Chamber and committees

What is the cabinet secretary’s understanding of how prisons differentiate between different types of prisoners? For example, during Covid, children in prison have been subject to the same measures to combat virus infection as adults have. How do the prisons balance those rights and look at individuals, particularly those who might be more vulnerable?

I want to pick up the point that was made about other systems. Have you been able to work out the profile of the cases that we are talking about, particularly some of the more serious offences? How many sexual offenders are involved, for example? Given the huge workload that is involved in reviewing the cases, how have you prioritised them? Have you been able to prioritise some of the cases that would cause the public most concern? Perhaps you can outline your approach in layperson’s language.

For the cases that have been looked at, have you asked for a breakdown of the offences that are involved in that cohort?

You spoke about human rights considerations. I presume that, in particular, you are thinking about article 3 of the European convention on human rights and whether the requirements amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”. Will you outline what you can do in your role to ensure that the Scottish Prison Service and, in particular, governors take proportionate action? How can more resources be put in to deal with the transparency issues that Jamie Greene spoke about, given that the Scottish Prison Service has raised systems issues, and so that there is an awareness in prisons of the importance of human rights considerations?

We have been given information on how the powers have been used since October 2021. As the cabinet secretary knows, the buck stops with him. To what extent is he advised of the steps that have been taken so that he can give political oversight of the situation and, if he has concerns about how the legislation was being implemented, take action or express those concerns?

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.