Chamber and committees

First, I do think that it is an area of concern—I would say that immediately. The extent to which it might be rising or otherwise is of course hard to tell, because the nature of it is secretive: people try to keep it hidden. The fact that we and the Prison Service recognise it as a problem is accepted, I think. Also—and there is a point to saying this—that is no different from other jurisdictions, as I am sure you will know and accept.

The UK Government has undertaken, or authorised, some new equipment in relation to that, but only for certain bodies. Again, it would be useful to get some more background information from the officials—if we could get the name of the particular device. We are looking to get authorisation from the—[Interruption.] No, I do not think it was that one; I think we currently have those. I think it is a new one.

Thanks for the question. I probably cannot answer it fully, but you are absolutely right to say that the protection of the public is the bottom line. We keep people on remand for that reason, and, obviously, there is a risk calculation. The decisions on who to keep on remand are for the courts, not the Government, to make. However, you are right that it would seem to be perfectly legitimate to look at the risks of, say, holding someone on remand because of the fear of non-appearance or other such aspects. It is right to look at the balance of risks. Some of that might require legislation, but some of it could possibly be dealt with just through changes being made to the system. We are very open-minded about that.

The bottom line is that we must see a reduction in the numbers on remand, for the reasons that Jamie Greene mentioned—the harms that are done. I am quite frank about the fact that it is perfectly possible that someone could spend longer on remand—even if they are then found not guilty—than they would have spent in prison had they been found guilty and sentenced. There are different pressures on the system, and we must protect the public—that is the bottom line—but, yes, we should look at these areas.

We will have something to say on that. The Government is looking at the matter with a degree of urgency. Beyond that, I cannot be more specific in advance of the programme for government. Neil Rennick has worked on this for many more years than I have, so he might want to say more about the remand element.

In response to your final point, I revert to what I said earlier: the programme for government will shortly be issued, which will give some timescales for those things. Members will expect there to be a degree of urgency about the way that the Government deals with Lady Dorrian’s suggestions.

The response is multifaceted. Such issues were discussed during the passage of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, and are in the continuing remit of the working group on misogyny, led by Baroness Helena Kennedy, which will report during the coming year. We are committed to taking action on that issue very quickly if we get a recommendation from the group to do so.

In addition, I hope that you have seen the work that has been taken forward on forensic medical evidence. I visited a place in Larbert that was much more than a spare room in a police station, as was often the case in the past. We are starting to have dedicated facilities to which people who have been subject to sexual assault and rape can go. Examination is a traumatic experience, whatever the circumstances, but it can be done better. The provision is to be rolled out across the country. There is no obligation on the victim to go through a court process; to some extent, that is still their choice.

Lady Dorrian’s recommendations cover quite a wide area. I am sure that we will come on to issues such as corroboration and the three verdicts, which we have agreed to look at. We intend a whole suite of things to try to address the real problem of violence against women and girls.

I note what Jamie Greene said about civil justice matters, but it might be helpful to hear about some of the work that the minister is considering in relation to women in prison. Before that, however, Neil Rennick might want to say something about the breadth of the work that we are doing.

I will make a couple of points. I am not sure of the word that you used—“revealed” or “discovered”—but the figures were in the legislation when it was passed and were agreed in Parliament. I know that Russell Findlay was not in Parliament at the time, but they were agreed, so the idea that it is a revelation or was unanticipated is not right.

It is the case that there are risks attached to these things, but if we had, because of the backlog, not enough provision left for disposals, that would be a risk for more serious cases. My understanding is that the reduction did not apply to cases involving violence or sexual offences. We were very careful about that, although I was not doing this job at the time. The bottom line is that Covid has meant that we have to balance all sorts of different risks and in this case we got the balance right. I know that Neil Rennick was involved.

Thank you for the question, which I think Neil Rennick would like to comment on, because he has been involved in that for a long time. As you say, the issue has been going on for a long time. We have made substantial progress on it. I think that the number of young people who are in prison is down to the low teens, but that is still too many, as you say. Most recently, I spoke with Community Justice Scotland and Sacro on that issue to see what further can be done. We are looking to take very early action. However, again, it is probably a bit premature to be too specific.

Neil Rennick has been involved in that for far longer than I have, so he might want to say something. It is about taking a whole-system approach. We have done that for a number of years now, but it is about following that right the way through. We have all been aware of particular tragic cases of people in those circumstances, and we are desperately keen to avoid those. To go back to a previous question, the whole-system approach relies on ensuring that the mental health and other support is there as necessary.

Thank you very much, convener, and congratulations on your appointment. I also congratulate members on being appointed to the committee. I look forward to working with the committee in future months, and I am grateful for the opportunity to meet today.

As public health restrictions are further eased and Scotland continues to open up, the criminal justice system is responding to the significant challenges that have resulted from Covid and the necessary public health measures that the Scottish Government has taken. For the important roles that they have played during the pandemic, I thank our justice partners including prison officers, criminal justice social workers, police officers, fire and rescue staff, prosecutors, the courts service and judiciary, our legal profession, the third sector and others. In the short time that I have been in post, I have been impressed by everyone’s hard work and their willingness to come together to mitigate as best we can the pandemic’s consequences and find sometimes creative solutions to the problems that the system has faced. Innovations such as the use of remote jury centres in cinemas—which I have visited—with remote balloting of jurors and the use of online hearings for some court hearings are good examples of the collaborative and innovative approach that has been taken by justice partners.

The Scottish Government has committed to investing £50 million this year to help to drive forward the recover, renew and transform programme. For 2021-22, we have also increased the policing budget by £75.5 million to over £1.3 billion, including one-off funding of £15 million specifically to mitigate the impact of Covid-19 on police finances. That is in line with our commitment to protect the police resource budget in real terms throughout the new session of Parliament, just as we did throughout the previous one. We are beginning to see some optimistic signs as the necessary Covid restrictions are eased with, for example, the announcement by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that the number of sheriff solemn cases that were concluded in June exceeded pre-Covid levels.

