Coronavirus (COVID-19) recovery - public health, public services and justice system reforms: consultation analysis

Public services and justice system reform

P1 – Alcohol licensing remote hearings (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	6.5%	5.3%	11.9%	69.2%	1.5%	17.5%	247
All giving a view (2397)	7.9%	6.5%	14.4%	83.8%	1.8%	-	241
All org responses (130)	18.5%	3.1%	21.5%	6.9%	0.0%	71.5%	18
All orgs giving a view (37)	64.9%	10.8%	75.7%	24.3%	0.0%	-	18

Respondents in favour of permanently extending the provision described remote hearings as an efficient, effective and flexible way to conduct alcohol licensing proceedings. They highlighted the cost, time, travel and resource savings stemming from remote hearings. A few respondents with direct experience of alcohol licensing procedures (including Police Scotland and local authority licensing boards) noted that remote hearings have worked successfully in the sector throughout the pandemic.

“Police officers and staff work in diverse communities across Scotland, many of which are remote and involve travelling large distances to be represented at the Board. Out with the pandemic, this can present challenges and can impact resourcing. Virtual Board meetings provide an alternative solution to ease these challenges whilst still allowing full participation and representation. Although initially and still from time to time, IT challenges arise, virtual meetings have proven largely successful with most difficulties overcome.” (Extract from Police Scotland)

Some respondents felt that face-to-face hearings are the most effective and appropriate way to conduct alcohol licensing proceedings, and should remain the default format. They argued that in-person hearings are fairer, more transparent and rigorous and allow for clearer communication between parties.

Several challenges and concerns related to remote hearings were raised, including concerns over digital exclusion and online security. A few respondents felt that remote hearings would not be taken as seriously as in-person hearings or would be more vulnerable to fraud and corruption.

Some raised concerns that remote hearings are less visible to the public than in-person hearings and stressed that public access to alcohol licensing hearings and decisions should not be diluted. However, one local authority noted that all of their virtual hearings are recorded, streamed live and available for up to 6 months following the hearing, meaning that the public can still access and view the meetings should they wish to.

Many respondents supported the idea of offering both in-person and remote options for hearings, noting that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

P2 – Bankruptcy: debt level that enables creditors to pursue the bankruptcy of a debtor through the courts (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	All (2905)	All giving view (2386)	All orgs (130)	Org giving view (49)
Extend beyond March 2022 and made permanent (i.e. with a creditor petition debt level of £10,000 as per the current provisions)	4.1%	4.9%	6.2%	16.3%
Extend beyond March 2022 and made permanent with an amended creditor petition debt level of £5,000	3.1%	3.8%	13.1%	34.7%
Extend beyond March 2022 (i.e. with a creditor petition debt level of £10,000 as per the current provisions), but not made permanent	3.0%	3.7%	1.5%	4.1%
Extend beyond March 2022 with an amended creditor petition debt level of £5,000, but not made permanent	4.0%	4.8%	3.1%	8.2%
Total Support	14.1%	17.2%	23.8%	63.3%
Oppose	64.0%	77.9%	12.3%	32.7%
Unsure	4.0%	4.9%	1.5%	4.1%
I have no view / Not answered	17.9%	-	62.3%	-
No of open comments	222	216	36	31

The most prevalent theme among open-text responses to this question was support for permanently increasing the debt level that enables creditors to pursue the bankruptcy of a debtor to £5,000. Respondents felt this would represent a fair, equitable and appropriate balance between debtor and creditor interests.

Returning to the pre-Covid threshold of £3,000 was largely perceived to be unfair to debtors given current economic challenges, such as the end of the furlough scheme, an increase in the cost of living and changes to Universal Credit. Others felt that the £3,000 threshold had been in place for too long and was due to be increased.

However, proposals to maintain the current £10,000 threshold sparked concern among several respondents. Their arguments included that a debt level of £10,000 is too high and its permanence could have long term economic consequences, such as a lack of efficient recovery processes, loss of confidence from lending creditors and a disproportionate impact on the rights of smaller creditors. Respondents were also concerned that increasing the limit significantly could enable an individual’s debts to accumulate to unmanageable levels and act as an obstacle to creditors recovering money.

“The £3,000 debt level has not been reviewed in many years and it now feels like £5,000 is likely more appropriate. However, £10,000 is significantly higher and could exclude many smaller creditors from pursuing sequestration, and leaving them with few other options. It would also mean that debtors could build up more significant debts before seeking to address any financial difficulties they may be having.” (Extract from CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP)

Some respondents (including three local authorities) raised concerns about maintaining the current debt level at £10,000 due to implications this would have on the recovery of Council Tax debts. It was deemed unfair to local authorities to set a threshold which allows an individual to accumulate £10,000 of Council Tax debts (which could be several years of non-payment) before sequestration proceedings can begin. A small number of respondents supported returning the debt level to its original pre-pandemic level. A few noted it is easier to settle debts of a lower value and therefore an increase in the threshold could result in more bankruptcies.

