³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I think that we are getting there. There is the prison population leadership group. We need to avoid people seeing the Prison Service as the end of the line once they have done their jobs—once people have been arrested and prosecuted and the courts have done their job. Of course those things need to continue to happen, but we must realise that having a growing and unsustainable prison population is not just a Scottish Prison Service problem. It is a justice problem and, ultimately, it will be a community safety problem.

On ensuring that all the arrows are flying in the right direction, I am confident that there is a growing realisation in the justice sector that our prisons are not the end of the line. Practitioners know that what happens in prisons matters because most people will come out, but it is also important to note that this is not just a justice sector issue. For example, my engagement with health services is particularly important. I will give an example.

As the Scottish Prison Service reconfigures the use of its current prison estate—there are limits to that—it is renovating part of Polmont to use spare capacity there. However, as the prison population increases in Polmont, that will place increasing pressure and demand on health services in NHS Forth Valley, which is a smaller health board. I have raised that issue in the cross-ministerial group on justice and health. That is just one example.

Yes. I believe that there is a growing understanding and appreciation that this is not just an SPS problem or a justice problem. I report weekly to the Cabinet on the situation in and around our prisons. Part of the work that we are doing to address the situation—both immediately and in the longer term—is that recalibration of what we need to do in justice, but we will also have very specific asks of other colleagues across Government.

I will double check that. I was not the cabinet secretary in 2019. A decision will have to be made as the contract comes to an end. When the contract comes to an end next year, it will be necessary to either bring HMP Kilmarnock into public ownership or go through a retendering exercise.

Thank you very much, convener.

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 make sure that our justice system had the tools that were needed to respond to the pandemic’s impact. Justice agencies have made significant progress towards recovery and the need for some of these measures has reduced.

Therefore, the regulations that are before the committee this morning will expire the 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 will modify the expiry date in section 52(1) of the 2022 act so that the remaining provisions, which I believe are still needed, will 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, and we engaged with justice agencies to understand the effect that each provision is having and the likely impact if it were not extended.

We also sought views from the legal profession, the judiciary, victims organisations and third sector organisations. The findings of our review and consultation are set out in the statement of reasons that has been laid alongside the regulations.

I will briefly highlight three key reasons that mean that we need to retain the provisions that the regulations will extend. First, we are still seeing the impact of the pandemic on criminal court backlogs, although substantial progress has been made. The backlog has fallen by about 15,700 cases since January 2022.

However, the committee will know that the modelling of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service predicts that solemn-proceedings 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, the timescale would be longer and there would also be a serious risk that some cases could not proceed at all.

The regulations are particularly important for extension of the statutory time limits for certain criminal proceedings. The regulations seek to retain three of the seven extended time limits. Those extended time limits will increase the courts’ capacity to hear trials rather than procedural matters, which helps with throughput of cases and protects victims’ access to justice.

As the statement of reasons explains, without the extended time limits for the prosecution of certain summary-only offences, many prosecutions for drink-driving and drug-driving offences could be abandoned because those time limits cannot be extended case by case.

We all want a return to pre-pandemic time limits as soon as possible, but none of us wants to jeopardise the throughput of trials or to put prosecutions at risk. It is clear to me that the three remaining extended time limits need to be continued at this stage, although we will, of course, keep them under review.

The second key consideration is protection of health. The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023, which was 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 in force. The temporary provisions on emergency early release of prisoners therefore remain an important safeguard, in response to a threat from Covid, in making sure that we can act to protect the lives of those living and working in prisons. Although, of course, I hope that the likelihood of such a threat arising remains low, the harm that could be 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 the regulations, but this week we launched a public consultation that proposes making permanent the temporary measures that I believe can deliver significant longer-term benefits and help to make our justice system more resilient, efficient and effective. The regulations are binary: we can either extend or expire provisions but we cannot modify them. The consultation offers us an opportunity to hear views on how we might adapt and improve provisions so that they deliver even better outcomes and experiences for the people who use them.

In the meantime, I believe that the package of measures that will be extended by the regulations is critical to helping to support our justice system’s continued recovery and resilience in the coming year.

I am happy to answer any questions.

That is a good point. I will ask officials to answer that.

Fiscal fines have existed since the 1990s. These regulations, as we have heard from officials, are continuing the increase in the fines from £300 to £500. On the point about stand-alone legislation, the letter that I sent to the committee earlier this week already advises that the measures in the coronavirus regulations that we believe would improve the efficiency and resilience of the justice sector will be a matter of public consultation. There will be a public consultation on our proposition to make some of those measures permanent. Depending on the outcome of that public consultation, legislation will be required.

Notwithstanding the fact that some victims organisations take a different view on the value of a victims and witnesses commissioner, it appears to me from the responses to the consultation and the representations that we have received over a number of years that the biggest advocates for such a commissioner are victims themselves.

As for the costs, I have put them on the record, and people will scrutinise them and come to a view as to whether that money should be used to establish a victims and witnesses commissioner. Individual ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, parties or committees can do the same and, if they come to the view that the money would be better spent elsewhere, they will of course be free to say so. I have also outlined the investment that we continue to make in victims organisations.

The implementation of that legislation was interrupted by the pandemic and, in the meantime, we have introduced a bill that will put more extensive protections in place in the civil system. The legislation that you are referring to was pretty bespoke and was introduced to deal with certain family cases. The bill will deliver more; indeed, my focus is on delivering more with maximum impact.

Scotland is an outlier in having juries with 15 jurors and three verdicts. We are all rightly proud of our unique Scottish justice system, but it is important to stress that our system has always evolved and learned from others over the centuries and that no part of our justice system is exempt from examination or, indeed, change.

I think that that predates my time as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. I do not know the answer to that question, and I do not know whether the officials can say whether there was another working title. In general, it is not uncommon for proposed legislation that is being worked on internally to have a holding name, which is changed. However, I do not know whether the bill had a different name.