Chamber and committees

Maybe I have misunderstood. The Lord Justice General can use the power for a class of hearings. I have followed this line of questioning previously and I did not get that answer, although it was not you I was asking. You are saying that the power is for a class of hearings. For example, the Lord Justice General could say that all sentencing hearings will be done virtually.

In that case, does anyone want to explain what is meant by proposed new section 5B(7) in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as inserted by section 7 of the bill? The explanatory notes say:

“Subsection (7) means that a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.

I previously put this question to the Crown. The notes go on to say:

“In practice, because jurisdiction under subsection (5) ends with an accused being fully committed for trial ... subsection (7) is likely to be relevant”.

When I put the question on that, I got the impression that people were asking, “Why do we even need that in the bill?”

But the notes about the subsection say that

“a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.

Does that not refer to solemn cases, too?

Thank you very much. That was helpful.

I want to ask about the costs, but perhaps you cannot answer this question. I think that Liam Kerr tried to get an answer from you about it.

You said in the letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that £4.2 billion is being invested across the criminal justice system, but I am interested in what amount of that £4.2 billion is being allocated for modernisation. Most witnesses who believe that this is a good thing will still say that it cannot really do what it is supposed to do unless there is some investment in the technology. I believe that a sheriff court went down yesterday, because the connection was so poor. Indeed, I have seen it myself—it happens all the time.

We have seen this before with promises that we will be able to work out the costs once the legislation is passed. However, I have concerns about passing laws that substantially overturn existing practices without knowing what the Government will spend. Even the police are saying that they would love to have the flexibility of not physically having to attend court but, under the current arrangement, that is not practical. The Government needs to give us an answer on what investment it will make and how quickly it can make it.

I totally understand that. Obviously, you have to start somewhere. Notwithstanding what you might say about its being a matter for the courts, though, surely it is still a matter for you, as cabinet secretary, to be satisfied that the courts, using the powers that you will give them, are rolling out the virtual system at the point at which everyone feels content that it is the quality that it should be.

Thank you.

Yes—thank you, convener. It is a question for Katie Brown. I thank you for introducing to the conversation the importance of effecting change. I just want to understand the funding for equally safe. Is there national funding for the programme? I know that it is not rolled out in every school, as we would hope.

To be clear, as you mentioned it, is the bill the right place in which to address the finances of all programmes like equally safe?

No. I just raised that because Katie Brown mentioned it in her opening statement. She also mentioned the financial memorandum. My only other question is a yes or no supplementary. Does the funding have to be addressed in the financial memorandum?

Good morning. First of all, so that you understand where I am coming from, we are all agreed that virtual attendance can be helpful to the court system when everyone is content with its use. I am trying to drill into the detail of the balance between the saving of time and the fairness of the processes. That is what I am interested in.

This might be a question for Laura Buchan or Malcolm Graham. Defence agents have raised a lot of concern about the importance of their ability to talk to their clients, which needs to be tied up. I attended a virtual custody session in Glasgow sheriff court about 18 months ago and could see that there were lots of issues. In fact, the sheriff had a break and said to me that that was just what it was like and that it was impossible, which speaks to the importance of the quality. To be frank, I could not even identify the accused on the screen from what I could see. We all want to be in a different place from that.

We all know how stretched defence agents are. Simon Brown gave evidence last week that they cannot easily be in two places—a virtual hearing and one that is not virtual. How will you ensure that defence agents can deal with the virtual attendance of accused persons?

Have you now discussed with defence agents whether they think that that will work?