P3 – Bankruptcy: electronic service of documents (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	9.2%	4.3%	13.5%	64.2%	3.4%	18.9%	173
All giving a view (2357)	11.3%	5.3%	16.6%	79.1%	4.2%	-	165
All org responses (130)	26.2%	2.3%	28.5%	6.2%	1.5%	63.8%	28
All orgs giving a view (47)	72.3%	6.4%	78.7%	17.0%	4.3%	-	25

Those in favour of making the provision permanent described the benefits of the electronic service of bankruptcy documents. They felt an electronic system was more cost effective, less time consuming and would expedite the insolvency process. Others who supported the proposal observed it was a welcome modernisation of the insolvency process.

“Electronic transmission of documents became an essential part of working from home and removed many of the uncertainties regarding issue and delivery when offices were not generally open to the public. Even as workforces return to the office, this reform will still be beneficial and will make communication easier. Completing forms and transmitting them electronically will be less time consuming, more straightforward, and less costly for consumers and businesses alike.” (Extract from Association of Business Recovery Professionals)

Concerns and challenges with the electronic service of bankruptcy documents were raised by those who did not support the provision being extended or made permanent. They highlighted digital exclusion, with some arguing this would be particularly relevant to those facing bankruptcy proceedings who may not have adequate resources to pay for devices and internet access. Others noted an electronic system may be inaccessible to vulnerable or disabled individuals, or those without the required digital skills. However, Citizens Advice Scotland noted that moving to an electronic system would have no implications for digital exclusion as the system used, BASYS, is not available to the public.

Some respondents suggested that hard copies are a more secure way of delivering important documents, noting that electronic methods of communication are vulnerable to interception, fraud or data protection breaches.

Those who supported an extension to the provision beyond March 2022 without permanence did so because they felt there was need for further review and analysis of the benefits and risks of this approach before making it permanent.

A point raised by many respondents with differing views on whether the provision should be extended/made permanent or not was related to proof of receipt of documents. Several respondents noted that for this system to work, there would need to be robust mechanisms in place to prove the correct individual has received and read the electronic document.

P4 – Bankruptcy: moratoriums on diligence (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	All (2905)	All giving view (2327)	All orgs (130)	Org giving view (47)
Extend beyond March 2022 and made permanent (i.e. with a moratorium period of 6 months as per the current provisions)	3.5%	4.4%	5.4%	14.9%
Extend beyond March 2022 and made permanent with an amended moratorium period of 12 weeks	2.8%	3.5%	12.3%	34.0%
Extend beyond March 2022 (i.e. with a moratorium period of 6 months as per the current provisions), but not made permanent	2.8%	3.5%	2.3%	6.4%
Extend beyond March 2022 with an amended moratorium period of 12 weeks, but not made permanent	2.9%	3.7%	1.5%	4.3%
Total Support	12.0%	15.0%	21.5%	59.6%
Oppose	64.1%	80.1%	13.1%	36.2%
Unsure	3.9%	4.9%	1.5%	4.3%
I have no view / Not answered	19.9%	-	63.8%	-
No of open comments	154	147	33	29

There were mixed responses about the most appropriate moratorium length, but a common theme was the need to strike a fair balance between the rights of both the debtor and creditor. Respondents felt that the moratorium must reflect the importance of addressing problem debt swiftly and urgently, while also giving individuals appropriate time to seek advice and find solutions to their financial difficulties.

Some respondents felt that the 6-month moratorium was appropriate during the pandemic due to the financial uncertainty many individuals were experiencing, but now thought the moratorium should be reduced either to its original 6-week period or to the proposed 12-week period. Arguments against a moratorium period of 6 months included: debtors may perceive the situation as less urgent and disengage from efforts to repay the debt; debtors may use the additional time to dispose of assets; creditors may suffer as they are made to wait longer for resolution; and debtors may incur more charges and interest.

However, other respondents supported an extension of the 6-month moratorium, noting that there will be long-term economic consequences of the pandemic and those experiencing financial difficulty should be given as much time as possible to resolve their situation. A few mentioned that current financial circumstances such as the end of the furlough scheme, the energy price cap increase, an increase in the cost of living and changes to Universal Credit may result in increased demand for debt advice services and the moratorium should reflect that it may take longer to receive support in the future.

Respondents who expressed support for a permanent 12-week moratorium period included 4 local authorities, the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, Christians Against Poverty and The Law Society of Scotland. They argued that a 6-week period is too short to allow meaningful actions to be agreed and taken, and described a 12-week period as more suitable, realistic and ‘a happy medium’. However, others disagreed and felt that returning to the 6-week moratorium was the best option to encourage individuals to swiftly resolve problem debt.

