Chamber and committees

I am interested in the impact on the quality of justice, given what we have just heard. I would also like to hear from Colin Lancaster about the system and early pleas.

I will start with Ian Moir. We have heard about the number of practitioners who are leaving the profession, and you have outlined the issues around competing with recruitment to other places such as the Government, and the gap in pay. You also talked about the work-life balance of criminal legal aid solicitors. Can you say a bit more about that? Is it the primary reason why we are losing solicitors from legal aid defence?

Thank you. When I first read about that, I did not like to think that there was any reason for the restriction of newspapers and reading materials, particularly for prisoners who are detained.

As I understand it, there are no time limits, although there are caveats to that. Are you certain that that complies with human rights law?

That is an important point, which I want to come on to. I want to bring in Tony Lenehan on that. The SSBA submission mentions the recent boycott and the #gownsdown campaign. We also heard from Ian Moir about the importance of lawyers’ experience.

Perhaps Tony Lenehan can say whether he thinks that the ability to choose a solicitor, and to have a solicitor with experience, is important for the quality of justice. I note that progress has been made, but do you have concerns about the quality of justice if we do not find a solution to the current issues in the short term?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I reiterate what Collette Stevenson said about all of us being concerned about prisoners’ conditions and rights. Tom Fox also acknowledged that, so we are all coming from the same place.

I acknowledge the cabinet secretary’s detailed answer to the committee, which was very helpful, as was the response to the consultation. I am sure that the cabinet secretary acknowledges that, at the end of the day, whatever the rights and wrongs of the processes, the committee has a decision to make. I am sure that everyone acknowledges that we are decision makers when it comes to SSIs. I might agree with Fulton MacGregor that we should agree to the instrument. I might be minded to lend it my support, but with all the reservations that other members have given about not having the appropriate time to consider it. That is my line of thought.

Am I right in saying that the Government seeks to extend a range of powers that relate to purposeful activity, suspension of visits and detention of prisoners in cells, albeit with all the rules around health professionals and human rights?

That was really helpful. I certainly acknowledge that the powers might well be needed, but the cabinet secretary should appreciate that we are interested in where the safeguards are. If I am to agree to the instrument today, I need to be satisfied that safeguards exist. Moreover, going back to a comment that you made to Jamie Greene, I am uncomfortable with extending the powers to next March, and the length of time that you are asking for might be reason enough for me to vote against the proposal. I accept a lot of what you have said, and you have told Jamie Greene that you would be prepared to bring the issue back to us before then, but if I am to support the instrument, I need to have that absolutely confirmed. I cannot vote to extend for six months what are quite wide-ranging powers, even with all the safeguards and caveats in place, without the matter being brought back to the committee before next March.

I agree with what has been said and will try not to repeat those points.

I would have been minded to support a motion to annul but I am content with what has been said. I note that the SSI includes the power to suspend purposeful activity and visitation rights and to detain prisoners in their cells if a health professional has said that there is cause for concern around coronavirus. I acknowledge that there are reasons to have those powers but I agree with Jamie Greene and Katy Clark that the committee needs to keep a watchful eye on the length of time for which the powers are in force and the consistency of governors’ decisions. As the cabinet secretary has indicated to the committee that he would be happy to return to the matter, I am content to do nothing other than to note the instrument.

Can you confirm that you are revoking the power relating to the restriction of newspapers and reading materials? Will that provision now be allowed?

My final question is for Colin Lancaster. The SSBA’s submission states:

“The current system of legal aid is not conducive to early resolution of cases. There are significant gaps in funding available at the early stages in the process and the system fails to adequately recognise the preparation and responsibility involved in negotiating early pleas.”

Do you agree with that statement? Could there be a better system, in which early payment was made to ensure that early pleas were made? After all, that is what we would want in any court system.

Scottish Labour is genuinely interested in the proposals for a right to recovery that Dr Sandesh Gulhane has outlined. Last year, more than 1,300 people in Scotland died of drug misuse, which was a record number of deaths for the seventh year in a row. As we have previously discussed in the Parliament, that is the highest rate of drug deaths of any country in Europe. As Claire Baker, Stuart McMillan and many other members have said, that is a national shame, with tragic consequences. Therefore, the Scottish Government is rightly under pressure to change that. We desperately need fresh thinking throughout the Parliament when it comes to Scotland’s approach to tackling drugs. If we do not have fresh thinking, we will fail.

A step in the right direction was the Lord Advocate’s announcement last week, in which she confirmed that the scope of the recorded police warning scheme has been extended to include possession-only offences relating to class A drugs. It is important that the Tories speak accurately about the announcement. It is still illegal to possess drugs. The law is not changing. Drugs have not been decriminalised, as the Tories know. It is about diversion from prosecution.

It is important to note that the scheme applies only to drug possession offences; it does not apply to drug supply offences. It is aimed at reducing the number of drug deaths and at getting people on to the right pathway, which is what Dr Gulhane talked about, and I believe what he said. For the Tories to characterise the Lord Advocate’s announcement as a wholesale decriminalisation of drugs does their proposal no justice whatsoever. Has it occurred to them that a route or pathway to recovery might come through a police officer issuing a warning under the scheme and referring a person to treatment services?

It is worth stressing that offering a recorded police warning is not mandatory. Police officers retain the ability to report cases to the procurator fiscal. As the Lord Advocate noted last week, when the police encounter an individual who they know, or suspect, is addicted to drugs, officers are able to direct that person to services that may be able to assist. Surely that is consistent with finding pathways to recovery. The Lord Advocate said that such referrals must become the norm. We need more resources for treatment and recovery programmes urgently.

In the previous debate on the subject, I said that drug consumption facilities are operating in 66 cities around the world. There is some agreement in the Parliament that Scotland needs to provide such facilities. A review by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction concluded:

“There is no evidence to suggest that the availability of safer injecting facilities increases drug use or frequency of injecting. These services facilitate rather than delay treatment entry and do not result in higher rates of local drug-related crime.”

The Scottish Government must work within the legal framework. Following the Lord Advocate’s statement last week, I asked her whether she considers that the supervision of those who are consuming drugs in such facilities contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because it might well be that it does not if the supervision is in order to save lives. I was pleased that the Lord Advocate noted, in response, that she

“would be prepared to consider any such future proposal”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2021; c 26.]

We know that, by the end of March, lives had been saved by Peter Krykant, who has been mentioned. Such facilities have to be a serious part of our consideration if we are not to fail on the matter.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.