Chamber and committees

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.

I was interested in the cabinet secretary’s points about the justifications for the time limits that are being sought. I am sympathetic to the problems that definitely exist with the court estate, and I might write to the cabinet secretary to seek more information on where the pressures are. I appreciate the difficulty in addressing some of those issues in a speedy way. It has to be said that the time limits that the Scottish Government seeks are extensive and we would want further justification as to why they are required, but I will not press or move any of my amendments on the time limits today.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his comments in relation to amendment 1021. As we might be able to come back to that issue later, I will not move that amendment at this point.

Amendment 1011, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 1012 and 1013 not moved.

Amendment 1001 moved—[Brian Whittle].

Will the member take an intervention?

In speaking to my amendments, I referred to Crown and defence capacity in relation to time limits, but are you saying that court capacity is the main driver for needing to extend the time limits?

My understanding is that, if fiscal fines did not exist, the prosecution would have to decide whether to prosecute a case and whether they felt that they could prove the case in court and it was in the public interest to take that forward. Is that your understanding of the position?

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.

That is correct. The cabinet secretary said that the Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise proposed legislation that would make virtual courts a permanent fixture of the legal system. If information was shared regularly with the Parliament and the committee, that process would be far more meaningful. As a member of the committee, I know that it took us some time to get information on how virtual courts operated during the pandemic. If a structure was in place that enabled more regular reporting and that required officials to provide that information, there could be more effective scrutiny, and the outcome would be that Parliament would be more likely to make better decisions. That is what this is all about.

In reality, very few cases have gone ahead on a fully virtual basis. Instead, elements of cases have been dealt with on a virtual basis—for example, juries have attended virtually from cinemas. In general, from what I can gather, that seems to have worked well, but there will no doubt be other views on that. It seems likely that some aspects of cases, particularly those relating to case management, lend themselves better to virtual appearances.

My apologies.