Some respondents proposed a new moratorium period of 60 days, in line with the ‘Breathing Space’ scheme in place in England and Wales. Others felt that a decision on the diligence moratorium should not be made until the ongoing stakeholder-led review of debt solutions in Scotland is complete.

P5 – Bankruptcy: virtual meetings of creditors (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	9.0%	4.6%	13.6%	64.3%	2.9%	19.2%	151
All giving a view (2348)	11.1%	5.7%	16.8%	79.6%	3.6%	-	146
All org responses (130)	25.4%	1.5%	26.9%	6.9%	0.0%	66.2%	23
All orgs giving a view (44)	75.0%	4.5%	79.5%	20.5%	0.0%	-	21

Those in favour of permanently extending the provision to allow virtual meetings of creditors included the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, Citizens Advice Scotland and six local authorities. In these responses, the proposals were described as reasonable, sensible and efficient, and the cost and time savings that could be achieved by allowing meetings of creditors to take place virtually were highlighted. Others embraced the introduction of virtual meetings as a step towards modernising insolvency processes.

“This change to the insolvency process would improve the efficiency of the process for those creditors that are able to attend virtual meetings and reduce costs.” (Extract from UK Finance)

“The changes made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic have brought welcome modernisation and improvements to the Scottish bankruptcy system. Putting the facility for creditors to meet virtually onto a permanent basis would be a sensible continuation of these improvements.” (Extract from Christians Against Poverty)

Two respondents who supported permanently extending the provision pointed out that enabling creditor meetings to take place virtually would bring personal insolvency procedures in line with corporate insolvency. One noted there would be benefits for the environment by reducing the amount of travel required to attend meetings.

Some respondents who supported extending the provision permanently did so on the condition that in-person meetings would still remain an option, and all parties were able to have a say in the preferred medium for the meeting.

Those who disagreed with the provisions being extended or made permanent expressed a preference for in-person meetings for a variety of reasons. They believed that face-to-face meetings are fairer, more transparent, more effective and taken more seriously than virtual meetings. Some also raised concerns about digital exclusion, fearing that those who do not have digital access or skills will be excluded if virtual meetings become the default in bankruptcy proceedings. Others described technical problems related to virtual meetings, and concerns over online security.

P6 – Care services: giving of notices by the Care Inspectorate (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	6.3%	4.2%	10.6%	68.2%	2.8%	18.5%	156
All giving a view (2368)	7.8%	5.2%	13.0%	83.7%	3.4%	-	152
All org responses (130)	18.5%	1.5%	20.0%	6.2%	0.8%	73.1%	15
All orgs giving a view (35)	68.6%	5.7%	74.3%	22.9%	2.9%	-	15

The Care Inspectorate, The Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and 10 local authorities were among those who supported making permanent the provision to allow formal notices to care homes to be sent electronically. Those favouring permanence saw the proposal as a way to increase efficiency and modernise processes in the care system.

“Removing unnecessary delays from the process can only benefit all those who rely on our care services.” (Extract from Public Health Directorate, NHS Scotland)

A few respondents said their support for the proposal being made permanent was conditional, based on: an encrypted delivery and e-receipt system being established; data security risks being managed effectively; and the Care Inspectorate maintaining an up to date records system of key contacts at relevant regulated establishments.

Respondents who supported the provision being extended but not made permanent felt that it should not be made permanent until there is more evidence that the electronic delivery system is safe and effective.

Those who disagreed with the provision being extended or made permanent argued that formal care home improvement notices are too important to be delivered electronically and should be delivered by post or in-person. Respondents expressed concern that an electronic delivery system is vulnerable to interception and error and important notices may go undelivered or be sent to the wrong recipient.

“Formal paperwork such as this should not be electronic. There is no guarantee that electronic communication will be received, read or not intercepted.” (Individual)

Some respondents thought it would be sensible for all notices to be sent electronically in addition to, or as a back up to paper copies.

Several respondents did not directly address the proposal and instead used their response to criticise the Care Inspectorate and the wider care system in Scotland. Some specifically criticised decisions which allowed elderly care home residents to leave hospital care and return to residential care settings after being exposed to Covid.

P7 – Civic government licensing remote hearings (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	6.6%	4.8%	11.3%	66.9%	2.3%	19.5%	152
All giving a view (2338)	8.2%	5.9%	14.1%	83.1%	2.8%	-	151
All org responses (130)	14.6%	1.5%	16.2%	6.2%	2.3%	75.4%	14
All orgs giving a view (32)	59.4%	6.3%	65.6%	25.0%	9.4%	-	14

Seven local authorities, Police Scotland and COSLA were among those who supported making permanent the provision to allow civic government licensing hearings to take place remotely.

