with a 47% increase overall in construction materials have an impact. However, I want to have as much clarity as soon as possible. I know that that is shared by the Scottish Prison Service as well. I think that Rona Mackay has a very tiny supplementary line. You have just said yourself about the increasing building costs, which just go up astronomically year by year. I do not know if there are any questions for this, but is putting a cap on the final cost, would that ever be considered by you to say that this is the maximum that we can go to and the design needs to be brought into line with that? I do not know if that has ever been done. I wonder if that would be a way to give more certainty to it. I am conscious of other infrastructure projects, 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 any event interrupting plans. People start building infrastructure projects and they find something of historical or architectural. There are all sorts of things that can happen. Perhaps I can give you some assurance that the Scottish Government executive team is very interested and has had some discussions and opportunity to delve into the plans as they exist right now to ensure that those plans are robust and realistic as possible. When the Scottish Prison Service was with the committee this morning, the director of finance highlighted the fact that the backlog of construction projects post Covid coupled with the challenges around the supply chain on the replacement of infrastructure because of the impact of Brexit and the loss of free movement of individuals. The wider effects of construction inflation, which you, Cabinet Secretary, have just said to the committee, totals a 47 per cent increase in construction materials. Is it correct that those factors will be affecting not just the cost of renewing the prison infrastructure but affecting all other aspects of capital investment across the Scottish Government's capital programme? That is true. I have had a summer tour of visiting our prison establishments, which has meant that I have looked closely at conditions where we are with making improvements to the estate as well as our ambitions around HMP, Glasgow and Highland. I now know that, according to the UNS, there is a 65 per cent increase in the number of vacancies in construction. The BEIS construction materials price index shows a 47 per cent increase overall. There is an 82 per cent increase in structural steel, 39 per cent increase in precast concrete, 32 per cent increase in gravel and sand. All of that has an impact not just on our ambitions and justice but across the Government. Has the United Kingdom Government engaged with the Scottish Government on any changes to expected financial support to take account of a colossal and unprecedented set of damaging impacts on the sustainability of a long-term capital programme? No, not that I am aware of. Obviously, the Deputy First Minister and Finance Secretary will engage with the UK Government, but as I said in answer to an earlier question, our position with our capital budget is extremely challenging. There will be nearly a 4 per cent real-terms reduction for the next financial year, and between now in 2017 and 2018, there will be nearly a 7 per cent reduction. There will, of course, be an opportunity for Deputy First Minister to be laying out indicative long-term spends in accordance to the anticipated envelope for resource and capital. It is just a matter of fact, as opposed to a political point, to be saying that the UK Government has not inflation-proofed capital. That applies to Scotland and to local authorities across the UK and the Welsh devolved Government. That is in relation to the detail that you just placed on the record a moment ago, Cabinet Secretary, which I was struck by from your experience in your professional life of the size of the prison population and where it is now. If I was to make a rough calculation of the financial difference of the budgetary costs of accommodating that larger number of prisoners, I would estimate that it must come in at about £90 million of a difference of something of that order. For that scale of additional financial pressure that has been managed by the Scottish budget, that would strike me as creating the conditions in which the Scottish Government, the judiciary, community justice services and other diversionary activity services should be absolutely focused on maximising the opportunities to avoid incarceration if it is safe for that option to be taken. Are all those players engaged in that dialogue, Cabinet Secretary? Are they all pointing in the same direction? In my engagement with all justice partners, I am endeavouring to ensure that all the arrows are faced in the right direction. With the greatest respect, that was not the question that I was asking. I think that we are getting there. There is the prison population leadership group. What we need to avoid is people just seeing the prison services at the end of the line, that they have done their job, that they have prosecuted and the courts have done their job and people have been arrested. Of course, those things need to continue to happen, but we must realise that a growing and unsustainable prison population is not just a Scottish prison service population, it is a justice problem and ultimately it will be a community safety problem. In terms of ensuring that all the arrows are flying in the right direction, I am confident that there is a growing realisation within the justice sector that our prisons are not the end of the line. Those are practitioners and they will know that. What happens in prison matters