Chamber and committees

I acknowledge the importance of the legislation. In various debates regarding violence against women, we have highlighted the importance of cybercrime and of the harms that can happen online. I note, for example, that 70 per cent of girls aged 12 to 18 have been sent unsolicited nude images of boys or men.

Do you agree that it is important to monitor how effective the legislation is in the long run? If it is to be worth anything, we must ensure that it will protect women and girls from unsolicited images. I am sure you agree that it is part of the unfortunate umbrella of violence against women and girls.

I thought that you would say that. Surely the Government cannot seriously be saying that it would put up with an unsatisfactory situation that the Law Society of Scotland has highlighted until 2025. It is not right that an accused person cannot consult their solicitor, never mind the second issue.

There has been a commitment to improve the technology but will it improve before 2025? Are there more immediate plans than that?

The member is correct that I am referring to people who are being detained in a police station. We have heard evidence on that, but it just seems that the system is not really set up for it, and there is an issue with the quality. The Law Society of Scotland has said that the use of virtual custodies raises significant operational and human rights concerns. The evaluation of the Falkirk pilot in May 2022 was critical of the virtual custody process in the absence of significant additional investment, and stated that the issue of fairness to the accused is fundamental.

There is an important point about physical separation. Many lawyers have complained about the physical separation of the accused in speaking to solicitors. That was accepted as necessary during the pandemic, but why is it necessary now? Do we not want to reinstate the fundamental principle that an accused person should be able to see their lawyer before appearing in the court? That is simply not possible if the accused appears directly from custody in a police station. The situation is far from satisfactory.

Jamie Greene referred to the police. Police Scotland has concluded that it cannot fully support the virtual model without a complete overhaul of the custody process and significant investment in resource. That is telling. For those reasons, I am inclined to push amendment 1036.

I point out to the Government that it strikes me as a costly exercise to have a sheriff, and all the clerks, sit until 9.30 at night. It is a very poor experience for staff—if anyone is interested, and if that matters—to sit all day in a court when proceedings started 45 minutes late because the Crown did not prepare its cases on time.

A lot of issues are slowing down the process, and they need to be looked at. Nonetheless, in my view, virtual hearings are totally unsatisfactory and do not meet the interests of justice. They will not even solve the problem of separation between solicitors and the accused—a solicitor is unable to confer with the accused when one of them is in the police station and the other is not—at least until such time as we can provide a certain level of quality of electronic means to enable that to happen.

For the record, I accept that there are aspects of court proceedings in which, many people say, the use of virtual hearings is perfectly acceptable, where the balance of justice is not interrupted and it makes sense. However, with regard to this particular aspect, I am not convinced that it makes sense.

I move amendment 1035.

Cabinet secretary, thank you for outlining the rationale behind the amendment. Initially, on reading it, you might think that you would not want to depart from the general need to get a balanced panel. I am reasonably familiar with the difficulties in getting people to sign up. Will you say more about what the Government will do to correct that, so that we can have mixed panels in the future? How long will the measure be in place before you review it?

I will move this and amendment 1048, convener. I hope that I did not mishear members saying that they would support them.

Amendments 1047 and 1048 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

I strongly support Katy Clark and Jamie Greene in trying to get a commitment from the Government. There needs to be an evidence base not just on the experience of witnesses, victims and the accused, but on the outcome of cases. It is important to have that debate.

I am keen to move amendment 1036, and I will say a few things about why. I would be happy to take an intervention from the cabinet secretary. I want to be clear in my own mind because some of the timescales are confusing.

The Law Society of Scotland is clear. It has been said that

“The physical separation of the accused, their solicitors and the courtroom has had a deleterious impact on the overall process. The separation has made it harder for the solicitors to communicate effectively before and during hearings with the Crown”.

I have not heard anything to indicate that the Government is concerned about that. It is surely not satisfactory in anyone’s book.

If the timescale was shorter, I might say that we should put up with the situation for a bit longer. I need to clarify the timescale. I thought that it was 2023 or, potentially, up to 2025. It would help me a lot to know the answer.

That would be helpful. I am going to take it in good faith that the cabinet secretary knows where I am coming from, just as I know where he is coming from. For Jamie Greene’s benefit, my understanding was that the amendment that I asked to be drafted sought to remove virtual appearances as the default. As it was not my intention not to allow flexibility, I want to be sure about what such an amendment does.

If the Government is willing to open channels and have further discussions—I would, for example, even accept a shorter time period or the Government having much more responsibility to review the provision before 2025—I am, on that basis—

I talked about the licensing scheme, which Jamie Greene’s amendment 90 refers to.

I agree 100 per cent.

To continue the debate that Jamie Greene has begun, it is important to be clear about what we are attempting to do. I make it clear that my amendments in the group are probing amendments, for that reason; I want to hear all the arguments.

The minister made a fair point when she said that a lot of the requirements around dates are already in existence. To be honest, however, I am not sure that members of the public understand that those are the dates on which fireworks are permitted and that some additional dates have been provided. I am happy to be contradicted if I have misunderstood this but, in my mind, bonfire season is in November, when you expect to hear fireworks going off in people’s back gardens more than at any other time of the year.

Even if the dates are in previous legislation, we should debate why the period in which fireworks are permitted is from 27 October to 12 November, which is quite a long period. People might be concerned about the social aspect of fireworks going off in people’s back gardens and the nuisance that it causes. People also want to set off fireworks at new year, so why is one of the dates 26 December, which is not new year? I am just probing the issue. I know that those are the existing dates, but what is the logic of that?

I will take a slightly different tack from the one that Jamie Greene has taken. My understanding is that the dates have been chosen not necessarily to capture all religious festivals but to capture festivals, whether they are religious or not, that have a traditional firework element to them. I am happy to be more informed on what those festivals are. I am aware that the minister was asked in Parliament why Eid is not included, and I felt satisfied with her answer. I would be concerned if Eid was included, because there is more than one Eid and the dates move. Given that the dates of other festivals also move, we can see why we need to debate the issue. How will the public understand on which dates setting off fireworks is an offence and on which dates it is not?