Chamber and committees

Why do you need to have the power in future?

I thank the Government for its briefing, albeit it was not easy trying to digest 18 pages overnight, given the technicalities of the problem.

I want to get my head around the bigger picture. During last week’s statement, we did not have a lot of time to go into detail, due to pressures on chamber time. This is a great setting in which to do that. Is 1,317 the maximum number of cases that have had a wrong risk assessment as a result of information technology glitches, or could there be more cases and you need to do further work to find that out and how far back the problem goes?

The language that is being used is around live or known public protection issues, but is the cabinet secretary confident that no one has been released earlier than they should have been? If anyone has been released earlier than they would have been under normal circumstances—were it not for the IT glitch—did any of those people, at any point in the past, pose a public protection issue? Outwith normal reoffending rates, which we talked about earlier, did any of those people go on to reoffend or end up back in the system? I guess that we are looking for a little bit more comfort that those who were released inadvertently did not go on to reoffend.

If we work on the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, which is a cornerstone of the Scottish legal system, do they not deserve the right to a physical trial if they want one?

That implies that clearing the backlog is more important than the rights of an individual in Scottish law, and I would dispute that.

Thank you for outlining why you disagree with those elements of the bill.

Stuart Murray, we have heard that the backdrop or context for this is the backlog of cases. I hope that I am incorrect in assuming that, because of the backlog, there is an inevitability about extending the time limits, because so many cases will simply not reach the first, second or third stages of proceedings without some form of extension. No one wants cases to fall off the edge of a cliff because they have reached technical time limits—that is not good for the accused or the complainer. What is the bar association’s view?

Thank you for that helpful suggestion. If ministers need the power, they can come back to Parliament and ask for it. As I recall, we passed that particular legislation in a matter of days.

Do you have a view on that, Vicki?

I will keep this question brief, and I would request brief answers.

I guess my fundamental question is about the power to release being granted to ministers by Parliament on the grounds of the public health emergency—in other words, for the safety and security of those within the prison environment. Is that a power that ministers should have—I am not talking about governors of individual institutions—against the backdrop of what is already a debatable presumption of automatic early release of short-term prisoners?

Secondly, even if you agree that ministers should hold this power within the confines of a health emergency, do you think that they should keep it after such an emergency only to deal with any other pandemics that might arise and for that reason alone?

I will start with Stuart Murray. Could you be brief, Stuart?

Minister, I apologise for missing your opening comments. The car park is still quite busy in the mornings.

I have some questions. You will have seen the correspondence that was sent by the Law Society of Scotland on 23 February. The society acknowledges the 5 per cent uplift, but says that that is

“significantly below even the rate of inflation”.

That is a particular issue for small businesses. The last paragraph of the Law Society’s letter says that the legal aid system is “at breaking point”. I do not know how much of that is crying wolf and how much of it is true. What do you ascertain about that summary of the legal aid system?

I would like to discuss the parts of the bill relating to the issue of criminal procedure time limits, which has arisen as a result of the pandemic. You will be aware of the temporary extension to those time limits, in particular relating to pre-trial in solemn cases, in which there was a quite substantial extension to the normal time limits. The limit for time on remand until service of indictment, which was previously 60 days, was extended to 80 days; the limit for time on remand until pre-trial hearing was more than doubled; and the limit for time on remand until trial went from a maximum of 140 days to 320 days. There were similar extensions—although they were not the same—for summary cases.

I think that we all appreciate that that was done to ensure that cases did not time out in any way. It gave the Crown Office sufficient opportunity to proceed as appropriate, given the context of the pandemic. However, the bill seeks to make many of those extended limits a feature of our justice system for the longer term or, indeed, for the long term.

What are your views on those time limits and the extension thereof? Should we look favourably on them or not? Do you have a view on whether, although the extensions have served a purpose, we should now, where possible, try to revert to the pre-pandemic status quo?

Perhaps Vicki Bell can start.