Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on police call handling and the tragic deaths of John Yuill and Lamara Bell in 2015.

I start by offering my condolences to the families of John Yuill and Lamara Bell. Yesterday, the chief constable unreservedly apologised to the families of John and Lamara. Just as the justice secretary did at the time, I apologise to the families for their tragic loss. I am deeply sorry.

Following a complex and thorough investigation, the Lord Advocate, in her independent role as head of the system of prosecution in Scotland, confirmed that criminal proceedings would be brought against Police Scotland in connection with the deaths of Mr Yuill and Ms Bell. As members will be aware, on Tuesday at the High Court in Edinburgh, the Police Service of Scotland pled guilty to an offence contrary to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, admitting to corporate criminal liability in relation to the tragic events in July 2015.

I understand that the case team and staff from the Crown Office’s victim information and advice service have communicated with family members and their legal representatives throughout this process.

I know that the minds of many family members will now turn to the question of whether there will be a fatal accident inquiry. The decision on that is a matter for the Lord Advocate and as cabinet secretary I have no locus in it. However, the Lord Advocate has confirmed that work has begun to initiate a fatal accident inquiry, and she has committed to make further information on the process public when possible.

It is important to recognise the significance of the case and of the sentence. However, as Lord Beckett said in his sentencing statement,

“There is no sentence this Court can pass which reflects the inestimable value of life lost and harm caused.”

Following the tragic events in July 2015, ministers acted quickly and the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice directed Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland to undertake an independent assurance review of the operation, systems and processes in place in Police Scotland’s contact, command and control—C3—division. That review resulted in 30 recommendations for improvement and HMICS has worked closely with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to implement wide-ranging changes in the period since.

In May 2018, HMICS published an update report, which confirmed that all 30 of the recommendations relating to its initial assurance review had been discharged and commended Police Scotland for the considerable priority it attached to that work. This week, HMICS published a further briefing note confirming that it has continued to engage with Police Scotland’s contact, command and control division and has carried out on-going assurance work on the new contact assessment model and the wider Police Scotland change programme.

The briefing note confirmed that a further eight recommendations were made to support on-going improvement and ensure that key areas of development and risk continued to be addressed by the SPA and Police Scotland. All those further recommendations have subsequently been discharged.

HM chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland, Gill Imery, commented in the briefing that she is

“confident that Police Scotland has made significant progress in terms of its call handling processes and is committed to pursue continuous improvement, investing further in technology, staff and the C3 estate”.

Mrs Imery noted that the force had maintained a high level of transparency over its call-handling performance, publishing monthly reports on its website to ensure that the public and interested parties can scrutinise its progress. She thanked the officers and staff of Police Scotland, who have continued to engage positively in HMICS’s assurance processes and reviews.

Since the establishment of Police Scotland, public scrutiny of policing has never been greater. It is essential that public and parliamentary confidence in the police remains strong. I know that members will share my view that Scotland is well served by its police service, and its hard-working, dedicated and professional officers and staff.

Police Scotland, which was created through the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, is a result of the largest exercise in public service reform since devolution. The Parliament’s Justice Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny report on the act was published in 2019, and it rightly recognised some significant achievements, including the creation of national capabilities in policing, which were described as

“a success story for ... Scotland.”

We are confident that the structures and procedures that were brought in under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 have strengthened the governance, accountability and scrutiny arrangements for policing.

In giving evidence to the Justice Committee in October 2018 as part of that process, and notwithstanding, of course, the circumstances of this tragedy, Chief Constable Iain Livingstone was clear that police reform had made Scotland safer. He said that he did not think that Scotland would be as safe as it is now and in the future had we not gone through that process of reform. The Scottish Police Authority chair strongly agreed with that sentiment.

In these recent unprecedented times, we have been very well served by Police Scotland, its officers and its staff. Public confidence in policing is high. A survey by the Scottish Police Authority in February 2021 confirmed that 58 per cent of respondents rated their local police as excellent or good.