and it matters because most people will come out, but the point that I would make is that it is not just a justice sector issue. My engagement with health services is particularly important. I will give one example. As the Scottish prison service reconfigures the use of their current prison estate—there are limits to that—they are renovating part of the poolment to use spare capacity. However, as the prison population increases in the poolment, that will have an increase in pressure and demand on health services for 4th valley, which is a smaller health board. Therefore, that is an issue that I raise in the cross-ministerial group on justice and health. That is just one example. I appreciate that point, but is there also a wider understanding and engagement within government beyond the justice organisations about the necessity to ensure that some of the other solutions that could result in the reduction in the prison population, such as the availability of support to the accommodation, employment and training opportunities, literacy and numeracy support, health and wellbeing support and mental health interventions, is that being recognised within government as of sufficient necessity to give us the prize of reducing the amount of money that we are spending on incarceration, which, in the comparison that you gave to the committee, is of a very substantial amount of public expenditure? Yes, I believe that there is a growing understanding and appreciation that this is not just an SPS problem or indeed a justice problem. I report on a weekly basis to cabinet on the situation in and around our prisons and part of the work that we are doing to address the situation, whether it is the immediacy of the situation, but also in the longer term, is that recalibration of what we need to do in justice, but we will also be having very specific asks of other colleagues across government. Very quickly, I know not much time, but those questions both relate directly to the evidence that we heard earlier from the SPS. They have previously put a figure on HMP Glasgow, a potential figure of £400 million. They now seem reluctant to speculate until next year when the plans are complete. I just do wonder how they were able to come up with a figure prior to that. I just wonder if the Scottish Government has got any indication as to how much this might come in at a worst-case scenario or a best-case scenario. I am not going to speculate because I do not think that that is helpful. I will say that it will cost more than £400 million. I am confident of that. As soon as we have clarity on the final design, we will have clarity and cost, and I will endeavour to share that with the committee, because it is a matter of public interest. Given that the SPS's capital budget for the past three years has been less than £400 million in total, are you confident that the Government will be able to pay for that and the SPS will be able to pay for that? I have already indicated that the new HMP Glasgow is indeed a priority and it is a high priority. There will have to be decisions made about the phasing of resources. That is not a one-year investment or project, but I do not think that anybody is under any misapprehension that we are going to have to replace the somewhat Victorian HMP Baroni. The SPS is also unable to tell us how much it would cost to transfer HMP Kilmarnock and what their likely costs will be to run HMP Kilmarnock. Has the Scottish Government done any financial analysis of that and can that be shared with the committee? I would be expecting that information to come from SPS and we will pick that up with SPS. In 2019, when the Government decided to bring Kilmarnock into public ownership was a financial analysis done at that point, can that be shared with the committee? I will double check that. I was not Cabinet Secretary in 2019. I know that as the contract comes to an end, a decision has to be made. When the contract comes to an end next year, you will either bring HMP Kilmarnock back into public ownership or you would have to go through a re-tendering exercise. It would be really interesting to know just what the financial considerations were at the time of that decision. I will see what can be shared, convener. I know that part of the financial consideration would be that the more recent private prison at Iwell is certainly more expensive than HMP Kilmarnock, and that is because it will be more reflective of more recent market conditions. There will be some information that we can share. I hope that that would be helpful. That brings us up to time. I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for joining us this morning. We will take a short suspension before we move on to our next agenda item. Our next four agenda items all relate to our consideration of two affirmative instruments. Namely, the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Scotland Act 2022, extension and expiry of temporary justice measures, regulations of 2023 and the international organisations, immunities and privileges Scotland amendment order of 2023 number two. We will start with the extension and expiry of temporary justice measures. I refer members to paper 3, particularly to table 1 on page 12, which contains a helpful summary of what is proposed. I also refer members to paper 4, which contains a letter that we received from the cabinet secretary earlier this week, and sets out plans for a consultation on the permanency of certain criminal justice measures from the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Scotland Act 2022. I am pleased to welcome back the cabinet secretary for justice and home affairs, Angela Constance, and her officials to the meeting. Ms Susan Black, senior policy officer, civil law and legal system, Ms Emma Thompson, Scottish Government legal directorate, Ms Heather Tully, justice reform unit, Mr Patrick Downe, criminal law practice and licensing unit, Ms Nicola Gild, Scottish Government legal directorate. I now invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the instrument. 