Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—although it is about our on-going recovery from the pandemic. We will discuss this in greater detail later. Originally, there were seven extensions to time limits. With committee approval, after its hearing on the issue, we will remove some of those and we will have in place three out of the seven.

We are making progress because the court backlog programme is making progress. The backlog is down by a third since the start of last year. Increasing resources went into solemn cases, with two additional High Courts and six additional sheriff summary courts. The test of the measures that were applied was whether they were necessary and proportionate. We are lifting the time limits because they are no longer necessary and proportionate. We believe that the remaining extensions, which we will discuss later, continue to be necessary.

I can assure Ms McNeill and the committee that the replacement of HMP Barlinnie is a priority. Prioritising it will have consequences in that we will not be able to pursue other actions in the prison estate as quickly as we want.

The prison will be a large infrastructure project that will require funding over a number of years and it will require a sustained commitment. We will not know the timescale until we know the costs, and we will not know the costs until we get the final designs. That is the bottom line. There perhaps is not the specific information that people desire. We are all keen to have that information, but we need to know the final design so that we can know the final anticipated cost. I say “anticipated” because the costs of infrastructure projects change, as we know. Once we know the cost, we can work out the timescale and the capital budget accordingly. This is not a one-year-only investment.

It has not, that I am aware of. Obviously, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance will engage with the UK Government but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the position with our capital budget is extremely challenging. There will be a real-terms reduction of nearly 4 per cent for the next financial year, and between now and 2027-28 there will be a reduction of nearly 7 per cent. There will, of course, be an opportunity for the Deputy First Minister to lay out indicative long-term spends in accordance with the anticipated envelope for resource and capital. However, it is just a matter of fact, as opposed to a political point, to say that the UK Government has not inflation proofed capital. That applies to Scotland and it will also apply to local authorities across the UK and the Welsh devolved Government.

That measure is expired by the regulations because it is no longer proportionate or required because of the progress that has been made overall in the functioning of our justice system. That measure will expire on 29 November. We have consulted carefully on that, in particular with all our justice partners, and there was support for allowing that part of the coronavirus legislation to expire.

It will mean that someone can be tried in any court, which means that it could be done in a more local court, as opposed to transporting somebody from a prison at one end of the country to a court at the other end. My view is that that is just common sense. Nonetheless, it is a matter for consultation and people will have the opportunity to respond. 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 on that process.

I appreciate that, for ideological reasons, some people may be opposed to fiscal fines as an alternative to prosecution and, of course, all prosecution matters are not for me; they are for the independent Crown Office, for good reason, as we should not have politicians presiding over matters of prosecution. The regulations are not so much about the fundamental existence of fiscal fines but about increasing the scope of the fine from £300 to £500. It could potentially—again, this is a matter for independent prosecutors—reduce the number of cases going to the justice of the peace court if the prosecutor decides to offer a fine.

Perhaps you could write to the Lord Advocate.

Perhaps for clarity on 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 case or in certain circumstances. I suppose that virtual appearance is not new. Obviously, there have been developments, extensions of scope and further use of the existing legislative opportunities or the existing powers of the Lord Justice General in relation to the pandemic. The consultation will be on electronic signing and the sending of electronic documents, virtual attendance at the criminal court, national jurisdiction for callings from custody and the maximum level of fiscal fines. That is what the consultation relates to.

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—

Good morning. As you specifically mentioned capital budgets, I will start with that. It is no secret that capital is under extreme pressure. The UK Government has not inflation proofed capital so, in the financial year 2024-25, we will see nearly a 4 per cent real-terms reduction, with nearly a 7 per cent real-terms reduction by 2027-28. The capital position is particularly stretched and severe. We have some prominent commitments, particularly in the prison estate. I have of course had many discussions with the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance. As you would expect, there is an intense 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 and agree to that budget or not.