Respondents described the benefits of remote hearings, such as increased flexibility, efficiency and convenience. In their response, Aberdeenshire Council noted positive feedback about the provision from their Licensing Sub-Committee: “

• Remote hearings have allowed for flexibility and have increased accessibility to parties participating
• Remote hearings have allowed Councillors and parties to reduce travel time which is welcome in a large, rural area like Aberdeenshire
• The option to hold remote hearings is likely to be beneficial if there are extreme weather conditions because it allows the Committee business to be carried on increasing efficiency and accessibility
• The Committee now has considerable experience of doing hearings in this way so are able to run them effectively without compromising on confidentiality and security.” (Extract from Aberdeenshire Council)

However, several respondents opposed making the provision permanent, raising concerns about digital exclusion, with some specifically highlighting connectivity issues faced by many people in rural, remote and island communities. Others questioned online security and expressed fears that public access to hearings could be diluted. Some respondents suggested that in-person hearings are fairer and allow for more effective communication between parties. One respondent felt that civic government licensing hearings should not be held on a platform which allows officials in charge of the meeting to mute or remove individuals during the meeting.

A few respondents suggested that online hearings should only be offered under specific circumstances, for example if: there is a significant backlog of cases and online hearings can help to expedite the process; all parties agree this is the most convenient medium; an applicant cannot appear in-person due to health reasons; it cuts down on lengthy travel; or it is a license renewal as opposed to a new application being approved.

P8 – Courts: intimation, etc. of documents (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	7.5%	4.2%	11.7%	67.0%	3.2%	18.1%	150
All giving a view (2378)	9.2%	5.1%	14.3%	81.8%	3.9%	-	148
All org responses (130)	29.2%	1.5%	30.8%	6.2%	0.0%	63.1%	24
All orgs giving a view (48)	79.2%	4.2%	83.3%	16.7%	0.0%	-	23

Those who supported a permanent extension to the provision described it as sensible, pragmatic and justified. They felt making documents publicly available through the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service (SCTS) website instead of displaying them physically on court walls would be a welcome modernisation of the civil justice system. Others described the efficiencies and convenience associated with posting information online. Respondents noted this approach will improve transparency and public access to the justice system.

“The SCTS website should be made the permanent method of posting the relevant notices. This is a far more effective way of informing the wider public than posting physical notices on the court walls.” (Extract from Argyll & Bute Council)

“From our perspective as civil court practitioners, we are of the view that these provisions have improved transparency/ease of access to information and that they support the principle of open justice.” (Extract from CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP)

A few respondents highlighted the importance of SCTS maintaining a website that is easy to navigate with a functional system to search for specific documents and information.

Several respondents raised concerns about digital exclusion, fearing that moving to an online publication system will mean those without the skills or resources to access and search the SCTS website will be unable to view documents. In some cases, these respondents opposed moving to an online-only system and instead advocated for documents to be posted both online and physically on court walls. Two suggested implementing ‘virtual walls’ within courts where the public could view digital notices.

A few supported extension beyond March 2022 but felt the provision should not be made permanent until a further review establishes whether the approach is working effectively.

A small number of respondents drew attention to paragraph 88 in the consultation paper which suggests that part of the SCTS strategy is to ‘minimise physical appearance in court buildings’. They stressed that public access to courts is a fundamental principle of open justice and should only be restricted in exceptional circumstances.

P9 – Criminal justice: arrangements for the custody of persons detained at police stations (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	4.5%	3.7%	8.2%	69.6%	2.9%	19.3%	143
All giving a view (2344)	5.6%	4.6%	10.2%	86.3%	3.6%	-	135
All org responses (130)	6.9%	4.6%	11.5%	10.0%	2.3%	76.2%	17
All orgs giving a view (31)	29.0%	19.4%	48.4%	41.9%	9.7%	-	14

Very few respondents provided specific or detailed comments on the proposal to allow prison custody officers to carry out their functions of transfer or custody of prisoners within police stations. Several responded to the question with comments about the wider justice system in Scotland, and others expressed concerns about virtual court appearances (which are discussed later in this report). Some explained that they did not understand the question or felt that the consultation paper had not provided enough information to make an informed decision or comment.

Among those who directly addressed the proposal, some expressed concern that this provision may restrict or limit access to criminal justice social workers which could have negative consequences for vulnerable individuals held in custody.

“Should this provision be extended and/or made permanent, then there will be a need to ensure that Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW) and other providers of support and services can have access to custodies in order to carry out assessments for Bail Supervision and Structured Deferred Sentences, welfare checks, etc. This is a barrier at present which is impacting on CJSW ability to provide the services to meet people’s needs.” (Extract from Aberdeenshire Council)

Some of those who disagreed with the proposal to extend or make the provision permanent voiced a fear that this approach could be open to abuse and allow the mistreatment of prisoners. A small number claimed that the process in place prior to the pandemic worked well and should be reinstated.