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 ensure that our justice system had the tools that needed to respond to the pandemic's impact. Justice agencies have made significant progress towards recovery and the need for some of those measures has reduced. Therefore, the regulations before the committee this morning expire those 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 modify the expiry date in section 52.1 of the 2022 act, so that the remaining provisions, which I believe are still needed, 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. We engaged with justice agencies to understand the effect each provision is having and the likely impact if it were not extended. We also sought views from the legal profession, judiciary, victims' organisations and from third sector organisations. The findings of our review and consultation are set out in the statement of reasons that are laid alongside the regulations. For now, I will briefly highlight three key reasons that mean that we need to retain those provisions that the regulations extend. First, we are seeing the impact of the pandemic on criminal court backlogs. We are still seeing the impact of the pandemic on those backlogs, although substantial progress has been made. The backlog has fallen by around £15,700 since January 2022. However, the committee will know that the modelling of the Scottish Courts and Tribunial Service predicts that solemn 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, this timescale would be longer. There would also be a serious risk that some cases could not proceed at all. That is particularly important for the extension of the statutory time limits for certain criminal proceedings. The regulations seek to retain three out of the seven extended time limits. Those extended time limits increase the court's capacity to hear trials rather than procedural matters, which helps to throughput of cases and protects victims' access to justice. As the statement of reasons explains, without the extended time limit for the prosecution of certain summary-only offences, many prosecutions for drink and drug driving offences could be abandoned because those time limits cannot be extended on a case-by-case basis. We all want to see a return to pre-pandemic time limits as soon as possible, but none of us want to jeopardise the throughput of trials or put prosecutions at risk. It is clear to me that the three remaining extended time limits need to be continued at this stage, and we will, of course, keep them under review. The second key consideration is protecting health. The Bayland release from custody Scotland Act 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 enforced. The temporary provisions on emergency early release of prisoners therefore remain an important safeguard to make sure that we can act to protect the lives of those living and working in prisons in response to a threat from Covid. Although I, of course, hope that the likelihood of such a threat arising remains low, the harm 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 those regulations, but this week we launched a public consultation that proposes making permanent those temporary measures that I believe can deliver significant longer-term benefits and help to make our justice system more resilient, efficient and effective. Whereas the regulations are binary, we can either extend or expire provisions. We cannot modify them. The consultation offers us opportunity to hear views on how we might adapt and improve provisions so that they deliver even better outcomes and experiences for the people using them. In the meantime, I believe that the package of measures extended by the regulations is critical to help to support our justice system's continued recovery and resilience in the coming year. I am happy to answer any questions. I thank you for that helpful statement. I will now bring in any members who would want to ask any questions. I have Fulton MacGregor, Pauline McNeill and Russell Finlay. Thanks, convener. It is just a quick question on part 3, the failure to appear before court following police liberation in this unable to court to modify the date someone is required to attend court on an undertaking if they fail to appear for a reason attributable to coronavirus. I'm assuming that's if they run well with the virus. The proposal is for this to expire on the 29th of this month. I'm just wondering what the thinking behind that was, cabinet secretary, because I know that coronavirus is still among us. It has been expired by the regulations, Mr MacGregor, because it is no longer proportionate or necessary or required because of the progress that has been made overall in the functioning of our justice system. That will expire from the end of the 29th of this month. Again, it is something that we have consulted carefully on, particularly from all our justice partners, and there is support for allowing that part of the coronavirus legislation to expire. Pauline McNeill First of all, I just want to make sure that I understood what we have been asked to do here. In the debate on the extension of time limits due to coronavirus, the Government set out its position. I think that you also said that