Chamber and committees

Thank you for your comprehensive introduction, commissioner, which addressed some of the issues that I was going to ask about. You gave us an explanation of the lead-up to the creation of the draft code of practice and the consultation process, and it sounds as though there was a high level of consensus in the discussions on what should be in the code. Were there any contentious issues? What might be the contentious issues for the public? Did you think that any issues might be contentious before you had the discussions, even if it turned out that there was consensus among those who were involved?

No. Your response is really helpful. I suppose that that highlights some of the issues with the technology. If people thought that it was 100 per cent accurate, they might be comfortable with it, but the risks of it going wrong will always be an issue.

You talked about keeping the process under review through annual compliance assessments. How will you ensure that the process is robust, that you really engage and that you hear the difficult voices and not just those of the people who are already part of the system?

I was not going to come in on this issue, convener.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted yes.

I am very grateful. Thank you.

First, I apologise that I was not in attendance at the previous meeting; I had transportation issues. I am sorry for the inconvenience that that would have caused. I am delighted to be here today, and I hope to persuade you that a cross-party group on Europe should be established. I believe that there is interest in such a group among members and that there is very much the space for the kinds of discussion that it would take part in.

Obviously, on occasion, there would be overlap with other cross-party groups, and I suspect that we may wish to have joint events. However, many of the issues that a cross-party group on Europe would cover—for example, post-Brexit issues and our relationship with the European Union specifically and Europe more generally—will not be covered by other cross-party groups. There is an appetite for the group, and many discussions could take place in it that would be of use and that would not necessarily take place in other cross-party groups.

Yes, that is correct. For example, the cross-party group on Poland is quite active, including on the rights of EU citizens. Clearly, that is an issue for a number of cross-party groups, particularly the specific European country groups. I hope that the proposed CPG on Europe might bring some of that work together. I do not think that it would undermine any of the work that is being done by any specific group. The cross-party group on Poland will be very focused on the Polish community, whereas the cross-party group on Europe would look at issues on a pan-European basis, as you say. However, the issues are basically the same or very similar in relation to every country. There are also a number of countries for which there is no cross-party group, and the proposed cross-party group on Europe might pick up some issues for specific communities that are not covered by any of the stand-alone European country groups.

I suspect that, like most cross-party groups, we will react to events. The agenda will be dictated by the issues on which we think there is a desire and an appetite for a debate. From my perspective and, I think, from the perspective of all the members listed as having attended meetings so far, there is very much a wish to work collaboratively and to look at ways of doing that. Sometimes, the problem is that we do not know that somebody else is already doing work on a particular matter, but it is our job to find out exactly what is happening and to ensure that we do not undermine the work of any other group.

No, there is no particular reason for that. We would welcome representation from that party. As I said, it is important that there is an understanding and recognition of the fact that there might be a range of views within the group. I suspect that there is probably already a range of views on many issues among the members who are listed, and that range might expand. It is a case of grappling with the issues and having the discussion in a way that is less heated than might be the case in the chamber—a genuine exchange of ideas and information. I hope that the group will be a forum in which that can happen.

Some members of the proposed group are very keen that we use it as a vehicle to find out more about what is happening in the European Union and to foster direct relations with European politicians and parts of the various European structures—not just the European Union—to find out more about what they are doing with regard to guest speakers and other events that would provide information and a better understanding of what is happening in other parts of Europe.

The group’s focus will be partly determined by what the members of the group want to do and the events that they want, but the group will be pan-European rather than focused on any specific issue. If a lot of work was already happening in the Parliament or in another cross-party group on one particular area, that would be an argument for our focusing on something different. I imagine that that would be how it would develop. We might well have some joint events, which I hope would be successful.

That is an extremely helpful question. The answer will depend partly on the appetite of the cross-party groups in question. Among those people who are currently involved in the work to establish the proposed cross-party group, there is very much a willingness and a desire to work with existing cross-party groups.

To use the example that has been given—education—Erasmus is a massive issue, and the organisations that are already involved in the proposed cross-party group are disproportionately in the education sector. So, in the early days, that would be a big issue on which we would need to work with other cross-party groups. We would attempt to be very sensitive to the work that is already taking place and to work collaboratively. If another cross-party group was already leading on an issue, that would be an argument that perhaps we should focus on another area.

The post-Brexit issues are potentially massive, and I have no doubt that there will be a continuing debate about those. For example, some people are arguing that there should be a softer form of Brexit and that we should rejoin the single market. Those debates might or might not become big debates over time, and I would hope that there would be a range of views within the proposed cross-party group—there should not be a presumption that there would be one view. I suspect that we would want to have a range of views and to have that discussion. That is the nature of a cross-party group, and I hope that that is how the proposed group would develop.

Amendment 1034 is a relatively simple amendment that asks for the Scottish Government to provide Parliament with six-monthly reports from January 2023 on the operation of virtual courts, which would enable effective scrutiny. We have already heard from Pauline McNeill about virtual appearances for people in custody. On occasion, those arrangements could be described only as shambolic. The reports should be not so much about the principle of virtual attendance but about how the system is operating in reality, although issues of principle might also be involved.

Jamie Greene spoke about the disappointing responses that many in the profession gave on the operation of virtual courts and about the concerns that they have raised.

We know that there have been very few virtual courts up until now. The committee has not looked in a great amount of detail at the pilot in the north-east, which involved a relatively small number of cases, but it has heard some evidence about it. Some of the content of the report that we saw was quite surprising. One of the concerns was that such courts would operate against the defence and would result in more convictions but, according to that report, the opposite was the case. However, as I said, the pilot involved a very small number of cases. That highlights that virtual courts might not operate in the way that we think they will operate.

The decisions that we make are important, because we could be making massive changes to the legal system in Scotland.