Chamber and committees

Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has the powers that are set out in statute to inspect prisons and undertake various other elements of scrutiny of prisons, which Mr Fox might want to speak to.

The Prison Service carried out a human rights assessment prior to the instrument being laid. I understand the concerns that committee members have, but I will describe the way that the system has worked over the pandemic. The governors are not tyrants—I am not suggesting that that has been suggested—and they know that the best way of managing a prison is to allow the maximum possibility for purposeful activity, such as visits. That is why they have worked hard on alternatives to visits. That tends to help to make the running of prisons easier. Sometimes, it is not in governors’ interests to restrict such activities, and they would do it only because of health needs.

The safeguards are the conversations that governors have with SPS headquarters. It is possible for legal action to be taken if a governor extends their powers. Plus, there are the inspector of prisons and the European convention on human rights.

The officials might want to speak on any further powers that the inspector of prisons has on the matter.

Yes, and the powers that we seek to revoke, rather than extend, are, in large part, to do with internal administrative and disciplinary processes. You are right in identifying the ones that we wish to extend.

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.