the member required to do this in 2026. Does that mean that for each year you want to extend them, you have to come to committee with an SSI? Is this the procedure that I am trying to understand? In terms of the three remaining time limits, and there are only three out of the seven original time limits that we propose to continue, the Government can keep those under review and can only be extended on a year-by-year basis. Until next year and thereafter, they could only be subject to one further extension. Any permanent changes to those time limits would require primary legislation, and we do not have any plans to introduce any primary legislation in relation to time limits. We want to get to the place where we are back to the pre-pandemic normal. You were not cabinet secretary at the time, but on the floor I was particularly exercised, as I have been for some time, about the extension of time limits. The first point to me is that, for some reason, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service were, in excess of the 1985 act, for several months outwith the required time before the coronavirus. We have really got to the bottom of why that was allowed to happen in the first place, and it is why I have severe reservations about allowing further extensions, albeit that I accept progress being made. However, I want to highlight and ask you about one particular debate. I can at least understand where the Government is coming from in relation to solemn proceedings by extending the time limit in relation to first appearance and the preliminary trial and the trial itself. What I have never had an explanation for is its indictment. The crown of the 80 days and under this, it will have 320 to 320 days. I suppose that I need to press cabinet secretary on this, if he has not done it. Will you do it? The crown should be pressed to the end degree on why they need 320 days to prepare a case. Compared to other justice services, they have had a better settlement over the years in relation to pay, which I know is a significant shortfall. Why on earth can they justify asking for these extensions? I have lost to understand that. The preparation of the detail of an accusation in court following the indictment just led you to a very suspicious system. Why? The Crown has always complained that the 80 days are too tight, but we have always said, as a country, that we are proud of the tight time limits that we have had. I know that you might remember the debate that we have had through the years, but I need to press you on that. Why does the Crown need an extension to 360 days to 2026 to prepare cases? I will answer what I think is in my remit to answer. First and foremost, at the earliest opportunity, I do not want us to have any of these coronavirus time limit regulations in place any longer than they need to be. I want to get back to what our original legislation and the standards set out in that. I am also aware that—this goes back to my experience in the prison system, although that was not yesterday—I am also aware that time limits could always be altered on a case-by-case basis. I do not have any statistics at hand on that, but that is far from uncommon. One of the reasons for us wanting to continue with the three time limits is that I want to avoid the misuse of precious court resources that should be focused on the backlog, should be focused on getting through trials, as opposed to clogging up the system with procedural hearings. In terms of your reflection on increasing investment into the Crown Office, I think that there is a matter of public record. In the past five years, their budgets went up 50 to 75 per cent. Notwithstanding, the demands on their workload has most certainly increased for the reasons that were outlined in our earlier evidence session. In terms of being helpful, I do not know whether the committee would wish for me to ask Lord Advocate to reply to Ms McNeill or to write to the committee or whether the committee would wish to do that, but I have endeavoured to answer your question as best I can in terms of my position. I understand that you cannot answer that question because I suppose that what I am really saying is that I would like to think that the Government is pressing the Crown for an answer, because you are coming to the committee asking us to endorse this, and I do not think that there is any justification for the Crown asking for—I am less empathetic to that one, that is what it really means. I have only just seen it. I understand that you are consulting on permanent measures that would include sending of electronic documents, enabling virtual attendance at criminal court, national jurisdiction for calling for custody, and that is that list of things that you are asking for to be permanent. We will not be able to cover that today, but I can highlight a few areas of concern that I have about that. Have you discussed with the legal profession, for example, national jurisdiction? There must be huge implications for where you try people and where lawyers have to be. There is a very helpful quote that I read that came from a high court judge in that the advantage of having a national jurisdiction for calling from custody cases is that there are a number of warrants and indictments from various courts across the country that they can be heard in the one place. I am also an advocate for not where possible busing prisoners around the country. I do not think that it is efficient. If you get this power, that is what will happen. If you get this power and there is national jurisdiction, that is exactly what will happen. They will just try cases in courts