In HMICS’s recent annual report, which was published on 13 August 2021, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland, Mrs Gill Imery QPM, said, in the context of an on-going pandemic:

“Having one police service for Scotland helped to achieve consistency in leadership direction, interpretation and implementation of legislation. Police Scotland’s public messages repeatedly emphasised working with the public as fellow citizens, maintaining the principle of policing by consent and building legitimacy, despite the extraordinary additional police powers to restrict people’s individual freedoms.”

Much has been achieved through police reform, and I firmly believe that policing in Scotland is stronger for it. However, that in no way, of course, detracts from the failures that occurred in this part of the reform programme, which have been accepted by Police Scotland.

Lord Beckett stated during sentencing:

“The offence for which the Police Service of Scotland has accepted responsibility and pled guilty to arises from human error which arose at a time of considerable restructuring of the police and necessary reorganisation of their procedures. I accept senior counsel’s unchallenged submission in relation to the reorganisation of call handling and area control, that:

‘This was not change for the sake of change, or change driven purely by the desire to reduce costs. Rather, the lack of an integrated system caused considerable operational difficulties: the previous legacy systems could not communicate with each other, access to technology across the forces varied and coordination of operational responses across legacy boundaries was convoluted and cumbersome.’”

The Scottish Police Authority recognises that the severity and significance of the charges and the fine placed on Police Scotland underline the serious failure to respond appropriately to the incident in 2015. The SPA chair, Martyn Evans, said in his statement following the court proceedings:

“The Chief Constable’s detailed acknowledgement of these failings, apology and personal commitment to continue to drive improvement and further reduce the opportunity for such circumstances to ever happen again are frank and heartfelt.”

Nothing that I say today in the chamber can adequately recognise the sense of grief and loss that the families will have endured but, again, I turn to the families of John and Lamara and say that I am deeply sorry for what happened and I am deeply sorry for their loss.

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.

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.

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.

That is exactly right. The other side to that is the people on the other side of the video camera—the families who can make contact online who would find it difficult otherwise, either because of the need to travel or because Covid is a barrier. It is not just about the prisoner. The response that you will sometimes get is that it is soft justice for a prisoner to give them a phone or to have these televisual conversations, but there is the other side of it as well. Going back to the point that was made previously about remand, it is about the effect on not just the individual who is on remand but their family, so your point is correct. You are right that that is, in part, a response to Covid, but we should look at these things.

Prison officers will tell you that there are benefits to that. There are also dangers around phones and other information technology equipment, with regard to maintaining the proper regime in prisons. Being aware of the dangers is important, but we should look at how we can do that. Thinking on the hoof, why should we not look at educational incentives being delivered in that way as well? That could be done more safely than might otherwise be the case and, I imagine, it would be possible to get more specialist educational opportunities for prisoners if they could do such things remotely. We should look at some of these innovations for the longer term.

The only thing that we are still looking for is for that code of conduct to be finalised.

That is a very good question and there is a lot to it. First, on the question as to what elements have given cause for concern among the legal profession, what springs to mind is the concern of the Faculty of Advocates about the continuing use of remote juries. The faculty has been very supportive of the use of remote juries and has seen real benefits from it, but I acknowledge that there are some concerns in the faculty about that being carried too far into the future if it is not required given the Covid situation.

On the issue of what innovations will remain, remote juries are something that we will consider, and we will also consider the Lord Advocate’s views on that. The remote balloting of juries has been of great benefit. It has been necessary because of the Covid pandemic, but it might be useful in future, too. We might want to keep in mind the potential use of remote juries in exceptional cases—for example, in serious organised crime cases where there might be an issue of jury tampering.

