³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The justice agencies are always my top priority. As you will know, consequentials come to the Scottish Government, and, because we are democratically elected, we make choices accordingly. However, the point about having robust infrastructure that supports the safe delivery of services to our communities is important. We know that the risk profile is changing, and there are changes in relation to how the SFRS wants to model the service and pursue its work. Of course, we want that to be reflected in its facilities, both to improve working conditions and to serve communities.

I recognise that there have been significant consultations on the modernisation of the police estate. For a start, there are serious dignity at work matters and issues with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. I am also aware—because I answered a parliamentary question on it in the chamber a few months back—that the rationalisation of the police estate released £31 million for reinvestment in policing.

I have had conversations with Police Scotland and the SPA on a number of occasions about borrowing and the holding of reserves. I have also had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the same matter, and I will be facilitating on-going discussions about reform, borrowing and flexibility between the SPA, Police Scotland and the cabinet secretary.

It is fair to say that this is a particularly tricky area, and it is not the first time that justice officials have explored it. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to Police Scotland’s frustrations, because it makes sense to have flexibilities and, particularly when it comes to capital, multiyear funding. We have seen a medium-term increase in the capital that will become available to the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but we await further clarity on the UK Government’s longer-term capital plans.

The difficulty with borrowing is that the UK Government sets the limits of the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers and, because Police Scotland is classified as a public body, any borrowing that it incurs will count against the Scottish Government’s balance sheet. I think that the overall limit in any year for Scottish Government borrowing is £450 million, which is a small amount.