 I welcome to the 24th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee. There are no apologies this morning. Our first item is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are members agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The committee will now consider an affirmative statutory instrument, the advice and assistance of Summary Criminal Proceedings, Miscellaneous Amendment, Scotland Regulations of 2022, and I refer members to paper 1. The SSI makes amendments to the current advice and assistance regulations to support a sheriff court initiative that seeks to encourage appropriate early resolution of summary cases. I welcome, as Shregan, Minister for Community Safety and her officials to this morning's meeting. I now invite the minister to make a short statement on the SSI. Good morning, convener and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the advice and assistance, summary criminal proceedings, miscellaneous amendment, Scotland Regulations of 2022. Those regulations have been brought forward to support the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service evidence and procedure review through which three sheriff courts will pilot an initiative to test the benefits of earlier engagement between the Procurator Fiscal Service and defence agents. The purpose of the pilot is to encourage appropriate early resolution of summary criminal cases, and facilitating such appropriate early resolution will both benefit an accused person and reduce the volume of cases within our courts, aiding the overall efficiency of the justice system. Renumeration of the legal professionals involved also has to play a part in achieving these benefits. Currently, more favourable fee arrangements are available when a pleading diet has taken place in a case that may act as a disincentive to earlier resolution. Two situations have been identified where a case may resolve without proceeding as far as the pleading diet and so give rise to less favourable fee consequences. One situation is in cases that involve the service of a complaint, but which are susceptible to resolution should the Procurator Fiscal Service agree to drop the case and not call it. Secondly, there are cases that involve disclosure and or crown or defence engagement prior to the date a complaint is served such as undertaking cases and again they may resolve in a way that allows the Procurator Fiscal Service to again drop the case. The provisions in this instrument will amend legal aid fee arrangements to allow an inclusive fee to be paid to defence agents at an earlier stage of proceedings having regard to both of those scenarios, and a pleading diet will no longer be required to trigger payment of the inclusive fee, so that gives a brief overview for the committee on the regulations and happy to answer any further questions that the committee may have. I appreciate that the SSI before us is specifically around the payment of legal aid fees and the consequence of the pilots that I might have on that, but I wanted to ask more widely about the pilot itself. Would it be fair to say that the purpose of the pilot is to, or one potential outcome would be to reduce the number of cases that proceed to a trial diet and can ask what the benefits or indeed perhaps the consequences of that might be? On the face of it, it might appear that that may encourage lawyers to sit in a smoke-filled room and do deals together rather than people feel like their cases should proceed to what normally would happen to a trial. Is it the case that we may see an increase in the number of deals being done where there already is perhaps a sense of a feeling of a lack of transparency around what is discussed in those private meetings and, of course, the outcomes that are delivered where we have already heard numerous concerns as committee from victims and victims organisations about the consequences of not being kept in the loop around deals such as this? I just wondered what the Government's thoughts were about the pilots and how they would be received. The first thing to be clear about is that this is work that has been carried out by the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. That is part of their evidence and procedure reviews. That is something that they are working on themselves to encourage appropriate early resolution of summary criminal cases. In doing so, as you rightly pointed out, that might reduce the number of summary criminal cases that are going into the court system, but I would stress that we feel that that would only be for cases where that is appropriate. That is the first thing to make clear. The pilots will be taking place in Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley. They have already started on 5 September. Those are an attempt to look at ways in which things can be improved and that efficiency can be improved. I think that that will bring benefits to a right across the whole system. I think that it will benefit the accused and I also am quite clear that it will bring benefits to victims as well as the court system itself. What they are looking at within the pilot is to resolve cases at the earliest opportunity without the need for the trial to be fixed, to reduce the need for full disclosure where cases can be resolved, reduce the number of cases that are called for trial and to reduce the number of witnesses that are unnecessarily called and preserve trials for cases that cannot easily be resolved by other means. As I said, I think that there are benefits involved in that. Specifically with regard to the regulations that are in front of you, I would see them as perhaps removing a barrier that exists within the system. I think that it might be an appropriate way to describe it as many of those cases would have gone on to court when perhaps with the right fee arrangements it would be more appropriate for them to have been resolved at an earlier stage. I hope that answers the member's question. Thank you. It partially does. I do read between the lines in terms of what you are saying around the current arrangements and why it may not necessarily benefit both parties to resolve cases in this way rather than in a traditional fashion. I guess that it still raises a slight flag. I think that you used the phrase benefits the accused. Surely we should not be making any changes to the system that benefit anyone. The system should be fair and transparent as appropriate. I wonder what parameters would be around what types of cases it would be appropriate for this way of dealing with them. If we were moving in that direction, would certain types of cases be