Chamber and committees

Does the reporting that the cabinet secretary mentioned currently include how often prisoners get to be outdoors and things like that, which I mentioned in my remarks?

I begin by agreeing with Alex Cole-Hamilton and Jamie Greene that this has been a very rushed process. In some ways, what we are trying to do is impossible, because on the one hand we are trying to defend the interests of justice, and on the other we understand some of the issues facing the Government in relation to managing the courts.

I will first address amendment 6, on fiscal fines. The cabinet secretary says that fiscal fines enable a greater number of cases to be diverted. We do not know what kinds of crime those cases would involve, but the use of fiscal fines would be based on recovery from coronavirus.

I note that the cabinet secretary said that retaining the provision would not be desirable in the longer term. That is an important statement to me.

I do not support the general increase of fiscal fines to £500. If I can be so bold as to differ with the Lord Advocate, I imagine that fiscal fines of £500 would be used to deal with fairly high-tariff crime. The Parliament would have a legitimate interest if fiscals were issuing fiscal fines for what we regard as serious crime. Members may say that that might never happen, but I would say that it is quite legitimate for the Parliament to have an interest in that for the reason that I have given. However, if the cabinet secretary is indicating that the provision will be used primarily in Covid times, I am less concerned about it.

Amendment 7 relates to time limits. I think that Jamie Greene said that we are in an impossible position, and I agree with him.

On the one hand, I am very exercised about long delays to court proceedings, not just for the accused but for victims, and I am generally not happy about extending time limits. However, I appreciate that there are difficulties finding court venues across the country that are suitable for social distancing. I have some sympathy with that, but I remind Parliament that the law says that someone in custody awaiting trial should wait no longer than 140 days. Shortly after our discussion of the bill, we will need to think about how we can return to that provision, which, after all, is the current law.

In relation to reporting procedures, I seek to withdraw amendment 4, on the basis that the cabinet secretary will write to me on that specific issue. He said that the amendment duplicates existing reporting mechanisms in Scottish prisons. I would like to hear from him about whether prisoners are getting out of their cells and outdoors, particularly in light of coronavirus.

I will move amendment 8, on hearsay. I listened to what was said about the hearsay principle helping to minimise disruption. Given that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already permits hearsay evidence on application to the court when a person is not fit to give evidence, the provision that amendment 8 seeks to expire is not needed. I know that the cabinet secretary will return to the point, but it does not seem, from the wording in the legislation, that that provision is to be used for exclusively for evidence from those who are isolating due to coronavirus.

Hearsay evidence is seldom used in the courts, and section 259 is not used often, but the provision is dangerous and, for the reasons outlined by Jamie Greene, we must be very careful about its use. In the interests of justice, and to be absolutely fair to the accused, any statement can be cross-examined. I realise that the provision is intended only for extreme circumstances, but given that relevant provisions already exist, I will move amendment 8.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

I am trying to get as much clarity as possible, and I appreciate that there is a lot to consider. Does what the cabinet secretary said mean that, after 9 August, live music can be played without restrictions in pub venues, for example, as well as at weddings? It looks like that to me. It would be good to get the clarity that we did not get yesterday.

I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said. As I said, I am trying to get some clarity. The cabinet secretary knows, because there was a meeting with the wedding sector yesterday, that that sector and the wider night-time economy and hospitality sector have felt that engagement could have been a lot better. Perhaps we are making important progress.

I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on what I have been trying to achieve. There would be no harm in allowing some reporting.

Mitigation measures make sense and would be expected.

My concern is that the provision does not seem to apply exclusively to a witness or a complainer who is isolating. I can understand why the cabinet secretary might want the provision, but can he confirm that the power would not generally be used when someone was not fit to attend? Some of the lawyers I have spoken to say that the provision is not specific in its drafting. That is only part of the concern, but it is a concern.

As members will have heard, I share Jamie Greene’s concerns about that provision. Even the appeal court has been conducted in a virtual setting so, if the Government wants to provide flexibility to allow courts to proceed, it could do so in other ways. Does the member agree that the big question is whether it serves the interests of justice if someone who is accused of a serious crime cannot cross-examine a witness or complainer when an accusation has been made, because a statement cannot be cross-examined?

My husband was formerly a member of the criminal bar, but he is no longer practising. I do not think that that is a relevant interest, but I would like to declare it.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the number of female prisoners on remand, following reports that one in four women in custody are awaiting trial. (S6T-00101)

I thank the minister for that lengthy response. Time spent in prison can have a catastrophic effect on women’s lives, causing them to lose their home, custody of their children and their job. Amnesty International reminds us that the detention of individuals who are awaiting trial is a matter of special concern because they have yet to be found guilty of any offence and are therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. However, worryingly, Scottish prisons have a greater proportion of women on remand than prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom. Of those women on remand, three quarters will not get a custodial sentence. I hope that the minister agrees that something is not right.

The minister mentioned that the Government is about to adopt the Angiolini report, but the issue was known about nine years ago and there was a proposition that the provision of bail supervision should be consistently available across Scotland. Why has it taken nine years to bring that forward?

It is difficult at topical questions if members ask about something and get answers about a whole policy that they did not ask about. I am asking about remand. At the end of April, close to one in four prisoners in Scotland were on remand, and nearly 42.6 per cent of young people aged between 16 and 20 who were in prison were on remand. Of people held on remand, 57 per cent do not go on to receive a prison sentence—either they are found not guilty or they receive a community sentence. I am not confident that the Scottish Government really accepts the importance of the issue and the human rights considerations.

What is the Scottish Government’s approach to the issue in terms of human rights? In January last year, the Scottish Government commissioned research into the reasons behind decisions on bail and remand, with the aim of trying to reduce the number of people on remand, but that research was put on hold. I acknowledge that that was due to the pandemic, but when will that research be recommenced?