That said, I recognise that the task that is ahead of us remains significant and I do not underestimate the distress that is caused to the victims of crime by unavoidable delays in cases being resolved. In that respect, this jurisdiction is no different from most others. Continued co-operation across the justice system as a whole will be required for some time to come in order for us to resolve fully the pandemic’s impact, but that task is not only about returning to the way that things were. It is also about thinking how we can do things better, which will mean doing them differently.

Before the recess, I outlined in the chamber how we might do that. The Scottish National Party manifesto set out our vision of where we see Scotland’s criminal justice system being in 2026, and the Scottish Government has already begun the work to deliver those transformational changes across the five years of this session of Parliament. As the committee will understand, there are limitations on what I can say about timescales and the detail of the legislative programme ahead of the First Minister’s statement on the programme for government next week. We will be able to provide further details after next week’s statement and I will get back to the committee in due course with any information that I am unable to pass on directly to members today.

Members will recognise that many of the commitments in the Government’s manifesto—such as the commitments to strengthen the rights and protection of victims, improve public protection and modernise the justice system—will require both primary and secondary legislation. We are also committed to the on-going process of law reform, including through bills proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. As always in justice, we can expect a range of legislation to be considered by this and other committees throughout the Parliament. Of course, committees and members might propose their own bills, too.

A number of the commitments that we have set out for reforming our justice system are shared broadly by other parties in the Parliament. For example, a legal right to anonymity for complainers in sexual offence cases was included in a number of the parties’ manifestos. There is, I believe, quite a lot that we can agree on. There is strong evidence of collaborative working across our justice system and I welcome the opportunity to have collaborative engagement with the committee and other parties in Parliament.

I have already met a number of opposition spokespersons, some of whom are here today. If we can work together, we can bring about the changes that are necessary to transform Scotland’s criminal justice system. I have said before and I am happy to repeat now that I will try to find consensus wherever possible. Although I am sure that there are areas of the Government’s programme that the committee will want to probe and scrutinise, I ask members, where they can, to work constructively with justice ministers over the coming weeks, months and years.

I know that that view is shared by the Minister for Community Safety, Ash Denham, who has been asked by the First Minister to take on a particular role in the portfolio. It might help if the minister was to make some remarks on that. With that, I conclude my opening remarks.

As I have said, we are in a period of relative austerity with regard to budgets, but that is an area where we can potentially unlock other savings and better outcomes. I definitely agree with Mr MacGregor on that. However, I should make it clear that, unlike some other people, we are not looking to have yellow-jacketed chain gangs—that is not what we are about. The question is whether the kinds of disposals that we are talking about are likely to produce better outcomes.

You mentioned finance, and quite rightly so. After all, the disposals need to be expanded, and you have to give the courts that make them the confidence that the provisions are there for them. That requires finance. Of course, if you do it in the right way, the costs will be less than, say, the £40,000 a year and the associated social and other costs of keeping someone in custody. I hope that there will be an expansion in that respect, and I suppose that it is my job in the Cabinet to argue the case for those moneys.

Again, I might rely on Neil Rennick to give you more detail about the priority that is being given to such cases. I am trying to think back to the letter. I have received a substantial number of letters, including from most members of the committee, over the past few months. Because of its unique nature, I think that I recall some elements of the letter. In any event, the first warning that you get in this job is to not comment on specific cases, so I will not do that.

With regard to justice generally, and certainly with regard to Covid and recovery, we are asked often in different fora to prioritise this, that or the other. The act of prioritising one thing means that you deprioritise something else, so we must have regard to that. All I would say is that the criteria for prioritising must, first and foremost, take into account public safety. However, we must have regard—I take it that this relates to your constituent’s situation—to victims and the accused and, as Jamie Greene mentioned, how the matter impacts on them.

Beyond the general comment that we were trying to prioritise public safety first, huge priority has been attached over the period of the pandemic to domestic violence. For example, almost a third, I think, of all cases that are going through the courts relate to domestic violence. On the one hand, that level is worrying, but, on the other, it shows the priority that the system is giving to those cases, and the Parliament deserves congratulation on its ground-breaking legislation in that regard.

We are looking to prioritise in various ways, but we are very conscious of what is deprioritised as a result. If that is not done—if everything is prioritised—in essence, nothing is prioritised. Neil Rennick may want to say more.

I do not know whether this came up in the committee’s discussion with the Lord President, but he is keen on us continuing some of the innovations, such as individual legal professionals consulting or taking evidence virtually, which is a huge boon in many circumstances. I am pleased that the Lord President is taking a progressive attitude to that.

Having said all of that, those issues relate mainly to the criminal side. The civil side has progressed normally. The minister might want to comment on that.

In my 14 years in the Parliament, I do not think that I have ever heard a minister say that they have all the funds that they need, so, no, I would not say that. It must be pointed out that we are now in the 10th or 11th year of a programme of austerity from the UK Government, which has real implications. We mention it from time to time, but the implications for capital and revenue over that period are huge—huge chunks have been taken out of the Scottish budget. I must also say that the fiscal framework is now creaking at the seams. Therefore, there are overall pressures, but, within that, the £50 million that we have allocated has been very helpful. There are also specific areas, such as taking on new sheriffs, for example, which we are able to proceed with fairly quickly. Budgets will always be a consideration. For that reason, the £50 million that we have managed to get for the recover, renew and transform programme of work this year cannot be the end of the story. Therefore, like every other minister, I will be putting my bid in for that process. We have taken on new staff in some areas, and Neil Rennick might want to say something about that.