Chamber and committees

When it comes to the number of cases, the answer is that we do not know. We think that, in particular, fewer family cases have been started in court. It may be, as you have said, that those cases will come through in future but, at this point, we do not know.

On virtual business, the picture is mixed. There was a lot of positivity about remote hearings for procedural matters in particular. That positivity was right across the board, I think—civil and criminal. There has been quite a lot of engagement, and I may ask Denise Swanson or Neil Rennick to speak about that. A number of surveys have been done by the Law Society of Scotland, I think, and others; I think that the Faculty of Advocates has done some engagement with its members on what they think. The Lord President has suggested that remote hearings should certainly feature in the future in some form or other.

Adapting to Covid has presented us with opportunities. The ability to change things has been very beneficial in some cases. Previously, civil business was literally pinned to the walls of the court. That was how things used to be done. Obviously, during Covid, nobody was going into court, so the business was published online. Most people would say that such changes are more efficient and allow us to get business done.

In the criminal and the civil system, we need to look at which of those changes—what uses of technology—are working and improving the system, and at what we should and should not retain. Obviously, we want to make sure that we maintain access to justice. We do not want participants—for example, complainers—to feel that they are not able to present their evidence in the best way. We have definitely got to get that balance. One of the officials may be able to talk a little more about the research that has been done.

That is an issue—absolutely. Let us take the example of family court. If you were fleeing domestic abuse and you were not living at home, you might not have your phone and you would not have an internet connection, so you would not be in a position to sit down in front of a computer and calmly access and take part in your court proceedings. Anecdotally, we have heard about issues in that regard, so there is an option to use the telephone instead. It was not expected that everybody would have a broadband connection. Consideration was definitely given to the fact that not everybody is able to use technology to interact. As we discussed earlier, as we move forward, we want to ensure that we look at that. We are not suggesting that we will move everything to an online platform, because that would not be appropriate. However, you raise a good point.

We recently established a cross-justice working group on race data and evidence, which is working to improve the collection and reporting of race data and evidence in the justice system. I will ask Neil Rennick to give the committee a bit more background on that.

I have certainly heard that anecdotally, but I do not think that we have any research findings on people’s experience of remote hearings. As has been covered, we moved online in a number of areas, particularly in civil justice, in order to keep that business going. I think that most people would say that, rather than waiting a year for the outcome in a family court case hearing, they would prefer to get that business through court so that the sheriff can decide what will happen on their family issues.

I completely accept that, for some people, a remote hearing would not have felt the same as sitting in a room and being able to interact with the sheriff. However, other people might have preferred it. There are some people who are in a domestic abuse situation who find it extremely difficult to sit across the table from the person they consider to be their abuser. I think that remote hearings might have been an improvement for people in that position.

Therefore, I think that it is a mixed picture, but I take your point.

That is a very good question. Obviously, we are looking at reforming legal aid. One of the advantages of the reform process is that it could give us the ability to direct legal aid to groups that might face barriers in accessing it.

I am not sure whether the officials can fill us in on any research that has been done on that. Do we have any statistics?

I am grateful to Clare Adamson for highlighting the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is because we attach such fundamental importance to the rights and wellbeing of our children that we legislated to incorporate the convention, as far as possible, into Scots law.

When the Parliament voted unanimously to approve the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill in March, it was a milestone, not an end point. Work needs to be ramped up to ensure that the convention’s provisions bring real-life benefit to our children. That applies to the provisions of article 24, on health and wellbeing, which include ensuring that

“all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in ... the prevention of accidents”.

Of course, we are not setting off from a standing start. A lot of good work on education around risk assessment and accident prevention is already being undertaken. There is also the underlying contribution of the getting it right for every child programme. We have a very good platform on which to build.

On the prevention of accidental drowning specifically, we will strengthen our work with key organisations, including Water Safety Scotland and RoSPA, to identify and deliver the most effective ways of facilitating access to appropriate education and support.

As I said in my initial answer, a range of stakeholders were present at the meeting that I convened on 11 August. As you would imagine, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was at the meeting. I specifically asked it to review the location of its assets for exactly the reason that Jackie Baillie mentioned and to look at future arrangements. She was right to raise the situation at Loch Lomond.

However, there is no simple single answer to the challenge of drowning prevention. There is obviously a role for education, signage and life-saving equipment. All water can be dangerous, but Jackie Baillie is right to point out that there are locations where the dangers are more significant, where it is especially important that there is clear warning signage and appropriate life-saving equipment.

I will again speak to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about the particular incident that Jackie Baillie mentioned and will come back to her.

I would be happy to meet the member to discuss that. On 13 March 2020, I asked my officials to write to all local authorities in Scotland to ascertain the extent to which the antisocial use of motorcycles and quad bikes was a problem in their areas and how they were addressing that. All 32 local authorities replied to that request. The antisocial use of motorcycles and quad bikes is not a widespread problem across Scotland, though six local authorities reported on-going problems with antisocial use of motorcycles or quad bikes in their areas and four said that that was a seasonal occurrence. I would be happy to meet the member to discuss that.

The Scottish Government takes the issue of water safety very seriously and welcomed the drowning prevention strategy when it was published by Water Safety Scotland in 2018. I thank Clare Adamson for her contribution to the strategy and her continued support for Water Safety Scotland, which has a lynchpin role in this area.

As Clare Adamson will know, the Scottish Government continues to provide funding, via the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, to support the operation of Water Safety Scotland. In addition, this year, the Scottish Government has worked with partners to support a number of water safety activities and campaigns.

We also work closely with Water Safety Scotland and other partners to support the recommendations in its drowning prevention strategy and initiatives that can help to raise awareness of the hazards around water and reduce deaths from accidental drowning. On 11 August, I convened a meeting with a range of key stakeholders to drive further action around delivery of the drowning prevention strategy, and I will convene a follow-up meeting later this month.

I am well aware of the risk to public safety that is caused by careless, inconsiderate and antisocial driving. That is why I fully support Police Scotland and its partners in dealing with the misuse of vehicles in an appropriate and proportionate way. Local policing teams are ideally placed to engage with members of the local community to identify where the misuse of vehicles is causing distress to the public. That ensures that those areas can be prioritised for proactive action to prevent future instances and identify and deal with those who are engaged in the misuse of vehicles.