Calls for a more thorough review of the process and a greater understanding of the impact of this change on those in custody or working within the justice system were made by some respondents who did not agree with the provision being made permanent.

A few respondents highlighted potential benefits of allowing prison custody officials to carry out their functions within police station settings, such as efficiency, flexibility and a better use of resources which could free police officers for other duties. Others felt this that proposal is in line with the modernisation of the justice system. Some recognised that this provision is necessary to allow the continued facilitation of virtual custody appearances.

P10 – Freedom of Information: giving notice electronically (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	11.4%	4.8%	16.1%	63.1%	2.6%	18.1%	142
All giving a view (2379)	13.9%	5.8%	19.7%	77.1%	3.2%	-	139
All org responses (130)	20.0%	0.8%	20.8%	5.4%	0.0%	73.8%	14
All orgs giving a view (34)	76.5%	2.9%	79.4%	20.6%	0.0%	-	14

Those in favour of permanently extending the provision to allow formal notices under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to be issued electronically included eight local authorities, the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Care Inspectorate. Respondents observed that the electronic delivery of notices worked well during the pandemic and allowed authorities to be more efficient in responding to Freedom of Information requests. A few pointed out that the provision would allow the Scottish Information Commissioner to undertake investigations and make decisions more quickly.

"The provisions would enable the use of an efficient communication tool which is necessary in today’s world. It would also cut down on cost, resource, time and carbon footprint." (Extract from North Ayrshire Council)

Some respondents supported the provision being made permanent on the condition that the option to request physical copies is retained.

A few respondents felt that moving to an electronic notification system could result in important notices going unread or being sent to the wrong recipient.

“Possible benefits from making this permanent in terms of speed and sustainability but there would have to be arrangements made to ensure receipt of information as well as accuracy of details.” (Individual)

While this provision relates specifically to delivering notices to public bodies, some respondents thought that it was about issuing notices to members of the public and raised concerns about digital exclusion. They feared that moving to an electronic notification service could exclude or disadvantage those with poor broadband access or low levels of digital literacy. A few drew attention to groups who may not have ready access to devices and internet, such as elderly people, remote and rural communities and people serving prison sentences. Several respondents commented on the Freedom of Information process more generally without addressing the proposed changes, describing concerns over lengthy timescales, perceived loopholes and redactions in documents.

P11 – Legal aid (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	6.8%	4.5%	11.3%	61.2%	4.9%	22.5%	107
All giving a view (2250)	8.8%	5.8%	14.6%	79.0%	6.4%	-	96
All org responses (130)	9.2%	0.8%	10.0%	6.2%	0.0%	83.8%	10
All orgs giving a view (21)	57.1%	4.8%	61.9%	38.1%	0.0%	-	4

Very few respondents provided an open-text response which directly addressed the proposal to make permanent the provisions which allow for increased availability of interim payments to solicitors. Some explained they did not have enough expertise on the matter to comment, while others did not think the consultation provided them with enough information to give a detailed response. General opinions on legal aid were offered, with some highlighting the value of the legal aid system in Scotland, and others expressing more critical views.

Those who supported making the provision permanent included Money Advice and Rights East Renfrewshire Council, Shoosmiths LLP and Citizens Advice Scotland. Arguments in favour included a view that flexible interim payments could support the administration of legal aid and two respondents stated that the provision could encourage more firms to offer legal aid services.

“Increasing the availability of interim payments would be beneficial to the legal aid system as it will help to maintain, and potentially increase, the number of solicitors who will undertake legal aid work. Any increase in the number of legal aid solicitors would assist Citizens Advice Bureau clients in accessing justice, allowing them to progress their domestic affairs, and take forward consumer cases and rights enforcement. This is important as we hear evidence from across the Citizens Advice Network where clients have had difficulty accessing legal practitioners who will take on legal aid cases particularly in rural areas or in relation to certain legal issues.” (Extract from Citizens Advice Scotland)

Those who did not agree with a permanent provision felt that more review and analysis was necessary before making significant changes to the legal aid system. Two respondents did not see the need for interim payments to be made permanent as they felt that solicitors should have substantial resource in place to receive payment after services are undertaken.

Some respondents advocated for wider reform within the legal aid system, suggesting that simply extending this provision will not address underlying issues within the sector.

P12 – Legal writings (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	6.7%	4.0%	10.7%	62.7%	5.2%	21.4%	124
All giving a view (2284)	8.5%	5.1%	13.6%	79.8%	6.6%	-	122
All org responses (130)	20.8%	2.3%	23.1%	6.2%	1.5%	69.2%	21
All orgs giving a view (40)	67.5%	7.5%	75.0%	20.0%	5.0%	-	20

Respondents with experience of executing legal documents (including local authorities and organisations operating in the legal/justice sector) largely supported making permanent the provision to remove the requirement for the physical presence of certain parties during the execution of documents and administration of oaths, affirmations and declarations. They highlighted the efficiency, convenience and flexibility afforded by the ability to execute documents and administer oaths by alternative means and described the cost, time and travel savings achieved by this approach.

