Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just think that, if we write in generic terms to say that we are still watching the Government on the issue, we will get a generic response. If we ask specific questions, the Government can choose whether to respond to them, but at least we will be starting to delve into the barriers to progressing the issue.

The letter flags up two issues that we were already acutely aware of, one of which is the disparity of provision across the country. The processes seem to be very different, depending on which national health service board you are in and which prison you are leaving. I understand that that is a by-product of having different NHS boards. Since the responsibility for healthcare has passed from the Scottish Prison Service to NHS boards, it seems that we are left in a mishmash of a situation.

The second issue is much wider and is one that I have been acutely aware of since I came into the Parliament: the lack of digitisation of that type of process. People have a prescription that is generated by a specific pharmacy along with a handwritten letter to their general practitioner—if they have a GP—and some prisons then have to print GP10 forms, which are then signed by somebody, presented to somebody else and then taken to a chemist.

The whole process is quite complex, and given all the money that has been spent on national NHS data systems and content management systems, I cannot understand why the NHS, in conjunction with the SPS, cannot come up with something digital that actually works. That might involve rolling back or blurring the lines of responsibility, but surely they could work together. There are not millions of people in the prison population. I appreciate that it could not be done overnight for the wider population, but surely they could come up with a digitised solution that works for the prison population.

Those are my only two comments, and the letter lays that case open again. It is something that the committee has been aware of.

Good morning, minister and colleagues. I have a couple of quick questions. I appreciate that the SSI before us specifically concerns the payment of legal aid fees and the consequences of the pilot for that, but I want ask to ask about the pilot in a wider sense.

Would it be fair to say that the purpose of the pilot, or one of its potential outcomes, is to reduce the number of cases that proceed to a trial diet? What might be the benefits or consequences of that? I ask because it appears that it might encourage lawyers to sit in a smoke-filled room and do deals together rather than proceed cases to trial. Might we see an increase in the number of deals done in private meetings? There is already a feeling that there is a lack of transparency around what is discussed in those meetings and the outcomes that are delivered from them. The committee has heard numerous concerns from victims and victims’ organisations about the consequences of not being kept in the loop on such deals. What are the Government’s thoughts about the pilots and how they will be received?

Thank you. It answers it, partially. I can read between the lines of what you said about the current arrangement and why it may not necessarily benefit both parties to resolve cases in the way that is being suggested, rather than in the traditional fashion, but it still raises a flag about who it benefits most. You said that it benefits the accused, but surely we should not make any changes to the system that benefit anyone in particular; the system should be fair and transparent as appropriate. What are the parameters for the types of case that it would be appropriate to deal with in that way? If we move in that direction, would certain types of case be excluded, and who would make decisions on whether a case would be resolved in that more informal setting?

The policy notes state that

“No public consultation was carried out due to the technical nature of the proposed regulations,”

but I would say that this is not just a technical move but quite a substantial shift in how we try and clear the backlog of cases by dealing with them in a more efficient but, perhaps, less public way. Could you comment on that?

That is helpful.

I echo that comment. The EBA’s letter was received only lately, so it might not necessarily be widely available in the public domain. Nonetheless, it is relevant, because it clearly suggests that the dispute is still on-going.

A number of members have asked questions both in committee and in the chamber of the Minister for Community Safety, who is responsible for the relevant portfolio, about the dispute around legal aid. The letter that the committee received from the EBA yesterday clearly shows that the matter is far from resolved—indeed, quite the opposite.

It is not necessarily that there is disagreement just on the numbers or on the quantity of money being offered by the Government. There is clearly disagreement on the facts, and the historical journey that both parties have been on to get to where they currently are.

From my own neutral standpoint, I am struggling with this. What are the facts, and who is right in this instance? Both parties cannot be right, given the vocal and vehement disagreement between them. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament information centre or other colleagues can provide us with a timeline that outlines the exact journey that the parties have been on, including the assignment of a budget to legal aid; any changes that were made; and any additional funds that were made available by the Government and how those were received. That will enable us to see how we have got to where we are today.

