Chamber and committees

Does that mean, then, that this subsection applies up to full committal?

Beyond that, would the normal rules apply?

Right. It is important to get that on the record, as you said, cabinet secretary. I am sure that you agree that there is a balance to be struck between the operational matters and a fair legal framework, in which the default position is physical appearance but virtual appearance is allowed when the case can be made for it.

On the specified locations, I have a similar line of questioning to Liam Kerr’s. Does the bill specify requirements in relation to setting? Does the appearance have to be from a specific approved place?

My next questions are the same as those that I put to the Scottish Criminal Bar Association and relate to the subsections of the bill that deal with how far the approach can go after the first appearance. When I raised the issue with the association, its position was that, on the face of it, the bill will allow the court to go much further than a custody hearing.

I will tell you what my concerns are in that respect. If we take the bill as a whole—that is, the national jurisdiction elements, with sheriffs being able to sit anywhere, virtual attendance and that provision, which, as I understand it, means that the approach can go well beyond the first appearance—does it give the court system an awful lot of power to determine many things beyond the first appearance? I had thought that, in the way that it was presented, the bill would apply only to certain hearings, but the provision seems to allow things to go much further, if the court thinks fit. That gives me cause for concern.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s point about letting the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service run the courts, but there are principles of fairness and established things such as jurisdiction, where people are tried and so on that could be overturned. First of all, though, can you tell me whether the bill does that?

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.

Certain cannabis medicines have been legal since 2018, but Bedrolite is not yet licensed. Bedrolite has been a lifesaver, particularly for children with severe types of epilepsy, but if it is not licensed, the NHS will not fund it. A small number of exceptions have been made in England and Northern Ireland for children with conditions for which Bedrolite has been made available. In view of that, why is it impossible to organise cannabis medicine for complex epilepsy through the NHS in Scotland, when it is clear that that has happened in other parts of the UK?