Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is great.

My second question on that concerns the fact that some people think that, for some trials, even 18 months is ambitious, albeit that that is an extended time limit. We have just heard examples of some trials that are already taking way beyond 18 months. If we assume that that is what is happening, the backlog is going to take four or five years—perhaps longer—to clear, given the volume of cases.

What are the main causes of the delays to trials? Do they involve the capacity in the system? On numerous occasions, the committee has asked the SCTS and the Crown Office whether they think that there is capacity in the system to deal with the backlog, or what more they might need to get through it more quickly.

Alternatively, do the delays simply involve the nature of the processes that we work with? Is it that, even with all the will in the world—if we doubled court capacity and the number of defence solicitors and Crown agents—we would still not get through it at the same rate as we would wish because of the inherent nature by which trials take place?

What are the main barriers to reducing the length of time that people are waiting? In other words, how do we clear that backlog quickly but also fairly, so that each party is given the absolute right to fairness throughout the process?

What effect has the rather elongated extension to remand time had on the Scottish Prison Service? Do you have a view as to whether the measures seem necessary and proportionate enough to make them permanent features?

I do not mind. It was a tough question.

Good morning. My first question is for Emma Jardine from the Howard League. Do you feel that your organisation and the people whom your organisation assists or represents have been adequately consulted as part of the bill process?

What are your main concerns about the bill, if any?

We will come back to the issue of prisoner release.

I come back to time limits, because that is a technical matter and the bill deals with it on a technical level. I think that there is a general understanding of why there has been an extension of statutory time limits, both for trials and, in the more direct case, remand, which has a direct effect on the prison estate. However, the extensions of the time limits for remand are quite stark: a jump from 80 days to 260, from 110 days to 290, and from 140 to 320, which is nearly a year. Those are marked differences. The original extensions were emergency measures and they were temporary. The bill seeks to retain them and make them on-going features of the justice system. Do you have a view on that? Is it right that those extensions are in the bill? Do we still need them, given that the First Minister announced yesterday that the majority of Covid restrictions would be dropped next month? Why should the extensions become permanent features of our justice system?

The difference between this petition and the previous one, albeit that they have been open for comparable lengths of time and have both straddled multiple sessions of Parliament, is that there is a commitment from the Government to introduce the outcome that the petitioner seeks.

However, words on paper are different from deeds and actions. A manifesto relates to a parliamentary session, whereas a programme for government is an annual statement. The proposal was in the 2021-22 programme for government and there are only a few months of that period left. Therefore, I suggest that, until we have sight of either the required legislation or a more detailed proposal from the Government—even something as a simple as a policy for the Parliament to consider—it would be in our interest to write to the cabinet secretary to ask him to outline timescales for the actions that the Government has promised to take. At that point, if we are satisfied that the actions will deliver what the petitioner seeks, we can consider closing the petition, but it should remain open for now.

Good morning, colleagues.

For the record, I note that this is the third session of the Scottish Parliament in which the petition has been considered and the third iteration of a justice committee to consider it. As with the next petition that we will consider today, it is my view that this petition should not remain open indefinitely. Indeed, it has been open for more than a decade now, and it is in the best interests of the committee and its work, and of the campaigners—on which I have no specific view—that some other recourse be sought. If the work carried out in three parliamentary sessions has not been able to address the campaign’s wishes and needs, I cannot see our committee having the time and ability to do so either.

Of course, there are still some important considerations to take place. The family’s legal representation is well within its rights to pursue the legal recourse that is available, and it can make direct representation to the Government and its ministers. I would also note that we have a new justice secretary, one of many with whom those involved with the petition have dealt over the years. That would be the best line for them to pursue, but not for this committee. Given that this is a very specific and direct case, I suggest that, if we do not close the petition today, we at the very least agree a future date for coming to a decision on what we recommend next, to give the committee closure in this parliamentary session.

