Seòmar agus comataidhean

The extension of the powers is not being nodded through. I acknowledge that the consultation process was limited; however, I again emphasise that the SPS did not have to undertake it, although it was right to do so. I am also not sure that it is true that the balance was critical here. Officials might have the exact details, but some who were contacted did not respond at all while others said that they had no comment to make.

You are right to say that the issues raised were significant and probably reflect those that members will raise today; indeed, they are the obvious issues of concern. As a result, the Government did not seek to have the proposed extension nodded through. We talked to the Prison Service about it and, on balance, believed—for the reasons that I gave in my opening remarks—that allowing the powers to be extended was the right thing to do.

I understand that the extension runs to 31 March next year but, as I have pointed out, the pandemic has changed in nature and, indeed, is changing all the time. I hope that, when we see the figures today, further progress will have been made. I undertake, if the nature of the pandemic changes again—and if the committee so wishes—to come back before that date next year and further discuss the need for the powers. I am more than willing to do that. However, at this point, the Government has considered the consultation responses and believes that, on balance, this is the right way to go.

I will be brief. Thank you for the invitation to committee. Last week, we both appeared before the Criminal Justice Committee for a similar session. Given that the minister’s portfolio responsibilities cover civil justice, I imagine that you will look to talk to her over the coming months, but I will, as ever, be happy to come and answer any questions on the wider issues.

I will take up one point that the minister has made already about the impact of public health measures on court business. It is an important point because, in discussions about court backlogs—which, as you can imagine, are substantial—some people may have been looking at the issue purely as a criminal justice matter. However, we need to recognise that resources that are essential to our recovery work, such as the judiciary, court staff and court buildings, cannot be stretched in one area without that having an effect on the work in the other area. It is essential that we look at the criminal and civil justice system as one in relation to that, rather than as two distinct issues.

From my part of the portfolio, recent laws on hate crime and protection from domestic abuse orders that were passed in the previous session each in its own way demonstrates ways in which criminal law impacts on our civil legal system. Parliament has taken the decision to split the justice portfolio between two committees, but we know that such a split can never be entirely clean or absolute when we cleave apart the criminal and civil justice system. We will see that over the coming months and years, when we discuss manifesto commitments such as legal aid or the register of judicial interests, which the minister touched on and which come into both areas.

Last week, as I said, the minister and I appeared before the Criminal Justice Committee to discuss our priorities. We both expressed our willingness to work collaboratively with members of that committee when taking forward our proposals for reform. I reiterate that commitment to build consensus where possible to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Together, I believe that we can reform for the better the way in which civil justice works for the people of Scotland.

When the minister and I met the Faculty of Advocates, it expressed a similar concern. Even when putting a case to somebody who is very accustomed to a courtroom, there is the issue of being able to read body language and, to an extent, to lip read what people are saying. There are two sides to it.

As the minister said, there are benefits to remote hearings in certain circumstances. The Faculty of Advocates also raised with us the fact that there should not be a practical logistical reason for somebody not being able to participate. We talked about the provision of additional keyboards and iPads for some people, and what we can do to help with that.

As we go forward, there will have to be awareness of both forms of participation. I do not know about the situation in other parties but, in my political party, we will not be dispensing with the use of online fora, because they enable people to make meetings that they could not otherwise make. Therefore, there will have to be a blend.

The Lord President has a very good and refreshing attitude, in that he is very keen to learn from and to keep the best of what we have done during Covid, but to be aware of some of the shortcomings, one of which Pam Gosal mentioned.

Given that the portfolio is split and that civil justice rests with the minister, I ask whether she may speak first. I will come in after that, if that is okay.

The legal professional organisations will be taking the lead in future recruitment for their professions. I think that I am right in saying that we are seeing record numbers of people going to universities to seek qualifications. However, part of it is down to how the legal professions can increase the numbers given the demographic that you mentioned.

The points about remand are well made. We have made no secret of the fact that we do not want to see as many people on remand. We understand that remand can be detrimental, especially if, at the end of it, the person is found not guilty. However, none of those things is by design. The pandemic is real and we cannot wish it away. It has implications for the justice system and, unfortunately, it has given rise to the higher number of people on remand.

