Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.

I thank Bill Kidd for giving Parliament an opportunity to discuss the horrific and enduring suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom are victims of an 18-year blockade.

Life in Gaza has become hopeless. People—trapped and living mostly in tents, with some sleeping on the bare roads—are now dying the most horrible deaths while the world is watching live, in real time, and is literally doing nothing to stop what is happening.

We have had 20 months of that. Israel’s war on the Palestinian people has become a well-planned operation to clear the land and to ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank of their people. It is like nothing that we have witnessed in our lifetime. At least 56,000 people are dead, with the actual total probably much higher, and yet the hostages are still in danger because of that strategy. This is not self-defence. I, and most members in the chamber, have condemned the atrocities of 7 October, but, 20 months on, nothing—nothing—can justify what has happened to the Palestinians in Gaza.

Rafah, with its population of 275,000, has gone; Jabalia had 56,000 residents—now all gone; and Beit Lahiya had a population of 108,000. They are now in ruins. Israel stands out as being amongst the most extreme war cases in modern history right now. Nonetheless, there have been many brave people—too many to mention—who have been witnesses to this genocide, risking their own lives to save other people.

Dr Victoria Rose served for more than months in Gaza. She talks of a three-month blockade of food—for three months, Israel deliberately blocked food from going into the Gaza strip. She talks of the children whose muscles are wasting, with a loss of fat and a lack of essential nutrients. They are not healing, and they have infections as a result of their poor immune systems. There has been no medical aid since 2 March. Hospitals have run out of 47 per cent of all drugs, and the antibiotics that they have are not the ones that they need.

Why are no journalists allowed into Gaza to report any of that? Of the ones who have been reporting, 200 are already dead, and we are losing count. Who has not cried at these scenes? Gaza is completely on fire—it is flattened, and its children are under the rubble, with no adequate equipment to rescue them. It is unforgivable, but crying does nothing to stop it.

My dear friends Ahmed Al-Nasar and Dr Khamis Elessi message me most days from Gaza. They say that the fire and the bombs are relentless every hour of every day. They cannot sleep, and they all know that, one time, it is going to be them. Nasser hospital has been forced to transport wounded people on public transport. If we want to imagine the unimaginable, we are seeing it in Gaza right now. The speed and the scale of the bombs make them the most powerful weaponry in the world, and they are being used against the poorest women and children.

This is about not just the actions of one Government, but the actions of all the European Governments and what they are not doing to stop the genocide. The Labour Government has suspended 30 arms export licences; that is an important move, but we need to go further. Indeed, I do not believe that we should be supplying any weapons or parts for F-35 planes.

We should stand up and be counted—we should be trying to stop the slaughter. The future of the region depends on it. If we believe in peace in the region, we have to stop what is happening in Gaza. We have to realise that the morality of the west depends on it. We cannot say that we are a nation of people who believe in morality if we are not prepared to do something to stop what is happening in Gaza.

As Bill Kidd was saying, there is death by starvation. On 16 June, nearly 200 people were killed at a Gaza aid centre when an Israeli tank opened fire—it was witnessed and documented. The International Committee of the Red Cross said on Monday that its field hospital in Gaza had received 200 patients, marking the highest number that the hospital had received. Before the aid distribution centres were set up, people were at least being fed. However, since they have been set up, people are not being fed, and children who go to get a bag of flour to feed their families are risking their lives.

The deliberate starvation of a population is a war crime, but to kill them while they are risking their lives to get food aid goes beyond even that. Words are not enough—only actions count here. There are clear breaches of international law on several counts. Israel, as the occupier, has an obligation to the people that it is responsible for, but it has not taken those responsibilities seriously.

The world can clearly see that this is a bid to destroy an entire people, and anyone who does not see that is not watching closely enough. We need to ask ourselves this: what platform are we using to stop it? Ordinary Israelis and significant Israeli figures know that the future of Israel actually depends on stopping Netanyahu from doing this. They believe in their country, and they believe that it is time to join forces with everybody else in the world who wants to stop it.

We, as politicians, must stand up and be counted, because we will be asked by our children and our grandchildren, when they see the horrors that have happened in the past 20 months, “What did you do to stop the genocide? What did you do to promote peace in the region of the middle east?” I, for one, have always said that I want peace for Israelis and security for Israel, but I want a sovereign, independent Palestinian state, too. I demand justice for the Palestinians.