“There is an increased use of Affidavits in legal proceedings in which the Council is involved and it has proved particularly beneficial, both in terms of convenience, time and efficiency, to be able to finalise these through remote means.” (Extract from Argyll & Bute Council)

“This will create more flexibility in the way which documents are signed. It would also reduce unnecessary meetings and travel, freeing up officer time and reducing carbon emissions.” (Extract from North Ayrshire Council)

Some respondents were content for the remote execution of documents to remain an option, but did not want it to become the default or only means of executing documents. Others thought it should only be allowed during exceptional circumstances.

A few recognised that this practice was necessary during lockdown for health and safety reasons, but felt strongly that the provision should not be extended or made permanent and there should be a return to pre-Covid processes.

The most common concern raised by respondents was about how secure the process is and whether or not it could be vulnerable to fraud or abuse. Some of those in favour of making the provision permanent said their support was conditional on there being more consideration of the risks of this provision and appropriate safeguarding being put in place. A few respondents feared that the process of executing documents without all parties being physically present could lack credibility and may be vulnerable to legal challenge.

A small number expressed general apprehension at moving to a more digitalised justice system, with some respondents concerned about digital exclusion and one worried that this could result in job losses in the sector.

P13 – Mental health: named person nomination (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	5.3%	3.8%	9.1%	68.8%	3.6%	18.5%	157
All giving a view (2367)	6.5%	4.6%	11.2%	84.4%	4.4%	-	153
All org responses (130)	14.6%	1.5%	16.2%	6.9%	2.3%	74.6%	15
All orgs giving a view (33)	57.6%	6.1%	63.6%	27.3%	9.1%	-	14

Those who disagreed with extending or making permanent the provision to remove the need for an individual to have their signature witnessed when they agree to become a named person argued that having a witness present is an important safeguarding measure. They noted that this step is necessary to verify the identity of the named person and ensure they are competent and have a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of a named person. Concerns were raised that removing this step could make the process less secure or open to abuse. A few added that they thought it was important for the signature to be witnessed in-person as opposed to electronically.

“The requirement for witnessed signatures is important in this type of situation to limit potential for fraud and to ensure that the signatory is competent.” (Individual)

A few respondents considered this proposal to be particularly sensitive as it is in relation to vulnerable people and advocated for it to be subject to further review and debate before being extended or made permanent.

Those who supported the provision being made permanent included the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance and the Law Society of Scotland. Respondents felt that the provision removes bureaucracy from the process and could help to streamline named person procedures. A few noted that the requirement to have a witness to the named person signature can act as a barrier in emergency situations and removing it could reduce potential delays in vulnerable people receiving mental health care and treatment.

“Making this measure permanent makes it much more straightforward to have a Named Person appointed, which benefits the wider process and the upholding of an individual’s rights, and our members have been unable to identify a downside to the proposal. From our members’ perspective, ensuring the process for acquiring a named person is more streamlined while not altering the level of safeguard available ensures the process is more timely and that such an individual is in place to help promote the patient’s rights.” (Extract from Royal College of Psychiatrists)

Many respondents used their response to express their general disapproval of the named person scheme and petition for its removal. A few responses were considered to be out of scope, as it was clear that respondents were referring to the named person scheme in relation to children and young people as opposed to mental health.

P14 – Parole Board: delegation (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	4.8%	3.7%	8.5%	64.5%	4.1%	23.0%	103
All giving a view (2238)	6.2%	4.8%	11.0%	83.7%	5.3%	-	96
All org responses (130)	10.0%	3.1%	13.1%	6.9%	0.0%	80.0%	11
All orgs giving a view (26)	50.0%	15.4%	65.4%	34.6%	0.0%	-	9

Very few respondents provided an open-text response which directly addressed the provision to allow the Parole Board Chairperson’s functions to be delegated to another member of the Parole Board should the Chairperson become incapacitated.

Those who supported making the provision permanent included six local authorities, The Senators of the College of Justice and Police Scotland. Respondents in favour argued this was a practical approach which would allow the Parole Board to continue functioning if the Chairperson was unable to perform their duties for any reason.

“We are broadly supportive of continued delegation of the chairpersons’ functions as this will allow a continuance of the Parole Board function. This will mitigate any backlog of requests to Police and of the prison system and the knock-on effect on the criminal justice system as a whole.” (Extract from Police Scotland)

“This would appear to be pragmatic and allow contingency for the Parole Board to continue to operate.” (Extract from West Lothian Council)

One respondent suggested that a list and order of precedence for delegates should be prepared and approved in advance by the entire Parole Board. Another supported the provision as long as the delegates had the appropriate skills and experience to perform the assigned tasks and responsibilities.