I go back to what I said in my opening remarks about the fact that I cannot be too specific in advance of the publication of the programme for government, but we are looking to take early action in relation to remand, not least for some of the reasons that Mr Greene mentioned. We are very conscious of both the human rights of those who are involved and also, particularly for those who have never experienced a justice system before, the impact that it can have on the person, their family, their employment and all sorts of other things. We are very seized of that. However, the situation arises from the pandemic. Like many other jurisdictions, we want to do the best that we can to mitigate the effects of that.

The Scottish Police Authority will hold the police to account for its performance in relation to that. As you would expect, however, I have had conversations with the police about the issue.

There is a public concern and the situation requires further attention. It is vastly better than it was in the past, with the legacy forces, when people would call the numbers—I am talking not about 999, but about the equivalents to 101—and they would ring out, with no record being kept of the unanswered calls. Nobody knew the extent to which that was happening. I am told that that is very much the case now in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it cannot be satisfactory.

It is right that 101 is a triage service that directs people to the right place, because people sometimes call for reasons that are nothing to do with the police, and it is right that the police have a way of clearing those calls. However, it must be improved. I spoke this week to the chair of the SPA and senior officers, and they are seized of the need to improve on the figures.

I will be corrected by my official if this is not the case, but I think that I am right in saying that we already have that legal basis in Scotland. Down south, they do not have that; common law is used. It is a case of trying to make those things consistent. Previously, the point of disagreement was whether the provision could be extended to people who had died. That was the point that the Lord Advocate was interested in, and we have some assurances on that. It will not be agreed to by UK ministers at this stage, but we have some assurances around that, which we are willing to accept.

A draft code of conduct is not the same as a final code of conduct. If we know that the UK Government is saying, “This is our final version,” there is nothing that will give us cause for concern. As background, the committee’s predecessor went over this area quite exhaustively when it considered cyberkiosks and so on. There is a parliamentary sensitivity about that, which we are trying to be sensitive to by saying, “Let’s see what the final one says.” If it says what the draft one says, I think that we are okay.

That is a good point. It is almost the obverse of Jamie Greene’s question about what has been done during Covid that we could continue to do. There are things that we have had to do that we should not continue to do, which is a good thing for ministers to keep in the back of their minds. It might be tempting to say that, because a restriction makes things easier in some regard, we should keep doing it. We must guard against that. However, the Parliament and its committees are a pretty good watchdog in that regard. I am thinking about the recent discussion that we had about the extension and elimination of many of the measures, and there is provision for further and regular reporting on those things, so there are democratic checks and balances.

However, if your point is that the Government should also be looking to and checking itself—with Jamie Greene’s caveat—we want to see whether any change that has been forced by circumstances might be of benefit in future. If that is the case, we should get parliamentary approval.

The only thing that I will say beyond what I have already said is that, as you know, a commitment has been given that there will be a full inquiry, which will look at the actions of all those involved. I do not want to go beyond that.

You will know that the current community justice infrastructure was set up in 2016. At that time, we committed to a review of it, which we are starting now, as we said we would. You might also be aware that an element of the national care service proposals might have an impact on community justice. Those two matters are on-going, and all members can contribute to them. We are in discussions with Community Justice Scotland and our local authority partners on that.

However, there are some areas in which alternative disposals will never be appropriate. With organised serious crime, in which I know Mr Findlay has a particular interest, such disposals are never going to be a suitable solution—for example, as I mentioned earlier, for people in Saughton who are looking to visit violence on each other.

The bottom line, as I think Ms Stevenson highlighted, is to do the right thing for a particular person but also to do what will give us the right outcome for society, because we have to bear in mind the rights of victims and the right of society to be protected from crime. If the best solution for a person is a disposal that takes them away from the path that they would go down if they went to prison, we should be willing to consider such a move and ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to make it possible.

That is where we are with community justice. You are right to identify it as a big area for all of us, as we move forward.