Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. If the regulations that the committee is considering today are approved, they will enable the use of GPS monitoring devices for the first time in Scotland, for the monitoring of people as part of the criminal justice system.

We have laid the Electronic Monitoring (Approved Devices) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 under the negative procedure. Those regulations amend the Electronic Monitoring (Approved Devices) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 to approve GPS-enabled devices as the types of electronic devices that are designated as approved for the purpose of electronic monitoring. The Electronic Monitoring (Use of Devices and Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, which is an affirmative instrument, will govern the use of those devices. The regulations will work together to prescribe the terms of use of GPS devices for monitoring compliance with certain conditions of a home detention curfew licence on release from prison.

The Electronic Monitoring (Use of Devices and Information) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 limit the use of GPS to monitoring conditions imposed when Scottish ministers release an individual from custody on HDC licence. The regulations also allow for a continuity of current monitoring arrangements by allowing existing radio frequency electronic monitoring devices to continue to monitor the court disposals set out in section 3 of the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019, and the conditions imposed on an individual when they are released on licence, which are set out in section 7 of that act.

The regulations also clarify the maximum period for which information obtained through the use of radio frequency and GPS-enabled electronic monitoring devices will be retained, and the purposes for which the Scottish ministers, or those acting on their behalf, may share that information.

I invite the committee to consider the regulations.

It is fair to reflect that GPS and other forms of electronic monitoring are used widely elsewhere on these islands and across Europe. We have certainly learned much from the pursuance of GPS in England. For example, we will not require people to be tethered to a wall to charge their devices. One of the valid lessons that we have learned is that if we do not treat people like human beings, their prospect of success diminishes. I am sure that Ms Clark appreciates that point.

The numbers in the initial phase will be quite small, because home detention curfew is a bespoke intervention. Yesterday, out of the total prison population, 138 people were out on home detention curfew. Members will be aware of the steps that we have taken in recent times to increase the use of home detention curfew. However, we anticipate that, at any one time, there will probably be up to about 20 people on GPS monitoring and home detention curfew.

We want to have an initial phase that lasts for around a year. Once we are absolutely sure that there are no issues with the operational processes of engagement, the important next stage would be to scale that up in relation to other orders. Much depends on what we learn. It is important that, due to the complexity of operational processes among justice partners, in the first instance, we use GPS with one order, as opposed to rolling it out across a range of orders.

I will address the issues of compliance and consistency. You are correct to raise those issues with me, but I suggest that they are also an issue for the statutory agencies—I would just put that on the record.

Yes but, on the point about consistency, that is where the performance framework is really important. A funding formula distributes the criminal justice social work grant on the basis of case loads, among other things. The important layering of the community justice national strategy and the delivery plan is underpinned by the performance framework. The indicators measure performance around an area and shine a light on who performs well and what areas perform less well. I am not necessarily pointing the finger at people. There can be particular challenges associated with rurality, for example.

I was not dropping hints that Mr MacGregor should declare an interest, but I am glad that I prompted him.

We are supportive of the multi-agency public protection system—MAPPS—which is UK led and upgrades the violent and sex offender register, ViSOR. In essence, it is a more efficient way of exchanging information that is highly relevant to public protection. Although the decisions on what use could be made of the system are for the police, the SPS, local authorities, health boards and other bodies, we support the use of MAPPS, principally because we supported Scottish agencies’ use of the ViSOR system.

There is Scottish representation on the programme boards. There are representatives from the Scottish Government, local government, police and health. To be fair to the UK Government, we are still in the process of clarifying costs and the model. However, the allocations to local government for community justice this year included additional allocations in anticipation of pressures, particularly the work to support any move to MAPPS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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