Those who disagreed with the provision being made permanent felt there was a need for further review and greater understanding of the impact and risks of this change before making the provision permanent.

“We believe that these measures are proportionate during the pandemic period, where there is a risk that Parole Board functions may be impaired in the absence of a chair. Whether there are benefits to wider delegation beyond this period, such as the sharing of functions amongst Parole Board members, may be more appropriate to consider separate to this legislation.” (Extract from Law Society of Scotland)

One respondent felt responsibility should remain with the Chairperson under all circumstances as they must be accountable for all of the Parole Board’s decisions.

Some respondents called for wider reform to the justice, prison and parole systems in Scotland in their response.

P15 – Parole Board: live link (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	5.6%	4.8%	10.4%	63.2%	3.9%	22.5%	125
All giving a view (2252)	7.2%	6.2%	13.4%	81.6%	5.0%	-	119
All org responses (130)	12.3%	3.8%	16.2%	6.2%	0.8%	76.9%	15
All orgs giving a view (30)	53.3%	16.7%	70.0%	26.7%	3.3%	-	14

Those who agreed with making permanent the provision to allow parole hearings to take place over live link described the benefits of virtual hearings, including travel and resource savings, more flexibility and increased accessibility.

“Allowing this remote appearance to continue is potentially more efficient, saves time travelling and increases opportunities for participants to engage with hearings.” (Extract from Justice Services, South Ayrshire Council HSCP)

Third sector organisations Victim Support Scotland and Families Outside (both of whom supported making the provision permanent) highlighted the benefits that remote parole hearings can have for victims, witnesses and families, such as opening up access to hearings and avoiding delays in the process, which in turn can reduce distress.

Some respondents who disagreed with making the provision permanent noted that it can be difficult to interpret a person’s body language and demeanour or detect nuance through their virtual presence.

“It is difficult enough to determine the correct course of action when able to see and "read" a person in front of you. Removing or downgrading the physical clues is not a good idea.” (Individual)

“Video parole board hearings leave no room for appreciation or interpretation of nuances of behaviour which are obvious in-person.” (Individual)

While some recognised the need for virtual hearings during the pandemic for health and safety reasons, they felt that in the interests of procedural fairness and recognition of the seriousness of parole matters, in-person hearings should be resumed when it is safe to do so. Others felt it is important to gather more evidence on the impact of live link hearings before making the provision permanent.

A few respondents suggested that virtual hearings should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, one thought they should be offered when the offence relates to white collar or non-violent crimes, but not more serious or violent crimes. A few argued that live link hearings should only be carried out under circumstances where all parties agree that a virtual meeting would be acceptable and fair. Others supported a hybrid approach where those who wish to appear at the hearing remotely can do so.

P16 – Remote registration of deaths and still-births (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Permanent	Extend	Total Support	Oppose	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	13.3%	6.0%	19.3%	60.6%	2.2%	17.8%	171
All giving a view (2387)	16.2%	7.3%	23.5%	73.7%	2.7%	-	169
All org responses (130)	23.8%	0.0%	23.8%	4.6%	0.0%	71.5%	18
All orgs giving a view (37)	83.8%	0.0%	83.8%	16.2%	0.0%	-	18

Many respondents, including 11 local authorities and eight funeral directors, welcomed the provision to allow remote registrations of deaths and still-births and advocated for its permanence. Some respondents highlighted the efficiency and flexibility offered by this approach, while others highlighted it made the process of registering a death more streamlined.

“This has made a huge improvement to families and the death registration process has become much simpler and quicker for all parties involved. We have had no problems or concerns over the last 21 months.” (Extract from Ian Bendall Funeral Directors)

Respondents felt that the remote registration process offers convenience and can be less distressing for bereaved families during upsetting and stressful times.

“This is likely welcomed as many people report distress of having to do this in person (particularly stillbirths when often waiting in lines of people celebrating registering births).” (Extract from COSLA)

Some respondents noted that it is especially helpful for those living in rural, remote and island communities who will no longer need to take long journeys to register deaths.

A number of respondents who supported making the provision permanent felt it was important to retain in-person means of registration.

Respondents who disagreed with the provision being made permanent raised concerns over the security of remote registration and worried it could be open to abuse and fraud. They thought that remote registration does not reflect the gravity of registering a death and seriousness of the consequences of erroneously registering the death of an individual who is still alive. They argued that in-person registration is a more secure and robust process and has more safeguards in place to ensure verification of the identity of the deceased.

Some respondents thought that a remote system for the registration of deaths and still-births is too impersonal, lacks humanity and compassion and takes away an important part of the grieving process.

Three respondents reported having had a poor experience of using the remote registration system, describing the process as lengthy and inconvenient.

