Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That response was helpfully brief, too.

Finally, are you concerned that the power might be used as a blunt tool to reduce prison population numbers, as Stuart Murray has alluded to, and that it might be used inadvertently not for public health reasons but simply to get the numbers down? There are, of course, other ways to get the numbers down—and I am sure that we will have a discussion about that, too, some time—but given the high rate of reoffending among the last cohort of prisoners who were released for public health reasons under this emergency power, when a substantial number of them reoffended in a short space of time after release, that sort of suggestion has struck alarm bells among many from whom we have taken evidence.

Do you have any view on that, Vicki?

Sure. This power was used first under the premise of a public health emergency. Are you concerned or worried that it could be used as a blunter tool to reduce our burgeoning prison population?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. I guess that the difference is that the inability of solicitor firms to undertake their duties or even to survive as going concerns affects members of the public very differently from how the impact of Covid on other types of commercial business affects them.

In the correspondence from the Law Society that we received yesterday—we have just had time to digest it—there was a paragraph with key questions. They are posed to us for us to pose to you. I request that you review those key questions and respond to the committee so that we can forward that response to the Law Society or make it public.

I get the impression that the Law Society is not confident that there is sufficient capacity in the defence bar to address the backlog of cases. That is a key point, irrespective of the argy-bargy over fees. Are there physically enough people in the system or, even if you increased capacity in the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was able to increase capacity, would the inability to increase defence capacity at the same rate mean that you would not get through the backlog at the rate that we all want? Is that a concern for the Government?

I guess the answer is to improve retention and to stop people leaving the profession.

It is a matter of getting new entrants in, too.

Remand is a much wider issue, which the committee is looking at. Everyone is acutely aware of the sad inevitability that some people spend more time in prison on remand than they would have done in serving their sentence, if they had been proven guilty, but we can talk about that another day.

I know that Audrey Nicoll has questions on this subject. My other question is on the next topic that we will discuss, so I will save it.

Thank you.

I have a final question on an issue that has cropped up a few times and on which we took evidence in the early part of the committee’s existence. It relates to salaries.

When we posed the question to the Lord Advocate, her response was that people take a pay cut when they go into public service from the private sector. However, I get the impression that the Law Society thinks otherwise. There is a sense that good-quality solicitors are being poached from the private sector into the Government—the civil service—or public bodies that require legal assistance.

Do you have any indication as to where the truth lies? Is it somewhere in the middle? Are average salaries much higher in Government agencies than they are in the private sector, for all the reasons that we have talked about and because of the financial issues that private sector firms have faced?