Two parallel conversations are happening. Those in the sector, and therefore on the front line, are clearly in huge disagreement with the Government, to the point of stating yesterday in the EBA letter that the minister was being less than forthcoming with the facts. The minister herself has a robust point of view, which she feels is an appropriate response.

We should get that information before we hear anything further on the matter. We will simply get into a tit-for-tat situation if we keep writing back and forth between the parties; we are not a mediator in the situation, and it is not our job to solve the problem. However, I am coming to feel that criminal lawyers are clearly at their wits’ end with the matter. They are warning of all sorts of things down the line, which I think should be of concern to the committee, but equally the Government seems to be quite robust in its defence.

I am struggling to get to the nub of the problem. What are the numbers? What was promised and not delivered? What was overdelivered but not promised?

That is my only comment—I am not taking either side in the dispute.

I apologise, convener—I do not want to prolong the debate on this too much. However, I should say that the budget scrutiny point is a valid one, albeit there are limitations on our involvement, in that we can identify only what the Government has to offer; whether or not that is received well is out of our control. Aside from that, though, there is the other issue of headcount and resource in the sector. Given the other work that the committee is doing, what is more important to us in yesterday’s letter from the Edinburgh Bar Association is the paragraph that reads:

“The Scottish Government is presently consulting on proposals to give complainers in sexual offence cases the right to legally aided independent legal representation in their case. Who does the SG propose represent them?”

The association is warning of a delta between the number of people coming forward with cases and the number of people available to represent them or to offer them independent advice. As we already know, the lack of representation has been an issue throughout the country for a while not just because of the backlog but, clearly, because of a lack of resource. We do not want people going through the justice system on either side—accused or complainers—to face unnecessary delays to cases or trials or to have no access to representation.

It is a different issue, but we need to keep a watchful eye on it. If the warnings come to fruition, we could be facing a substantial crisis in the sector during this session of the Parliament, and it would have a knock-on effect on clearing the backlog and for people who are being held on remand, waiting for their day in court. We know all about the consequences of such delays on folk. I just wonder how we can work the issue into our workload to ensure that it does not creep up on us in a year or two.

This is perhaps a slighter wider issue, but I think that purposeful activity among the remand population is still an unaddressed issue. I appreciate that that was not the subject of the question that we asked so it is not covered in the answer, but I am not 100 per cent convinced that enough is being done in that respect.

I appreciate that there are legal ramifications in that regard, and perhaps statutory duties that apply, but nonetheless I would like to think that the SPS is actively looking, even within the confines of what the law states, at what people’s rights are, and at what it can and cannot force people to do. I would like to think that it would go above and beyond in that respect. The statistics that came out yesterday point to a dire situation with people being held on remand for lengthy periods due to court delays, so I would like to think that more than just the bare minimum is being done. I wonder whether we could ask for more information about that.

May I make a suggestion, convener?

If the responsibility for healthcare before, during and after someone is in the custody of the SPS is not its responsibility at any point during that journey, asking the SPS more questions about it will probably elicit very little. It may be more helpful for us to write the health secretary, who is responsible for the NHS.

Each health board will be responsible for the institutions in its area. From a nationwide point of view, however, it is evident that, although people have access to certain levels of care and treatment—especially around addiction, mental health and so on—while they are in custody, there is a disparity of services when they leave custody, especially if they were held somewhere that was not in their home health board area, meaning that they were, if you like, a visitor there. There are issues with data and records moving around. The system is not as seamless as some people might like us to think it is. However, those are not only justice questions; they are ultimately health questions because the NHS is responsible for folk in custody.

That seamlessness, which we are not seeing, is part of the throughcare conversation that we have been having, as we saw at first hand on our committee visit to the Wise Group. It is important for keeping people on the straight and narrow, which it is easy to do in a managed environment and less easy to do it out in the real world. Those are questions that perhaps only the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care could answer.