P17 – Remote registration of live births (Develop)

These figures are a non-representative sample	Develop	Not develop	Unsure	No view / answer	No. of comments
All respondents (2905)	15.6%	61.9%	3.2%	19.3%	133
All giving a view (2343)	19.3%	76.7%	4.0%	-	129
All org responses (130)	16.2%	5.4%	1.5%	76.9%	12
All orgs giving a view (30)	70.0%	23.3%	6.7%	-	12

Most local authorities and other public bodies supported developing the provision to allow the remote registration of births being developed, however many respondents raised concerns and challenges related to the hybrid remote/in-person process.

Respondents expressed concern that the provision could make the process of registering births vulnerable to fraud and stressed the importance of having stringent verification checks to prevent misuse of the system. Others described concerns about accessibility and digital exclusion. Some felt in-person birth registrations are an important celebratory moment for new parents and should not be replaced with a partially remote system.

Some respondents called for more protections to be put in place to ensure fathers/second mothers are included on the birth certificate in the event the partners are not married/in a civil partnership or are estranged. A few respondents did not see the need for the remote elements of the hybrid approach, given that the individual registering the birth is still required to attend in-person as part of the process.

In their response, Dundee City Council explained why they did not the support the provision being developed. They described challenges in running a hybrid system, including it being a more time-consuming and resource intensive model and concerns that Registrars might not receive the correct parental information. They felt that the system in place prior to the pandemic worked efficiently with full registration appointments only taking approximately 30 minutes. Aberdeenshire Council shared similar views about the time-consuming nature of this model in their response, although they were supportive of the proposal being developed as they could see wider benefits to it.

Some respondents described the provision as a more flexible, efficient and modern approach to registering births.

“These proposals would create greater flexibility for both local authorities and individuals. Necessarily, there will be a period of transition to ensure that commitments to accessibility are met, but the default provision of these services online would deliver significant benefits.” (Extract from Glasgow City Council Labour Group)

P18 – Tenancies: protection against eviction (discretionary grounds of eviction); and pre-action requirements for eviction proceedings on ground of rent arrears (Permanence)

These figures are a non-representative sample	All (2905)	All giving view (2472)	All orgs (130)	Org giving view (50)
Extend beyond March 2022 and made permanent	5.7%	6.8%	13.1%	34.0%
Extend beyond March 2022 and made permanent, but only to the extent that rent arrears should continue to be a discretionary eviction ground – all other eviction grounds return to pre-pandemic status	3.6%	4.2%	2.3%	6.0%
Extend beyond March 2022 but not made permanent	3.1%	3.6%	1.5%	4.0%
Extend beyond March 2022 but not made permanent, but only to the extent that rent arrears should continue to be a discretionary eviction ground – all other eviction grounds return to pre-pandemic status	5.5%	6.4%	3.1%	8.0%
Total support	17.9%	21.0%	20.0%	52.0%
Oppose	65.1%	76.5%	16.9%	44.0%
Unsure	2.1%	2.5%	1.5%	4.0%
I have no view / Not answered	14.9%	-	61.5%	-
No of open comments	258	252	30	27

Those in support of permanence included Crisis, Police Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. Respondents felt the provision improves the rights and protections of tenants and should be welcomed as a way to prevent evictions and reduce homelessness. Some described the negative impact of evictions and homelessness on individuals’ health and wellbeing and urged the Scottish Government to embrace measures which could reduce the risk of homelessness.

“Good housing is protective of the population’s health. We therefore welcome all measures that can be taken to avoid evictions and subsequent homelessness, and to support tenants to remain in their homes for as long as possible while alternative solutions to eviction are explored.” (Extract from Public Health Scotland)

A prevalent theme in comments was that pre-action requirements in particular were viewed favourably. They were seen as an effective route to resolving issues between landlords and tenants and welcomed as a layer of protection against eviction.

However, many respondents strongly opposed the proposal to make all grounds for eviction discretionary. They felt the provision affords too much leniency to tenants and does not consider the potential financial consequences for private landlords, fearing that landlords may be unable to obtain an eviction, or may face lengthy delays in evicting tenants. Respondents suggested the provisions could be open to abuse and that tenants may take advantage of the provisions and choose to stop paying rent because they may think they are protected from eviction. Several respondents called for more provisions to protect the interests of private landlords. Some drew attention to smaller landlords who cannot afford to accrue arrears and may struggle to pay mortgage payments, insurance and other costs if they do not receive rental income timeously.

Several respondents feared that making the provision permanent could create undesirable conditions for private landlords, noting that if they decide to withdraw from the rental market, it will reduce the number of affordable homes for rent. Some argued this could have serious implications for homelessness given existing pressures in the housing sector and high demand for social housing. A few were concerned that the provisions could lead to landlords being reluctant to let to tenants whose circumstances may influence the Tribunal exercising its discretion, suggesting that tenants who are elderly, disabled or have young children may be negatively affected.