excluded? For example, who would make that decision around whether a case could be resolved in this more informal setting? I also note in the policy notes that no public consultation was carried out, which says that due to the technical nature of the regulations, but I would say that this is not just a technical move, it is quite a substantial shift in how we are trying to clear the backlog of cases by dealing with them more efficiently, but perhaps in a less public way. I wonder if you could comment on that as well. Just to be clear, the pilot and the improvements to the processes that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service are carrying out are work that they are undertaking by themselves, although obviously the Scottish Government is supportive of moves to make the system more efficient. Those regulations were shared with the Law Society of Scotland and no comments were received on them. I did say that I believed that this change will benefit the accused, but not solely the accused. I think that we need to be clear on that. I did say that it would bring benefits to victims. I also think that it would be beneficial to legal practitioners as well as efficiencies across the whole system. Obviously, we are in a position right now where, in some cases, there is a backlog that we need to resolve. I anticipate that changes of this nature will lead to less cases going to court, which will obviously have a beneficial effect on the number of cases that are going through, which I think is something that we are all interested in seeing. Martin, will you be able to give a little bit more information for Mr Greene about the—obviously, I set out in my statement the type of cases that it would apply to, but perhaps Martin can give it a little bit more information on that? It is limited to summary criminal business, but sheriff court cases. I understand that pilots are overseen by sheriffs. It is a case management system, essentially, to ensure that cases proceed in the most effective way. What it does is to remove one potential barrier to that. If everything else that the SCTS is doing to improve that was in place, but that was not, then cases might still proceed to the trial diet, even though otherwise they would have been able to be settled. That feeds into those processes. That is very helpful, thank you. I welcome this pilot. I think that the minister is to correct to identify that funding arrangements can affect how work is done and cases are prepared. It would be very helpful if a full and detailed report could be provided on the pilot once it is concluded to committee members. Perhaps that is something that the minister could take away so that we can understand what happens and what implications that might have. In terms of the regulations themselves, I was going to ask whether you consulted with the law society or representatives of criminal defence agents. You clearly already have had a level of engagement, although there has not been a great deal of feedback. Will you ensure that you obtain detailed feedback as the pilot proceeds and, indeed, as the regulations are rolled out, to ensure that the feedback from that side of the profession is captured, given all the concerns that have been raised about the problems in the funding of criminal defence work, given cuts in legal aid over a considerable period of time? I do not accept all the characterisation that the member has put forward as part of that question. We have shared the regulations and, as you have said, we have not received a great amount of comment on them. I also want to clear again that the pilots are not being run by the Scottish Government. It is not a Scottish Government initiative. We are not controlling it. We are not directing it. I think that if the committee is interested in a report on how the pilot is being run and the conclusions of it, that is probably something that the committee could take up with SCTS directly. I am sure that they would be happy to facilitate that. Although the pilots are only taking place in three areas, that is an attempt to support the direction that the pilots are going in and to make sure that the legal practitioners' barrier to resolution in appropriate cases at an earlier stage is not there in terms of the fee structure. That will allow for earlier payment for the legal practitioners, so I hope that that will be welcomed. It does not just apply to the three areas. Those regulations that are in front of the committee today will apply right across Scotland. Pauline McNeill, I think that you are wanting to come up with that. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I do welcome those important regulations. I think that some members of this committee had actually questioned the legal board on behalf of practitioners about the fact that there was a disincentive to settle cases early. I am quite clear in my own mind that that is helpful on every level, so I support those regulations. Given what you said to Katie Clark—this is a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service—what is the Government's role in it, if we have been asked to consider it? Who then determines what you would expect to see in a pilot? How do you measure its success? Will that be the Government, or will it be the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service? Therefore, it needs clarification. If it is all a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, what is our role in it, to pass it on today? That is being run by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It is part of their on-going work in order to improve efficiencies in the system for everyone. I will perhaps give a little bit more detail on how that is working. However, in terms of the role for Government, that would be in terms of supporting the work that they are doing legislatively. That is an example of that. We are, through those regulations, removing that barrier that, as the member has characterised, may create a disincentive to appropriate early settlement. We are changing the law to, obviously, support that work. Justin, do you have anything further to add on the CTS pilot and how they are going to be, perhaps, measuring it, et cetera? No, I do not have any specific information on that, but I would expect, and I am conjecturing here, that we should be able to show through the case flows, and we can tell through legal aid board data, when cases settle and such like that. There should be a demonstrable effect. Thank you very much. Please, good morning. I am just wondering what the inclusive fee is going to be. It is £550. How does that differ to what the current