wherever they can presumably. It will mean that you can try someone in any court, which would mean that it could be a more local court, as opposed to transporting somebody from a prison at one end of the country to a court at the other. My view is that that is just common sense. Nonetheless, it is a consultation. People will have the opportunity to respond to that consultation. The Government will have to reflect on the consultation, and then there will have to be the normal legislative process. I hope that I can give some reassurance that there will be. Do you have a point of clarification about virtual attendance at criminal courts? I have expressed my concern about what I have seen so far. The quality is not good enough to justify that being a replacement for physical attendance. Does that apply to custody courts? The reason I ask is that I thought that the Government had supported my amendment in relation to not having custody courts. You do not have to answer that today. I am confused by this. I did hear you raise this, Ms McNeill, in earlier committee sessions. I am happy to write to you offline. My understanding is that you had lodged amendments at stage 2 and stage 3 but then did not move them. That was in relation to an exchange that you had with Mr Brown, but I am happy to supply the information that I have been privy to on that. I do not think that it is accurate. Just for completeness for the record, there was one amendment that was accepted by the Government, and I understood that it meant based on the quality of the experience of a custody court going into 10 o'clock at night in Glasgow anyway—I do not know whether—and the huge cost of the public purse, because the quality of the connection was so bad. I sought for myself the mistakes that were being made, and for that reason I thought that at least there was a ban on virtual appearance for custody courts for that reason. However, I would be grateful if I could get some clarification on that, because it is for that reason that I have to raise my concerns about continuation of virtual appearances. Perhaps for clarity in relation to the regulations, for most criminal business, the default position is that people attend hearings physically, but the provisions give the Lord Justice General a power to issue determinations to change the default to virtual attendance for certain types of cases or in certain types of circumstances. Virtual appearance is not something new. Obviously, there has been further developments, further scope and further use of the existing legislative opportunities or the existing powers of the Lord Justice General in terms of the pandemic. What the consultation will consult on is electronic signage and the sending of electronic documents, the virtual attendance at a criminal court and the national jurisdiction of calling from custody and the maximum level of fiscal fines. That is what the consultation relates to. I am not sure if you want to ask about the consultation letter. I would like to keep her questions focused on the motion, and I am very happy for us to write to the cabinet secretary with any questions on the consultation letter, but I would be quite keen to bring things back. It is to do with the language that is used. Okay, if you have questions about the motion, then... That would be helpful. It is to do with the national jurisdictions from calling from custody, and the cabinet secretary made a specific mention to trials. Just to be absolutely clear, you are not talking just about the initial appearance from custody. That relates to all aspects of the criminal process. Pauline McNeill has already referred to agents, so presumably that would mean that witnesses would have to go to a different part of the country to give evidence if it is all aspects of the criminal process. If we could have clarification in terms of the term calling, what that word means? In terms of the provisions in the regulations, it is about calling from custody. It is specific to custody cases and those first callings rather than it being something that is available for trials generally. It is not all every diet, it is just the initial appearance from custody. I have a couple of questions in relation to part 2 in Fiscal Finds. Those, of course, allow the Crown Office to be issued by the Crown Office in response to certain offences, and the threshold has been raised from £300 to £500, but that legislation extends its use to what is described as a wider range of crimes. I wonder if you can tell crime victims exactly what crimes this now encompasses. I appreciate, convener, that some people, for ideological reasons, may be opposed to Fiscal Finds as an alternative to prosecution. Of course, all prosecution matters are not for me, for the independent Crown Office, and for good reason. We should not be having politicians preside over matters of prosecution. What the regulations are about are not so much the fundamental existence of Fiscal Finds but are around increasing the scope of the fine from £300 to £500. It could potentially, again, matter for independent prosecutors, reduce number of cases going to the justice of the peace court if the prosecutor decides to offer a fine. The question was what crimes it now encompasses, what has it been extended to? Fiscal Finds has existed for many decades for less serious crimes, and, as I have indicated, there 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 nature of offences that would be subject to Fiscal Finds. They are not for any offence, but maybe officials could give you some further issues. I believe that the OPFS has previously written to the committee