Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 think that it is. We are always cognisant of the potential for things to be used in that way. May I give that a bit of thought and come back to you?

You have hit the nail on the head—there is quite a polarity of opinions in that area and that is one of the reasons why, as I said, taking a little bit of time to see whether we can build consensus on the issue might be a good way forward. There is probably consensus in a couple of areas. Almost everybody agrees that we should decriminalise the seller—there is good consensus there, and we should absolutely do that. It is also important that support services are designed to reflect the priorities of women, because it is mainly women and girls who have been exploited in prostitution. We must prioritise that service design and make sure that the services are there and are easy to access—that is another area where there is probably a lot of consensus.

I am very interested in listening to the voices of people who have been involved in prostitution. Some committee members will probably be aware that, yesterday, a survivor-led organisation called on the Government to look at that area and see what more we could do. We should all listen to those voices, but there can sometimes be a problem with that. Sometimes, people who have worked in prostitution do not want to sit in a Scottish Government focus group and talk about all the ways that they were traumatised, or even admit to the fact that they have worked in prostitution, so that can be an issue. There are challenges around doing that work, but I am determined that we will try to get those voices in here somehow. We are developing a programme for lived experience engagement, which we will work on over the next year or so. I am happy to engage further with Maggie Chapman if she wants to contribute to that work.

With regard to harm reduction, we reduce the harm if we reduce the number of people who are being trafficked into the market of prostitution. The data shows that trafficking inflows are much lower in countries that challenge men’s demand to purchase sex, so we have a duty to take note of that. We also have international commitments that we need to make good on in Scotland and move towards. I think that we all want the same things—to reduce harms, protect women and girls from that exploitation and promote equality. That is the starting point that I am working from. I do not know whether our proposals will come to this or another committee but I hope that we can work together to achieve those aims.

You have alluded to a certain issue. The Roberton report was published quite a few years ago—in 2018, I think. It was quite a wide-ranging report, and it suggested some quite revolutionary changes to the legal system. The idea would be that we would move to a different model. It is fair to say that the main recommendation of the report was not well received by many of the stakeholders—I think that that was clear.

We have consulted on the recommendations and have worked very hard to build consensus. We have worked with all the stakeholders to see where there might be a way forward. We will consult on a number of different models in the autumn. That will give everyone an opportunity to see the kind of things that we are laying out and give their views on them.

We are trying to improve things for consumers. We want to give that issue a bit more focus. However, we also accept that members of the legal profession are important to what we are trying to do. We want to ensure that we put forward a system or model that everyone can work with and be happy with.

Denise Swanson can give a bit more information on that.

Attempts to reform succession law have been going on for about 35 years now. The situation is a bit like the one that we have just discussed, in that it is quite complicated and technical with not a lot of consensus on how we should proceed. In the last consultation, we noted a couple of areas of consensus, such as on prohibiting someone convicted of murder from acting as an executor of their victim’s estate and reviewing the small estate limits. We are definitely considering such reforms and will perhaps progress them ahead of more fundamental reform, given the lack of consensus on the broader terms of that kind of reform.

We are doing further research on public attitudes to the matter, and perhaps Denise Swanson can say a little bit more about that. I cannot really give you a timescale, because we are still trying to find a legislative vehicle to take it forward, but that is where we are.

My understanding is that we do not have a date for when that convention might come in. We are in unknown territory just now.

Thank you, convener, and thank you to committee members for inviting us both to speak about our priorities for Scotland’s civil justice system.

Many of our daily interactions and important milestones in life are governed by civil law, whether that is getting married and having children, buying a house, entering into a contract when ordering goods or services, taking out a loan or using social media, to name only a few examples. When things go wrong, we are likely to come into some degree of contact with the civil justice system.

I will give some figures to set out the context. In 2019-20, the proportion of adults who were victims of crime was 11.9 per cent, which is down from 20 per cent 10 years before. However, the Scottish crime and justice survey shows that nearly three in 10 adults—that is 28 per cent—were estimated to have experienced at least one civil law problem during the previous three years. Evidence tells us that people with certain characteristics, such as those who are economically disadvantaged, are more likely to experience civil justice issues and to have to rely on the civil justice system.

Over the past 18 months, our civil courts and tribunals have had to adapt to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. With the help of amended court rules and the extensive use of technology, they have ensured that the vast majority of activity has been able to proceed effectively and efficiently. I take this opportunity to thank the legal profession, court staff and our judiciary, social workers and the police who provide order in our court buildings for all their efforts. We can all agree that it is because of their dedication and hard work that civil justice has managed to continue as well as it has during the public health pandemic.

All that does not mean that we want civil justice to remain as it is. We want to drive forward changes and improvements so that we have a modern civil justice system that works for the people of Scotland. Our manifesto sets out our ambition to increase the choice that people have in deciding how to resolve disputes. There is widespread evidence from across the world that disputes arising from a range of issues including debt, housing, consumer purchases, contractual matters and family problems can be resolved quickly, cheaply and more effectively for all parties by using alternative dispute resolution—ADR—methods, rather than going to court. The Scottish Government will work with stakeholders to expand the availability of mediation and arbitration services within the civil justice system and consult as appropriate to give our citizens, businesses and organisations access to flexible, affordable and less stressful means of settling those disputes, benefiting them and saving time in courts.

In line with the disclosure requirements on other senior participants in public life, including all of us, we will begin work to establish a judicial register of interests that will improve transparency and trust in our justice system as a whole.

Last session, the Scottish Government engaged with the Parliament, in particular the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, to reconsider the criteria for Scottish Law Commission bills. Given that effort, we will over the coming session try to accelerate our implementation of SLC recommendations as set out in various reports. Reform of those areas will bring Scots law up to date so that it serves the people of Scotland.

Finally, on access to justice, we will reform the legal aid system to ensure that Scotland has a modern, flexible and user-focused service. The legal profession contributes to the social value of Scotland and helps to protect our human rights and freedoms. It plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and providing access to justice. We will therefore continue to engage with the legal profession to consider how best to reform the regulation of legal services. Our manifesto sets out our priorities for reforming Scotland’s civil justice system over this parliamentary session. I look forward to working collaboratively with the members of the committee to ensure that we have a modern system that works for everyone.

The cabinet secretary would like to say a few words as well.