I sort of alluded to the issue of correspondence. On an issue such as legal aid, where the Government simply responds by saying that it respectfully disagrees, that is fine. The Government is entirely within its rights to disagree either with stakeholders who have given evidence or with the committee’s summary and recommendations. It is entirely appropriate for the Government to disagree with committees and their findings—that is common and I do not have a problem with it—but when the Scottish Government does not answer questions at all on important issues, I would push back, uncontroversially, and say, “With respect, cabinet secretary, the committee made a recommendation, and just to say that no response has been provided is not good enough.” If a further response comes back to say that a response is not possible or that the cabinet secretary disagrees with the committee, that is fine. That is a response. However, to say that there is no response is not a response. I would be minded to push back on those issues.

It is also worth noting, however, that this is just a draft budget. The budget will go through its iterative process. Political parties and their spokespeople are within their rights to press the Government for more money on whatever they want and that will form part of the negotiations. There may be other opportunities for revisiting these issues as the budget goes through the process. By the time we get to the final stages of the budget, we will know what the final numbers are. It is not necessarily a given that the numbers that have been presented to us are the final numbers, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary has the wherewithal to request as much as he thinks is needed, off the back of the committee’s recommendations, from his colleagues in Government. Perhaps we could schedule an opportunity for the committee to review later iterations of the numbers to see whether they meet us some way in some of our tasks.

I will try to rattle through my points. To be helpful, I will identify them in relation to the committee’s conclusions by number. I will start with our point 139. On the overall budget, the cabinet secretary’s written response says that there will be

“a 7% increase in the portfolio resource budget”,

but it is unclear from the response whether there will be any increase in the capital budget or what the increase will be. That is important, because it comes up later in some of our recommendations.

On prisons and prison reform, there is an increase of £15 million to the Scottish Prison Service resource budget. It is unclear where that money is going or what it is for. Is it for staff or other forms of people-related expenditure rather than things? The £73 million capital funding is merely an extension of existing commitments. It will enable the conclusion of the construction of the female custodial estate and other pieces of work such as those at Inverness and Barlinnie. We know that that work might already be going over budget. That does not seem to be new money.

Our point 162 was that there is no increase in the capital budgets for either Police Scotland or the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It seems to me that the only capital money that is mentioned is for things that we already knew about. For example, it will not cover any investment in HMP Greenock or HMP Dumfries. That might not necessarily mean complete replacements; it could just be necessary infrastructure upgrades as per the recommendations of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in Scotland.

In relation to point 162 and the police capital budget, it was clear from the evidence that was given to us not just by the police but by other stakeholders, including the Scottish Police Federation, that there is an absolute necessity for increased capital for essential modernisation. It is not just about cherry picking upgrades; it is for things that are necessary to allow the police to continue to perform their duties. There seems to be nothing for digital and information and communications technology, fleet, the police estate or the police’s greening or net zero targets. That is noted.

We heard from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—or at least from its union—that some of the fire service’s estate is not fit for purpose. There is £9.5 million mentioned for modernisation, although I am not quite sure where that is going. It certainly does not seem to scratch the surface of what is needed.

Those are not necessarily criticisms; they are just observations on the responses.

Our point 173 was about the national community justice strategy. The Government simply says in response that that is “under development” and will launch this year, but it does not mention what budget will be allocated. We made a specific ask that it should be adequately funded. I note that no response was given to that.

The other major area of contention for me is on legal aid. The committee took a lot of evidence on that issue. I accept that there is disagreement between various stakeholders, but we made it clear that the profession, if nothing else, is clear that the Government has failed to address issues on fees and the negotiations on them. The one-line answer was that the Government “does not accept” that position.

The Government did not respond to point 182, nor to point 184, which included a helpful suggestion about the Public Defence Solicitors Office that I thought had come from other members as we worked through the process. No response was provided by the Government. That is just not good enough.

On the issue of tackling drugs deaths, it was disappointing that the Government did not respond to points 189 and 191. We made a specific recommendation for a modest injection of funds for recovery clinics in prisons, as the committee discussed earlier, and also for residential rehab and community day centres. We also asked for clarification of how all the budgets work together, because we know that the drugs deaths crisis crosses many portfolios. The Government provided no response to either of those points. Given the gravity of the situation, that is disappointing.

As we reflect on the budget process, we may want to look back on those issues or push the Government further.