Mr Greene is right to say that we cannot just expand everything to try to deal with the issue. The committee heard from the Lord President, who said exactly that: we cannot just increase the scale of the system and there are other things that need to be done. An example might be the pre-recording of evidence, which has been beneficial for many reasons and not just in relation to Covid. The ability for people who might be vulnerable for different reasons to give evidence in much more relaxed surroundings started very recently and I think that it will be a long-term innovation.

Beyond that, it is clear that we cannot say that what we have done in response to the pandemic with the £50 million that we have put into the system this year is sufficient. We understand that it is not the end of the story and more investment has to happen. Members will know that the publicly acknowledged times for getting trials back up to where they were before are 2024 for summary trials and 2025 for solemn cases. If there is anything that we can do to advance that, we will try to do it.

Apart from with some of the innovations that we have made, we are in no different a position from the other jurisdictions that have had to wrestle with the problems that the pandemic has created. Neil Rennick might have something to add on that.

You anticipated my response, convener. As Ms McNeill said, there are on-going legal proceedings. The more general point that was raised starts to get us back on to that, too, so those questions are best put to the Lord Advocate, because she has responsibility for the Crown Office and what it has done. I was not in my current role when those things occurred. I am afraid that those questions would best be put directly to the Lord Advocate to see whether she is able to answer them. I do not want to comment beyond that, for the reasons that I have given.

Thank you for the question. At the start of it, you mentioned the extent to which access to such courses or activities has been undermined by Covid, and there is no doubt that that has been the case.

Having said that, I had a very good discussion with the Prison Officers Association Scotland, whose representatives said that they felt that, during the pandemic, partly because of its general impact on prisons and activities in them, they had been able to spend more time with prisoners. They felt that that was a useful period of learning for them—there were more one-to-one discussions.

You will know about some other things that we have done—for example, with phones in cells, which have helped during an extraordinary situation. Gyms and other facilities are now open. Although they are still restricted in some ways, they were not open at the time, so there was a big reduction in on-going activities. That was necessary and will continue to happen. For example, we have had recent outbreaks at HMP Perth and HMP Dumfries, which will mean restrictions on communal activities that may include some that you have mentioned.

In general, you are absolutely right. For me, in coming to this, we have to make use of the time that is spent in prison and see how much more effectively it can be used. Prison is an expensive option. It costs £40,000 a year to house a prisoner, and I think that society wants to have a return on that investment. One such return is taking somebody out of society who is a danger to it—I understand that—and there is also the element of punishment, which is reflected in the sentence. However, beyond that, rehabilitation has to be in everyone’s interests, because, in turn, that will lead to lower levels of recidivism and of crime. I think that I am right in saying that we are now seeing those at record low levels. Society wants to see more and more of that.

Around 11.9 per cent of people in Scotland have experienced crime of some description, compared with around 13.5 per cent across the rest of the UK, but that figure is still too high: that is 11 people in 100 experiencing crime. The object of rehabilitation in prison—albeit that sometimes prison is not the best setting in which to achieve it—has to be a serious one. At the start of my term as cabinet secretary, I want to look very profoundly at how we can make sure that that happens.

I know that there are constraints—for example on cash, although we are replacing HMP Barlinnie and HMP Highland and we are doing stuff in the women’s estate. There are physical and monetary constraints on what we can do. However, within those constraints, I want to see how we can make sure of that rehabilitation.

In a previous job, in education, 11 or 12 years ago, I was quite concerned about the number of prisoners whose learning issues—even dyslexia—were undiagnosed when they were at school. It may be that a young person, having had undiagnosed dyslexia, has fallen behind at school, and all sorts of other things might come after that. We might be able to go back to somebody in prison and do the required work, explaining that they had dyslexia as a child, that it gave them problems with reading or writing and that we might now be able to look at how we can remedy that. I think that there is more to be done on the availability of rehabilitative and educational opportunities and on the willingness of prisoners to take up those opportunities, and I concede that those areas have been impacted by the changes that we have had to make due to Covid.

Again, Neil Rennick may have something to add.