Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not disagree with that at all. We absolutely want to have victims at the heart of our justice system, and we are making an immense contribution to making that so in all the work that we do. If the member read “The Vision for Justice”, he would see that that comes through in the whole document—it is an integral part of it.

I do not accept the Conservatives’ suggestion that the Government’s focus on rehabilitation and shifting the balance towards greater use of community-based justice poses a risk to safety, because victims’ safety and public protection have always been, and will always be, at the heart of any policy that the Government implements.

If we take a step back and think about it, if we want to make transformational change—and there is support for that, from what I am hearing—we must move towards a smart justice approach that is compassionate and includes evidence-based approaches that we know work to reduce reoffending. That is the way in which we will address those issues.

With a few exceptions, the debate was useful and there were some good speeches. I note Collette Stevenson’s contribution about the police. Audrey Nicoll’s metaphor about falling off the cliff and finding the ambulance has stayed with me, and I note Rona Mackay’s emphasis on women’s justice. In the time that I have, I will address as much as possible of what was raised in the debate. Pauline McNeill raised the issue of access to justice and rape convictions, which was also a focus of some other contributions. She mentioned the testimony of many survivors and campaigners, such as Miss M. I have also met Miss M and I listened carefully to what she had to say. I thought that she was very compelling in pursuing her goal.

I reiterate that the Government is committed to driving progress in that area.

I will give that some further thought and come back to the member.

Remand was rightly mentioned by a number of members, including Jamie Greene, Pauline McNeill and Liam McArthur, and we recognise that it is an area in which change is urgently needed. We have consulted on reforms in that regard, and we intend to introduce legislation before summer recess. We have also increased funding for alternatives to remand.

Pauline McNeill and Liam McArthur asked about electronic monitoring. Over the coming months, we plan to extend the availability of electronic monitoring, which will be used as part of bail conditions, community payback orders and conditions for temporary release from prison.

Rona Mackay spoke about improving women’s experience of justice, which is really important, and the Government is committed to taking action to do that. I am determined that, in my role, I will strive to drive forward as much action on the matter as possible. The time to act is now, so I am pleased to be leading new work to develop a strategic approach to women in the justice system.

Last month, I held the first meeting of the women’s justice leadership panel. The panel brings together expert women from all aspects of the justice system to discuss the experience and the unique needs of women, and what that means for the criminal justice process. We know that, often, the system has not been designed with women in mind, and the panel is tasked with examining that further.

The work builds on a call for evidence that the Scottish Government commissioned at the end of last year. The evidence from the call found that women were more likely to experience victimisation and trauma, hold primary caring responsibilities and carry the weight of others’ imprisonment. It also raised key areas of interest, such as the lag between policy and practice, the blurred line between victimisation and offender status, stereotypes and biases in the justice system, and intersectionality. The work will be dedicated to exploring those themes in more detail in order to create a better understanding of the impacts on women and build the case for fundamental system change to better reflect their needs. Outputs from the panel will inform and complement the work that is being progressed under our justice vision.

I will move on briefly to legal aid. I refute Jamie Greene’s characterisation of the Government’s action in that area. We will be introducing a bill on legal aid to create a system that is flexible, is easy to access and meets the needs of those who use it, which is really important. I engage regularly with representatives of the legal aid profession, to listen to all the concerns that are raised. The latest legal aid fee rise of 5 per cent will be in place shortly.

Setting out a vision is beneficial, because we need to know what our aspirations are, what our goals are, and where we as a country are trying to go and why. Moving forward as a country on some of the key issues in justice is bold. Incremental changes can be good, but the time is right for—and I believe that we have heard from Parliament today that there is support for—transformation and boldness in how we look again at some of our key challenges and how we go about addressing them.

Our vision for the justice system is for more effective justice, and for a system that is trauma informed and person centred.

I am probably about to answer the question that the member will ask.

We have reforms planned in a number of areas, including the management of sexual offences. Lady Dorrian’s review suggests a number of proposals for modernisation, with which we are moving forward. If that does not answer the member’s question, I will give way.

Today has been an opportunity to get up to the strategic level and debate the future direction of justice in Scotland because, after all, our choice of direction reflects us and reveals who we are as a society and what we believe in and value. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have engaged constructively with the discussion. The Conservatives, however—probably quite predictably—passed up on the opportunity, which reveals their lack of engagement with the substance of the debate that we are trying to have in the Parliament about the future of justice. Liam McArthur summed it up when he said the Conservatives were not making a contribution to the debate.

Doing more to keep our communities safe and to deliver positive outcomes for the people of Scotland is a priority for this Government. That is why we have increased the SFRS resource budget in recent years to invest in service modernisation, which is a programme for government commitment. We have provided additional capital in-year over the past two years.

Decisions on the allocation of its budget are a matter for the SFRS. It is currently looking to modernise the service that it provides, to ensure that the right assets are available at the right time and in the right place to deal with the current and future risks that our communities face.

The Scottish Government committed in our most recent programme for government to launch a public consultation on legal services regulation reform to consider what changes might be required to the statutory framework in order to protect consumer interests and promote a flourishing legal sector. Delivering on that commitment, we published the consultation on 1 October 2021. The consultation closed quite recently, on 24 December 2021. The proposals in the consultation were developed collaboratively with stakeholders representing the legal sector and the consumer view. The Scottish Government is carefully considering the responses to the consultation, and a consultation analysis report will be published later this year.

I do not agree with the member’s characterisation. As I said in my previous answer, the Scottish Government consulted following calls for reform from within the legal sector and from the Competition and Markets Authority. The proposals considered what changes might be required to the statutory framework for the regulation of legal services in order to protect consumer interests and promote a flourishing legal sector. The fact that we are asking for views on the matter does not mean that a particular course of action will be taken.

I point out to the member and the chamber that, in England and Wales, the Legal Services Board acts as the overarching legal services regulator and is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor.

That said, in taking forward the reforms, the Scottish Government is committed to working collaboratively with the legal sector—I believe that I have shown that to be the case—and with those representing the consumer interest. We will carefully consider all views before taking any action.

The public consultation sought the views on what the role of the Lord President and the Court of Session would be in any new regulatory framework. Without predetermining the results of the consideration of the responses, the latter might indicate that there should be no or little change to those roles, which is perfectly legitimate.

The review made proposals that were designed to lead to improvements to transparency and accountability in how services are regulated and how the legal complaint system operates in Scotland. As I said in my previous answer, the independent oversight regulator in England and Wales, the Legal Services Board, is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor.

I would be happy to look into the situation that the member has just raised, and I will look at it carefully if she writes to me.

The recent consultation on legal services regulation sought views on reform of the legal complaints process and on freedom of information in respect of those regulatory functions, so we are carefully considering all those points as part of our wider reforms.