Chamber and committees

This question is probably about the capital budget, but the witnesses can tell me if that is right. It is perhaps for Mr Brown—but, again, you can tell me.

The Scottish Police Federation gave evidence about the co-location of police services. Its concern is about the condition of the police estate, and I am sure that it is a fair concern. It is saying that in such cases, Police Scotland has been

“the tenant and not the landlord”

and that there would be increased revenue pressure in the long run if there was more co-location of services. The SPF says:

“This tends to suggest that desperation, rather than suitability is the key driver.”

Is it a principle of the SPA or Police Scotland to seek co-location, or is it a measure of last resort? Obviously, there is an immediate pressure, but, looking to the future, I would not have thought that it would be ideal to co-locate when you are sharing a building with completely different services. That is my concern—I have been controversial in the past, I have to say.

My question is on a different subject. Is that okay?

Thank you. When I first read about that, I did not like to think that there was any reason for the restriction of newspapers and reading materials, particularly for prisoners who are detained.

As I understand it, there are no time limits, although there are caveats to that. Are you certain that that complies with human rights law?

I am interested in the impact on the quality of justice, given what we have just heard. I would also like to hear from Colin Lancaster about the system and early pleas.

I will start with Ian Moir. We have heard about the number of practitioners who are leaving the profession, and you have outlined the issues around competing with recruitment to other places such as the Government, and the gap in pay. You also talked about the work-life balance of criminal legal aid solicitors. Can you say a bit more about that? Is it the primary reason why we are losing solicitors from legal aid defence?

That is an important point, which I want to come on to. I want to bring in Tony Lenehan on that. The SSBA submission mentions the recent boycott and the #gownsdown campaign. We also heard from Ian Moir about the importance of lawyers’ experience.

Perhaps Tony Lenehan can say whether he thinks that the ability to choose a solicitor, and to have a solicitor with experience, is important for the quality of justice. I note that progress has been made, but do you have concerns about the quality of justice if we do not find a solution to the current issues in the short term?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I reiterate what Collette Stevenson said about all of us being concerned about prisoners’ conditions and rights. Tom Fox also acknowledged that, so we are all coming from the same place.

I acknowledge the cabinet secretary’s detailed answer to the committee, which was very helpful, as was the response to the consultation. I am sure that the cabinet secretary acknowledges that, at the end of the day, whatever the rights and wrongs of the processes, the committee has a decision to make. I am sure that everyone acknowledges that we are decision makers when it comes to SSIs. I might agree with Fulton MacGregor that we should agree to the instrument. I might be minded to lend it my support, but with all the reservations that other members have given about not having the appropriate time to consider it. That is my line of thought.

Am I right in saying that the Government seeks to extend a range of powers that relate to purposeful activity, suspension of visits and detention of prisoners in cells, albeit with all the rules around health professionals and human rights?

That was really helpful. I certainly acknowledge that the powers might well be needed, but the cabinet secretary should appreciate that we are interested in where the safeguards are. If I am to agree to the instrument today, I need to be satisfied that safeguards exist. Moreover, going back to a comment that you made to Jamie Greene, I am uncomfortable with extending the powers to next March, and the length of time that you are asking for might be reason enough for me to vote against the proposal. I accept a lot of what you have said, and you have told Jamie Greene that you would be prepared to bring the issue back to us before then, but if I am to support the instrument, I need to have that absolutely confirmed. I cannot vote to extend for six months what are quite wide-ranging powers, even with all the safeguards and caveats in place, without the matter being brought back to the committee before next March.

I agree with what has been said and will try not to repeat those points.

I would have been minded to support a motion to annul but I am content with what has been said. I note that the SSI includes the power to suspend purposeful activity and visitation rights and to detain prisoners in their cells if a health professional has said that there is cause for concern around coronavirus. I acknowledge that there are reasons to have those powers but I agree with Jamie Greene and Katy Clark that the committee needs to keep a watchful eye on the length of time for which the powers are in force and the consistency of governors’ decisions. As the cabinet secretary has indicated to the committee that he would be happy to return to the matter, I am content to do nothing other than to note the instrument.

My final question is for Colin Lancaster. The SSBA’s submission states:

“The current system of legal aid is not conducive to early resolution of cases. There are significant gaps in funding available at the early stages in the process and the system fails to adequately recognise the preparation and responsibility involved in negotiating early pleas.”

Do you agree with that statement? Could there be a better system, in which early payment was made to ensure that early pleas were made? After all, that is what we would want in any court system.

Can you confirm that you are revoking the power relating to the restriction of newspapers and reading materials? Will that provision now be allowed?