system is? If the case progressed, it was the £550 fee. That fee is now going to be payable at an earlier date. My understanding is that there was not a set fee before that, so it depends on the type of case and at what stage it was at. I will let Martin give you a little bit more detail on that, if you can. It depends on what stage things settle earlier. There are fixed payments and fee tables that apply to a case that settled at an earlier stage, or where work was done prior to that. My understanding is that cases would proceed to the diet, and the concern is that they did not need to proceed to the diet. It is not very easy to specify in the abstract what the fees would be, because it would vary in each case, but they would be less than they would be if they settled at the diet. The change ensures that the same work is being done except for the diet itself, in terms of turning up and putting forward the accused person's position. The bulk of that work is done anyway, and therefore the need for the diet is really only there as a procedural step that is in place. At least the feeling is that there is no need to keep that procedural step in place. I think that the fees will probably be the same, but the diet will no longer need to take place to trigger that payment, as it were. Cern has been a huge problem in the share of courts for decades, and this is what we are talking about. Is there not a risk that, financially incentivising a defence lawyer to persuade their client, to recommend their client that they should take a guilty plea that that is perhaps not in the client's best interests? I do not think that anything changes in terms of the defence solicitors' duties to the court and the law society rules about the way that they deliver the service. I would not have expected that to make any difference. I think that the key around a lot of this seems to be that this is the appropriateness of the settlement. The Crown will not be taking, I would not have thought, any different settlements that they would not have otherwise taken. It should not necessarily make any change in my understanding of what will happen. It will just happen on an earlier stage without the need for others being involved where they do not need to be. I think that the other thing, just to be clear for the committees, is that this approach really does reflect what the legal profession has advised the Scottish Government that fees should be better targeted to the preparation of cases to aid that early resolution. It is something that I think will support better cash flow and capacity for defence agents as well. On the last point, the nature of the crimes that this would cover are obviously summary, but that can include acts of violence and so on. Victims often complain that the system and the process is quite opaque. They are not kept in the loop. They are not told of disposals. They are often left in limbo for significant periods of time. I just wonder if there has been any consideration given to inform them of disposals as part of this change, because it seems that there is even less chance of being told if there is not going to be the formal hearing that is going to now be not needed. As I understand it, that would relate to pleading diets. I would not always expect victims' witnesses to be there, but the communication of the process of what happens is that there are initiatives under way, as I understand it, in the Crown to address that lack of transparency. That is where I would expect those issues to be picked up. What we do in relation to those regulations is simply to remove the barrier in terms of legal aid. The wider initiative that SCTS are undertaking seems to be quite relevant points in relation to whether you are going to have those efficiencies, how you communicate what has happened in a case. Those things seem to be the natural place for those things to be picked up. I understand that this is business of the court and the Crown, but I wonder if it could even be a stipulation that you make a requirement that, as this has progressed, there is a need to inform victims and witnesses. Otherwise, there is a real risk, I think, that they will be left not knowing the outcome of cases. If you have been a victim of violence in particular or some other crime of that nature, it seems only right that that should be front and centre of any such change. I think that, as Martin said, there are, as the committee will know, number of initiatives in this area. I think that we are all clear that better communication is beneficial. I am sure that that is something that will be looked at by the Crown and SCTS in the work that they are taking forward on that issue. Thank you very much. Thanks, convener. I welcome to the minister and your colleagues. I just wanted to put on the record that I am very supportive of this. I mean this, I think, as Russell Finlay said, the churn within the court systems has been a massive issue for the last criminal justice committee in the previous session, and I imagine probably before then. We should really be welcoming any sort of steps to address this, and I think that it is really good that the ministers recognise that and bring forward something that has the potential. That takes me on to my question, minister. I wonder if—I know that it is obviously a pilot in your review above—you get any sort of early indications, any early assessments of what impact this might make on both the Covid and the longer-term backlogs. If you do not have numbers, that is okay. I know that Kate Clark has already asked for an update in due course, but is there any sort of early assessments of what it might mean in terms of numbers? We do not have any data of that type at the moment, but I am quite confident that this will have a significant impact on resolving cases appropriately at an earlier stage, which, for all the reasons that we have discussed, I think will be beneficial across the system. Okay, thank you very much. If there are no more questions in that case, I will invite the minister to move the motion number 05162, that the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the advice and assistance summary criminal proceedings, miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations of 2022, be approved. Formally moved. So the question is that motion 05162, in the name of Ash Regan, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much for attending, minister, and that concludes our consideration of the SSI. We will move into private session now and details of the next committee meeting will be announced in due course in the business bulletin. Thank you very much.