Chamber and committees

As Jamie Greene indicated earlier, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill would extend time limits quite extraordinarily from 140 days to 320 days, which gives me cause for concern.

Stuart, in your evidence, you said that, with regard to the cases that are being called, there is no rhyme or reason as to which cases are being given priority. That also gives me cause for concern. Can you give any guidance to me—and other committee members who are concerned—on an alternative way of going about that? At the moment, if we were to agree to the proposed timescale extensions, they would automatically apply to every case, so we can see how that would go. Might it be your view that, if we did not extend those time limits, there would be some discretion? Is there an alternative way? One view is that, in coming out of the pandemic, the court system is going to be such a mess from the point of view of the availability of courts; another view is that, if we simply allow the current situation to go on for almost a year, we might be—I agree with you on this—verging on breaching article 5 in some way. I would welcome a response on that.

Good morning. I have just one question. The committee has been asked to comment on the extension of court time limits. You both expressed concerns about the previous level of adjournments. Are you not more concerned that if the Parliament gave its authority to an extension, we could end up in the same place again, being asked to extend the limits by another six months?

Perhaps it is time that we put some pressure on to fix the system. I am deeply concerned about the extension of court time limits, given the evidence from you both. I am concerned that we may be back here again if we extend the limits for six months. Do you share my concern?

What if we are in the same situation in six months? Will you be saying the same thing? Will we be saying that the system is so broken that we have to extend the limits further?

I would appreciate it if the committee could be kept up to date on that if the Parliament extends the legislation.

My question is for Emma Jardine. You will be aware of this, but I want to put it on the record that the time limit on remand before indictment, if we extend it, will go from 80 to 260 days. Time on remand before pre-trial hearings will be extended from 110 to 290 days, and time on remand until trial will be extended from 140 to 320 days. Do you agree that those are pretty stark figures for any Parliament to be asked to approve, given that those will be the minimum times?

The rationale for the changes relates to the need to conduct

“large numbers of individual hearings on applications to extend time limits or renew adjournments on a case-by case basis.”

The reason why we are being asked to consider the measure is to prevent the Crown, and perhaps also the defence, from asking for an extension on time limits on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it will be automatic. How concerned are you about what the Parliament is being asked to do, given the impact that it will have? Would it not be better to extend the time limits on a case-by-case basis, because fewer people would be impacted?

Are there not human rights implications? You have told the committee that we are in danger of not complying with the requirements of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Same here.

My question is on remand accommodation and is for Teresa Medhurst. Did you say that the remand population is now at 30 per cent, whereas the previous figure was 27 per cent? I appreciate that you have to manage the prison environment according to the situation and the legislation that you are given. If 30 per cent is the figure now, and if we extend the provisions of the legislation, is it inevitable that remand prisoners will be held in more difficult conditions?

Yes.

Good afternoon, minister. I hope that it goes without saying that I realise that the challenge is huge and complex. I am interested in the overdose prevention safety issue. I have hosted Nanna Gotfredsen, who is a street lawyer from Denmark who pioneered that country’s drugs policy and has been influential in the debate in Scotland.

There have been quite a few exchanges on the subject—you probably heard the comments from the UK Minister of State for Crime and Policing at yesterday’s meeting. In response to Gillian Martin’s line of questioning, the minister of state seemed to put across that he is concerned that, if the 1971 act were to be reviewed to include the ability to pilot safe consumption rooms, that would send out the wrong message. Will you respond to that?

Yesterday, we heard from the United Kingdom Minister for Crime and Policing, Kit Malthouse, and a number of us had an exchange on this subject. He said that it is a very complex issue. As you know, our Lord Advocate might consider the question and she is already consulting the police and so on. Kit Malthouse asked, “If we set up an overdose prevention site in Govan, would you arrest someone who was travelling to Govan from Edinburgh?” I think that there is quite a simple answer to that, but I want to ask you, as a former chief constable.

In Glasgow, we had tolerance zones for what was then called street prostitution. It is not complex, to my mind. If you set up a zone in which you disapply the law, anyone outside that zone would be breaking the law. Is it your view that the question is too complex? I know that you support the setting up of tolerance zones. The minister who is in charge of the 1971 act says that it is really complex. I am not sure that I agree with that.

The minister of state went on to say that he thinks that there are complex questions that need to be answered if we are to legislate in that way. I recognise that, ideally, reform of the 1971 act would be the best position—for other reasons, as well.

As the minister said, provision of safe drug consumption facilities is not a magic bullet. Nothing is. However, the Lord Advocate is on the record saying that she will consider whether it might be in the public interest. It would be complex for any Lord Advocate to make a decision about whether, in the public interest, you would not prosecute under the 1971 act in certain areas if it was a public health issue and prevented deaths. My question is twofold. Do you think that those complexities can be overcome? If the Lord Advocate—who is yet to make a decision—were to make a decision in that vein, would it negate the immediate necessity to reform the 1971 act, because it would have the same effect?