setting out that it is not possible to set out a definitive list of offences Fiscal Finds could be used for. However, legally, there are not any offences that can now receive a Fiscal Find, which could not have also received a Fiscal Find before the 2020 legislation introduced this new higher maximum. The measures and regulations do not change the offences that can attract a Fiscal Find. That seems slightly at odds with the information that we have in those documents, which says that it is now being applied to a wider range of offences. However, I will move on, because it is clear that people are not being told what offences that they will be applied to. In response to the point that you made about people's ideological opposition, I do not think that crime victims are ideologically opposed to them. I think that they want to see justice being done, and they want transparency. One of the concerns that many of them express is that, with those direct measures, there is little or no explanation given to them as victims. They also make the point that the Crown Office rightly deals with prosecutorial matters, but here we are, as parliamentarians, discussing what those should be, so that it is not a question of being entirely up to them. Going back to the point about the extension of their use and the increase of their value from £300 to £500, is there not an argument to be made that if the Government wants this to be part of the legislative framework for the criminal justice system, it should be brought forward standalone legislation rather than brought in by stealth using the Covid pandemic legislation. Fiscal fines have existed since the 1990s. Those regulations are talking about, as we have heard from officials, continuing the increase in the fines from £300 to £500. The letter to committee that I sent earlier this week already advises that it will be a matter of public consultation in terms of the coronavirus regulations that we believe would improve the efficiency and resilience of the justice sector, and that there will be a public consultation on our proposition to make some of those permanent. Depending on the outcome of that public consultation, that would indeed require legislation. Is there a public consultation on details that we do not know what they are? We do not know what the criteria are for the increased scope of those? Just to be clear, convener, while I am aware that Mr Findlay and not victims may have ideological objections to fiscal fines as an alternative to prosecution. I just have to pick up on that. I am sorry, I do not have ideological opposition to fiscal fines. I think that there should be a lot more transparency around their use. We are in the minds of the Crown Office right to committee regularly. I have also written to Mr Findlay on the matter as well, again supplying a great deal of information, notwithstanding the importance of separation of powers, which are important to the fabric of justice and our democracy. I am now going to invite the cabinet secretary to move motion number 10547, that the criminal justice committee recommends that the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland act of 2022 extension and expiry of temporary justice measures regulations 2023 be approved. The question is that motion number 10547, in the name of Angela Constance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask all those in favour of the motion? Please raise your hands. Thank you. All those opposed to the motion, raise your hands. Okay, thank you very much. There are no abstentions, so we have four votes in favour of the motion, four votes against the motion, so in view of that, I will use my casting vote and agree to the motion. Therefore, the motion is agreed. I also have members' approval for the clerks and I to publish a short factual report on both of our SSIs today. I know that we are going to continue on to the second one. With that, I am now going to invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the second instrument. The draft of the International Organisations Immunities and Privilege Scotland amendment number 2, order 2023, 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 in relation to the order is devolved. A parallel order has been made as and is enforced in the rest of the UK 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, the IAEA. In order 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 covered by the agency. This language was not entirely reflected in the subsequent 1974 immunities and privileges order, 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 they have power to do so. Separately, the 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 the order will correct a historic 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. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We will now move to questions. I ask any members if they have any questions or comments. No, nothing at all. Okay, thank you. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion number 10537, that the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the international organisations, immunities and privileges Scotland amendment number 2 order of 2023 be approved. The question is that motion number 10537, in the name of Angela Constance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary and officials for your time this morning, and that concludes the public part of our meeting. Next week, we will see the cabinet secretary again to take evidence on parts 1 to 3 of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill and will be looking also at the HMICS report on policing and mental health in Scotland.