Chamber and committees

My substantive question was going to be about how you intend to set up the framework to allow members of the public to make a complaint if they think that their data has been misused. However, from what you have said, I now wonder how a member of the public would even know how to go about that or that their data had been abused. Maybe you could speak about that.

Your evidence suggests to me that there is a massive gap in your role. Do you think that it should be expanded? I am sorry that I did not catch all of Jamie Greene’s contribution, but I am familiar with what happened with Glasgow’s CCTV cameras, and where the equipment was bought from is relevant, because that is controversial. Every weekend in Glasgow, there are protests and marches, some of which are controversial. Members of the public are probably concerned about being on CCTV, and want to ensure that the footage is used properly and is not abused. The police use CCTV, as do many other organisations, but there is a divide between the police using it and local authorities and private companies using it. That seems to be a very messy area.

You have produced a code on the substantive issues for which you are responsible, but should not your office, or another office, have some overarching view on the use and collection of surveillance data in which anyone’s face appears, whether it is detailed or not? That is what has surprised me about today’s evidence session.

On the question of surveillance that comes under local authorities, is it part of your role to ensure that those surveillance systems are not being abused? Who checks that?

When you were talking just now, I thought you were going to mention that, certainly in England, local authorities have been using surveillance to try to catch parents out in relation to school catchment areas. That seems to cross a line in some respects. I do not think that it has happened in Scotland.

I accept that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service but, as a legislator, I have had arguments over the years that they ought to provide more information because, at the end of the day, we are being asked to make a decision that might impact on the people whom we represent.

I do not disagree with anything that you have said, cabinet secretary, and it might be said that it is a matter for the committee, if it is concerned about this at all, to ask the Crown Office to clarify the situation for stage 3. However, I am clear in my mind that it is not unreasonable for us, as legislators, to ask the Crown Office this question: if we were to extend the fine to £500, albeit on a temporary basis, what breadth of summary offences would it be used for? I have to say that, in my experience, such requests have been refused, and I want to put it on the record that I disagree with the Crown Office if its position is not to provide us, as legislators, with some transparency about how it would use an extra £200.

Also for the record, I totally acknowledge Fulton McGregor’s contribution. Fiscal fines are really important for all the reasons that he has mentioned. My only disagreement is that, as legislators, we are entitled to have an understanding before we press our buttons and say yes or no to the powers that we are giving the Crown Office to prosecute people or not. It is wrong for us to be in the dark on that.

Amendment 1036 is specific to appearances from custody in police stations. It does not interfere with any of the other discussions about the balance for victims in the system. Victims are not involved in that process. If someone appears from custody physically, they get to see their solicitor, they appear in court and, arguably, the process goes more smoothly. For a period, we did not do that. I thought that you might be unclear about that. For that reason, amendment 1036 is the amendment that I am interested to press.

I am very sympathetic to what Russell Findlay is trying to achieve here. I have felt over the years that, when there is a request or a proposal to extend fiscal fines, it is important that, as legislators, we are clear about the parameters of how that is used. I think that it has been difficult to get that information in the past. I also think that it is fair, in those circumstances, for victims to be told.

I know anecdotally of cases in which people have said, “Well, I did have a defence, but I just thought that, rather than go through the court process, I would accept a fiscal fine.”

The member is quite right. I am not opposed to flexibility; I am trying to prevent the kind of automatic virtual appearance that we seem to have at the moment. If the Government was prepared to consider the default position, that would be preferable, but my concern is that it will just say, “It has been agreed by the Scottish Parliament that we can take it up to 2025 and then make the default virtual.” No one will be satisfied with that.

I suppose that it will not be the same in every court, but I have seen the quality of the link in Glasgow sheriff court. If we cannot get it right in the biggest court in the country, what is it like in other places? The cabinet secretary can correct me if I am wrong about that.

I do not know whether the cabinet secretary wants to say anything else before I conclude. I am inclined to move amendment 1036, but Jamie Greene has made quite an important point. It is not my intention not to allow flexibility, but it is my intention not to allow the Government to go to 2025 and then say that virtual appearances are satisfactory, just because we have backlogs. That would concern me a lot.

I agree with the member whole-heartedly on that—there is a bigger picture, and that is the point that needs to be addressed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people pay their fiscal fines because, even though they have a defence, they think, “Well, paying a fine is easier than going through a court process.”

The figure of 39 per cent may include people who wanted to go to court and did not pay the fiscal fine because they felt that they had a defence. There are a lot of different factors involved. However, in principle, I agree that we need more information in that regard.

We have been here before, many years ago, when we extended the bar from £100 to £300. The Parliament is being asked to confer extensive powers, albeit on a temporary basis. If they were to be conferred on a permanent basis, I would certainly be voting against increasing the bar to £500.

May I intervene on that point, cabinet secretary? I apologise for not addressing this matter previously.

Do you share my concern that, if Parliament agreed to the time limits, the court could still use the 1995 act cause shown provisions to extend them further? That is why I have lodged my amendment—it would make the test higher. Will the Government not even consider what would happen if we found that cases were being extended beyond 320 days? The cause shown test is a very low threshold.

I will not move the amendment on the basis that I need to consider for stage 3 whether it introduces new policy.

Amendment 1056 not moved.

Section 43 agreed to.

After section 43

Amendment 1004 moved—[Keith Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 44—Effect of early release from prison or young offenders institution by virtue of regulations

Amendment 1057 moved—[Russell Findlay].

Okay. On that basis and in good faith, I will not press amendment 1035 or move amendment 1036.

Amendment 1035, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 1005 and 1006 moved—[Keith Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendment 1036 not moved.

Amendment 1007 moved—[Keith Brown]—and agreed to.

Amendment 1010 not moved.