Stephen Kerr said that Israel has a right to defend itself. How does he feel about the deliberate starvation of the Palestinian population in Gaza? In my speech, I said that there is evidence from eye witnesses that Israel has shot at people who have been queuing up for aid, and it is common knowledge, as reported in the Haaretz newspaper, that Israel has paid armed gangs to cause chaos at so-called humanitarian food distribution centres. Surely he is not justifying that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote was a yes.

My amendment 51 would ensure that national jurisdiction can be used only for the initial custody hearing and, beyond that, only with the agreement of the defence. Following that, jurisdiction should remain linked to the locus of the offence. Simon Brown from the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association said that:

“The issue is the plummeting number of defence solicitors available to deal with this work, and the concomitant difficulties that places on being able to deal with cases outwith one’s normal practice area. If we were in a situation where I had a Sheriff and Jury accused out on bail for a case, and I assume that it would be prosecuted at Kilmarnock, I would be faced with considerable logistical difficulties were that matter to be indicted in, say for example, Greenock.”

My amendment 52 would ensure that national jurisdiction would end at the point of liberation on bail. Further to that, Simon Brown also said, when I asked him, that:

“The issue is, though, that those fully committed for trial and therefore remanded in custody are only a relatively minor percentage of solemn cases. The vast majority of solemn proceedings commence with the case against the accused being continued for further examination and the accused liberated on bail. We would require a similar undertaking that national jurisdiction would end at the point of liberation on bail to make the system workable.”

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments 8 and 10, which provide the clarity that I was seeking at stage 1 about how far national jurisdiction would be allowable in relation to various proceedings. In simple terms, I think that that would not be the trial, but could be proceedings before that.

Although I am sure that I do not need to mention it again, you have heard from Sharon Dowey and from me about the crisis that we are experiencing in terms of the loss of criminal defence lawyers. That was mentioned in the press again this week. The Government does not seem to have taken that into account when legislating for national jurisdiction. We have to hope that everyone will be sensible about it and that we will not have lawyers or victims going up and down the country. It is less about victims, because the provisions relate to procedural hearings, but it will cause practical difficulties for defence lawyers and accused persons, particularly as people are leaving the criminal bar.

It is sensible to have national jurisdiction for custody hearings. My reading of the bill is that the default will be virtual appearances for custodies, which makes sense—you can see the efficiency in that. However, we must remember that national jurisdiction is about not just virtual but physical appearances. I am concerned about the practical impact on solicitors’ ability to conduct their business if they have to be in different sheriff courts for different things.

I want to check that I understand what you have said. National jurisdiction could apply up to full committal. That means that some hearings, such as procedural and preliminary hearings, could be held under national jurisdiction. Did you say that you expect national jurisdiction to be used mainly for custody appearances, or do you expect it to be used in other circumstances? The big problem is that, if hearings can be heard anywhere in Scotland prior to full committal, that might involve lawyers running up and down the country. Did you say that you expect the custody hearing—the first appearance—to be held under national jurisdiction?

Good morning. I thank the cabinet secretary and all her officials for their helpful exchanges, which helped me to understand some of the technicalities in the bill. Some of my amendments were drafted before we had our most recent conversation, so I ask people to bear that in mind.

I wish to probe some important issues relating to how the provisions on virtual attendance at our courts would be used. I am fully supportive of the principle of virtual attendance being a permanent feature of our courts, because that is important for the proper functioning of courts and, as Crown Office officials said in their very good evidence to the committee, it is important for victims who would not otherwise come to court. Excellent framework legislation on vulnerable witnesses has been introduced in successive parliamentary sessions, so the provisions do not stand alone.

Amendments 33, 35 to 37, 39 and 40 would give the Lord Justice General the power to issue a determination to change the default mode of attendance to virtual attendance in certain circumstances, but not for certain types of cases. I confess that, on reading the bill, some things were not clear to me. I think that, depending on the case and the type of trial or proceeding, virtual attendance would be for individuals. I note that the Lord Justice General has exercised the power quite sparingly, but, if we grant an extensive power, it could be used much more regularly.

The default mode of attendance being virtual already applies to certain types of hearings, including preliminary hearings, some sentencing hearings, full committal hearings and bail appeal hearings. I have no particular concerns about any of that, because those hearings are administrative in some senses and do not really involve witnesses, although the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association has raised concerns in relation to custody appearances. I want to be clear that the Lord Justice General, who has used the current powers in relation to those hearings, could not say that a category of trials, for example, should be virtual. I do not think that that is the case—the cabinet secretary is already shaking her head—but I want to be sure about where the powers stop and start.

