���˿���

The letter from the Public Audit Committee notes that enforcement of the 2010 act falls under civil law but that the review of the wider dog control legislation falls under criminal law, so it seems appropriate that this committee has a watching brief over progress in that area. Given the predecessor committee’s legacy paper, which was clear that the committee was frustrated by the pace of the response to the issue, it is fitting that we raise the issue with the relevant minister, who is probably the Minister for Community Safety, although I am not sure. It would be interesting to ask the minister, in writing or face to face, for an update on progress on the consultations that have been launched and legislative plans in the area.

Thank you—that answer addresses my process queries and concerns. Those are noted on the record, and other members may have comments to make on that.

On the substance of the powers that are being extended, the cabinet secretary’s letter helpfully summarised some of the consultation responses that we have been unable to see. My impression from the three-page letter was that more concern than praise was raised, if I can put it that way.

Concerns were raised, in turn, on rule 40A, on time limits; on rule 41A, on accommodation; on rule 63A, on the suspension of visits; on rule 84A, on purposeful activity; and on rule 88A, on recreation. In effect, that covers the entirety of the powers that the Government is seeking to extend. In their substantive responses, all three organisations expressed concerns about some of the rules. Some of them even suggested potential amendments.

We cannot amend the instrument; in fact, we cannot even vote on it, which is unfortunate. However, given the context, level and nature of some of the concerns that have been raised by us and by stakeholders in the consultation process—I am sure that we can go into those in detail—why does the Government think it appropriate for the extension of the powers in their entirety as they currently exist simply to be nodded through?

Sure.

It sounds as if the legal aid payment review panel, which reported to Government earlier this year, has not gone down well with you either. You say that it

“has failed to produce any meaningful results.”

I note that there was a Government-initated question in Parliament today, and the Minister for Community Safety said that the Government accepts that more consultation and research into reform needs to be done. I am sure that we will come on to talk about reform later.

I have a separate question about moving forward. We all accept that we are where we are at the moment. I think it was Mr Moir who said that courts that were set up are being mothballed. We know that there is a backlog of almost 50,000 cases to get through, and that is a concern to everyone we have spoken to at the Crown Office and in the legal profession. How do we address the backlog in the short term if there simply are not enough people to do it? I will direct that question at the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service because you obviously have an ambitious drive to clear that backlog as soon as you can. We can do it if we have the buildings and the Crown resources, but we cannot do it if there are no defence lawyers. How do we plug that gap? That is quite worrying.

Why did so many defence lawyers boycott the holiday courts? Is that constructive?

Thank you.

Good morning—it is almost the afternoon—and thank you for coming. You will note that the committee briefly debated the instrument at a previous meeting.

I have comments and questions on two distinct areas: one concerns the process of deliberation for the instrument and the other concerns its substance. On the latter, I have sympathy with the need to extend some of the powers, for the reasons that you outlined. However, on the former, I have less sympathy with the Government on the way in which we are having to process the instrument. I will start with that.

The current powers expire tomorrow, which leaves the committee in the invidious position of having to either agree or disagree with their extension. Why, cabinet secretary, did the rules come to us only last week, given the likelihood of controversy—questions and concerns have been raised by numerous members across the political spectrum—around the content, nature and extent of some of the powers and the effect that they will have on the prison population?

Your offer and undertaking are very welcome. When we granted the Government the emergency Covid powers, we all accepted from the very beginning that they would not be in force for a moment longer than was necessary—indeed, I think that the Government itself used those same words—but despite the welcome commitment that you have just made, reservations remain that that might not happen, even with the virus’s lowering prevalence.

On that point, have you done any analysis of the Covid cases that are currently in the prison estate? Where are they? Do they involve staff or inmates? How is Covid coming into the estate? Are the numbers on the rise, levelling out or dropping? I would like to get some context.

Thank you for that helpful update. I was trying to make the link with the blunt tool that we are talking about. I presume that the assumption is that if we increase legal aid fees, that will somehow magic cash into your businesses, because that is the nature of the majority of your work. Therefore, either the amount of work has to increase, or the fee per job has to increase—one of those must be true.

Is it the nature of defence work that makes it so much more reliant on a subsidy? Effectively, legal aid is a subsidy to the profession rather than to the consumer.

Right. That raises a fundamental philosophical question as to whether the public purse should be subsidising private defence solicitors, but that is a whole other conversation.