Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for clarifying that.

On the theme of the modernisation of the prison estate, that comes back to the premise of how we get prison numbers down, what type of prisons we build and how we best use public money to ensure that prisons are places that people can come out of adequately rehabilitated and suitably ready for transition back into the community, which is something that everybody wants.

Does any of the panel members have a view on that? We have some submissions on what we should do. Clearly, there is a limited amount of public money. There were announcements in the programme for government on capital spend on the prison estate, but we know that HMP Greenock and HMP Dumfries, for example, are old Victorian buildings, and it is claimed that they breach human rights by their physical nature. What do you need the Scottish Government to give you to ensure that the prison estate and the general prison environment are conducive to getting numbers down and criminals back on the straight and narrow? That is an open question for any of the panel. Perhaps you could use the chat function.

Sure. Those are important issues.

Of course.

I have three separate lines of questioning. I will throw them out, and I ask you to try to keep your responses as condensed as possible so that we can get through all three topics. The first topic is the temporary Covid measures that were introduced by Government. We all appreciate and understand that they were a reaction to the circumstance that we were in, which was—to use an overused word—unprecedented.

I have read the submissions, and those from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland raise issues about modifications that you believe should end when the public health emergency ends. The comments relate specifically to virtual hearings and the use of so-called virtual or digital justice. The Faculty of Advocates says:

“Calling virtual hearings ‘digital justice’ is only justified if we continue to prioritise justice ahead of convenience.”

It goes on to say:

“The boldness of the plan ... to double High Court trial frequency is likely to expose further the depleted defence resources.”

What concerns do you have about some of the temporary measures that you think may end up becoming permanent? What are you calling for the Government to cease requiring as soon as is practicably possible? The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service might then wish to respond to any criticisms or concerns that are raised.

You have made your point eloquently and your submission speaks for itself.

Mr Dalling, do you have any comment? In your written submission, you say that now

“is not the time to fundamentally change the Scottish criminal justice system without robust consultation and research”.

Are you aligned with the view of the Faculty of Advocates on the temporary measures and their possible permanency?

That was a very helpful intervention. I thank Ms Wallace and commend the work of Victim Support Scotland. We have all dealt with casework in which Victim Support Scotland has played an integral role in supporting constituents. I know that it has been an incredibly difficult time. The statistics on interventions that you have had to deal with are very worrying. Perhaps we will hear about that from Mr Maybee, as well.

There is a submission from the Scottish Police Federation in our papers for today’s evidence session. I will not comment on its content or agree or disagree with what it says, but I would like to give Police Scotland the opportunity to respond to it. It contains a relatively harsh critique of Police Scotland. It says:

“The internal bureaucracy and turgid decision making meant”

that Police Scotland

“was on the back foot”

during the pandemic. It says that the

“command and control structure was often found out to have little or no control”;

that

“police officers have throughout this pandemic felt neglected and unsupported by Government”;

and that that

“abandonment should not be underestimated.”

Does Police Scotland have a response to those concerns?

We were, thank you. Your feedback is noted.

I have a question on prisons, but it might be better for me to ask it as a supplementary in order to allow other members to come in.

It is probably only right and fair that Mr McQueen is offered an opportunity to respond. There is a drive to address the backlog, but there is a lot of concern that that should not be done in a way that dilutes the sanctity, if you like, of putting justice ahead of convenience.

Thank you for that feedback. I refer you back to the comments that were made about virtual hearings and the lack of communication. It is important that account is taken of that and of the gravity of appearing in the High Court. The discussion about changes to the justice system will rumble on.

On a completely separate issue, I have a question for Police Scotland about the submission—

I have several areas that I would like to cover, but I am happy to come back in later. The first area of natural interest is what happens next in our criminal justice system. We can all identify that there is a tremendous backlog of cases, which has a knock-on effect both on those on remand—I am sure that we will discuss that later—and on the victims who are involved. The backlog is huge, as is the challenge. We know that all the stops are being pulled out, but it is not just about increasing the size of the judicial estate; it is also about how we get through the backlog.

Which of the temporary measures to deal with the health emergency are likely to become permanent measures in the justice system? I am thinking specifically of virtual trials and the submission of written evidence rather than verbal evidence, which can be cross-examined and properly interrogated, for example. What concerns have been raised by the legal profession that some of the temporary measures should not become permanent?