Amendment 38 prescribes that, if virtual attendance is to be agreed, it must have the approval of both parties—the accused and the complainer. That is probably already accounted for. The cabinet secretary will probably say that the test is whether it is in the interests of justice for that to happen. That is fair enough, but I hope that she will appreciate that I am testing where the line is drawn for hearings that already have virtual attendance.

In its report, the committee highlighted an issue to do with

“the criteria which should be used by the Lord Justice General in making a determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular categories of case. The Bill does not elaborate on what the criteria should be, beyond that it should not prejudice the fairness of proceedings or be contrary to the interests of justice.”

The committee’s view is that there should be

“additional criteria which the Lord Justice General must take into account before making a determination.”

It is simply a case of taking a belt-and-braces approach in that regard.

During the committee’s evidence sessions, Sharon Dowey asked about the case for virtual appearances in custody cases. Paul Smith and Simon Brown had concerns about ensuring proper co-ordination with the person they were representing if there was virtual attendance. They also raised concerns about the issue of the quality of the connection, which I share. I will not go through those again, but I have seen that issue for myself.

I would have thought that, if we are going to rely much more on virtual attendance in courts, it would be a prerequisite to ensure that we are clear about where that approach can be used, and that the connection should be as good as it can be. In particular, we should ensure that virtual attendance does not detract from the current arrangements, especially—as Paul Smith said in his evidence—where an accused person has never been through the court process before. It would not be fair to prejudice their interests. It is important that we are clear that those aspects are all brought together in a satisfactory way.

I move amendment 33.

That was a helpful exchange. I just want to put on record that I hope that my intention here is not misunderstood—I do support the use of virtual attendance. The cabinet secretary has clarified that, whatever the location, the proceedings will be delivered with solemnity et cetera, which is important. I do not think that the committee should settle for anything less; if this is going to be a permanent feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, we have to ensure that it is done to everyone’s satisfaction. However, we all recognise that it can reduce delays and make things easier for victims.

I should say that it was not me who brought up the issue of locations. The Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association raised concerns about people giving evidence from home, and it was mentioned by another witness, too. That is why I addressed it. I share their concerns, although I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, and the cabinet secretary makes an important point when she says that someone could have a specific reason for giving evidence from home. I think that that would be okay, but I am not in favour of people giving evidence at home for the sake of convenience, because I do not believe that that would satisfy the test. I would prefer it if we nailed that issue down at stage 3 so that it is clear in the bill, because at the moment it is, as far as I can see, silent on the matter.

It is important that we future proof this legislation. I presume that, if we improve electronic connection, this approach might be used a bit more, and we have to be clear about when it can be used in the interests of justice.

I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about public officials and the giving of virtual evidence as a vital component of their work. However, I was surprised by the evidence from the police with regard to their concerns about it, for reasons that I think are, once again, related to connection.

I did not comment on Liam Kerr’s amendments at the time, but on his amendment 41, I am not clear about why that provision should apply in all circumstances. I can see why, in some circumstances, you might not publish the location. The location could be checked, for reasons that we have already discussed. In any case, I am not too clear about that; after all, if you give evidence in court, you are giving evidence in a known location with a known address.

I do support what was said about Liam Kerr’s amendment 43. If there is to be a report, it has to be about more than just gathering data. There are some reservations about whether virtual attendance is all that it is said to be, and I hope that the Government will consider what might be done to give us the kind of report that will mean something, given that this is a substantive—indeed, permanent—change. We did what we needed to do during the pandemic, but the fact that we did something then as a necessity to get through trials should not be an argument for continuing to do it now.

I hope that, before we close the door on this at stage 3, the Government will give more thought to it. That said, I will not be pressing amendment 34.

Thank you for that clarity. I was not aware that legislation on the matter existed prior to the pandemic, so it is useful to know that. That is fair enough.

However, I still say that, given that the bill’s purpose is to modernise—to make those things permanent—you must envisage greater use being made of that power. However, the bill is silent on when it can be used. What we are here to do when we legislate is to correct anything that might not have been right in the first place. That might just involve being satisfied that the requirements for the conditions under which this approach would be allowed are clear to the Parliament before we put it in the legislation as a way of modernising the court system and making that better.

Amendment 34, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 35 to 42 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

Amendment 43 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Digital productions