Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to raise a point about the level of income, which has been put to us by the Law Society of Scotland, and I would like to hear your reaction. The Law Society is saying that, even taking into account the recent uplifts and the increase that will be introduced by the regulations, legal aid rates will be about 60 per cent lower in real terms than they were when the Scottish Parliament was created. It is quite obvious that hourly rates have not gone up by much. The Law Society of Scotland is saying that that is in the context of a long-term decline in overall legal aid expenditure, with the 2021-22 budget being £138 million, in comparison with £160 million in 2010-11. Do you accept all that?

It is clear that we have a crisis. The word “bottleneck” has already been used. When we heard from the Scottish Prison Service last week, it put the proportion of prisoners on remand at 30 per cent, which is higher than the previous figure that we were given—the most recent official figure—of 27 per cent. It is clear that we must address the problem. What are the alternatives? In what ways could we change the system to address the crisis? Does Vicki Bell have any suggestions, based on her experience?

Approximately £500 million was cut from the legal aid budgets up until 2019. Since 2019, there have been increases. The 5 per cent increase that has been proposed in the Scottish statutory instrument before us is obviously below current inflation rates. Do you accept that it is, in effect, a cut?

But the rates that lawyers are receiving are broadly similar to those that they were receiving in 2007, although there have been increases since 2019. Do you think that explains why so many lawyers are now saying that they will no longer do legal aid work?

We have written to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, asking for information about the extent to which virtual trials and other forms of criminal procedure have taken place during the pandemic. As you know, the bill proposes that, in summary cases—many thousands of cases every year—the default should be virtual. I appreciate that you will not have numbers, but, so that we can take an evidence-based approach in our decision making, will you indicate how many virtual cases you think have taken place or, anecdotally, what percentage of defence agents’ casework would have been virtual during the pandemic; whether you are aware of any evidence as to what happened during those cases, including outcomes—whether the verdict was guilty, not guilty or not proven; and what kind of charges and sentences were involved in those cases? I appreciate that you will not have researched those issues, but can you give us a feel for the level to which virtual trials have been taking place in summary cases—perhaps in different sheriffdoms—or in relation to specific types of charge?

I do not know whether Vicki Bell has anything to say on that. She said that she had not dealt with any such cases—which, in itself, is of great interest.

I ask Stuart Murray to come in on those issues.

It has been suggested by some defence agents that the balance between prosecution and defence has been impacted by virtual courts, with fewer people being acquitted. Are you aware of that having been said, or have you seen it in any way?

I take it from what you have said that you think that we need to review whether individuals who are currently on remand need to be where they are, or whether there are alternatives for them.

I understand.

Will Stuart Murray pick up on that issue? What alternatives can you suggest as to what we do in the here and now, given the crisis that we face?

That would be useful. Will you explain what the PDSO is?