Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I apologise that I was not in attendance at the previous meeting; I had transportation issues. I am sorry for the inconvenience that that would have caused. I am delighted to be here today, and I hope to persuade you that a cross-party group on Europe should be established. I believe that there is interest in such a group among members and that there is very much the space for the kinds of discussion that it would take part in.

Obviously, on occasion, there would be overlap with other cross-party groups, and I suspect that we may wish to have joint events. However, many of the issues that a cross-party group on Europe would cover—for example, post-Brexit issues and our relationship with the European Union specifically and Europe more generally—will not be covered by other cross-party groups. There is an appetite for the group, and many discussions could take place in it that would be of use and that would not necessarily take place in other cross-party groups.

Yes, that is correct. For example, the cross-party group on Poland is quite active, including on the rights of EU citizens. Clearly, that is an issue for a number of cross-party groups, particularly the specific European country groups. I hope that the proposed CPG on Europe might bring some of that work together. I do not think that it would undermine any of the work that is being done by any specific group. The cross-party group on Poland will be very focused on the Polish community, whereas the cross-party group on Europe would look at issues on a pan-European basis, as you say. However, the issues are basically the same or very similar in relation to every country. There are also a number of countries for which there is no cross-party group, and the proposed cross-party group on Europe might pick up some issues for specific communities that are not covered by any of the stand-alone European country groups.

I suspect that, like most cross-party groups, we will react to events. The agenda will be dictated by the issues on which we think there is a desire and an appetite for a debate. From my perspective and, I think, from the perspective of all the members listed as having attended meetings so far, there is very much a wish to work collaboratively and to look at ways of doing that. Sometimes, the problem is that we do not know that somebody else is already doing work on a particular matter, but it is our job to find out exactly what is happening and to ensure that we do not undermine the work of any other group.

I was interested in the cabinet secretary’s points about the justifications for the time limits that are being sought. I am sympathetic to the problems that definitely exist with the court estate, and I might write to the cabinet secretary to seek more information on where the pressures are. I appreciate the difficulty in addressing some of those issues in a speedy way. It has to be said that the time limits that the Scottish Government seeks are extensive and we would want further justification as to why they are required, but I will not press or move any of my amendments on the time limits today.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his comments in relation to amendment 1021. As we might be able to come back to that issue later, I will not move that amendment at this point.

Amendment 1011, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 1012 and 1013 not moved.

Amendment 1001 moved—[Brian Whittle].

Will the member take an intervention?

In speaking to my amendments, I referred to Crown and defence capacity in relation to time limits, but are you saying that court capacity is the main driver for needing to extend the time limits?

My understanding is that, if fiscal fines did not exist, the prosecution would have to decide whether to prosecute a case and whether they felt that they could prove the case in court and it was in the public interest to take that forward. Is that your understanding of the position?

Amendment 1034 is a relatively simple amendment that asks for the Scottish Government to provide Parliament with six-monthly reports from January 2023 on the operation of virtual courts, which would enable effective scrutiny. We have already heard from Pauline McNeill about virtual appearances for people in custody. On occasion, those arrangements could be described only as shambolic. The reports should be not so much about the principle of virtual attendance but about how the system is operating in reality, although issues of principle might also be involved.

Jamie Greene spoke about the disappointing responses that many in the profession gave on the operation of virtual courts and about the concerns that they have raised.

We know that there have been very few virtual courts up until now. The committee has not looked in a great amount of detail at the pilot in the north-east, which involved a relatively small number of cases, but it has heard some evidence about it. Some of the content of the report that we saw was quite surprising. One of the concerns was that such courts would operate against the defence and would result in more convictions but, according to that report, the opposite was the case. However, as I said, the pilot involved a very small number of cases. That highlights that virtual courts might not operate in the way that we think they will operate.

The decisions that we make are important, because we could be making massive changes to the legal system in Scotland.

That is correct. The cabinet secretary said that the Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise proposed legislation that would make virtual courts a permanent fixture of the legal system. If information was shared regularly with the Parliament and the committee, that process would be far more meaningful. As a member of the committee, I know that it took us some time to get information on how virtual courts operated during the pandemic. If a structure was in place that enabled more regular reporting and that required officials to provide that information, there could be more effective scrutiny, and the outcome would be that Parliament would be more likely to make better decisions. That is what this is all about.

In reality, very few cases have gone ahead on a fully virtual basis. Instead, elements of cases have been dealt with on a virtual basis—for example, juries have attended virtually from cinemas. In general, from what I can gather, that seems to have worked well, but there will no doubt be other views on that. It seems likely that some aspects of cases, particularly those relating to case management, lend themselves better to virtual appearances.

My apologies.

With the exception of amendment 1021, which is on reporting, all the amendments that I have lodged in the group are probing amendments that relate to the current extension of time limits, which the Scottish Government suggests should continue. The examples that I will give are illustrative. I will not speak to every amendment, because there are so many of them, but I will provide a flavour of them.

Allowing the bill to pass would have the effect of extending the 11-month pre-Covid time limit for the time from appearance and petition to pre-trial hearing to 17 months, as provided for in the emergency legislation. The lead amendment in the group suggests that, instead, that period should be increased to only 13 months. I will provide another illustrative example. The emergency legislation extended the time for which someone was allowed to remain on remand until the pre-trial hearing from 110 days to 290 days. Amendment 1016 proposes that that should be allowed to increase to only 200 days.

The periods that I have chosen are arbitrary and not evidence based because I have not seen any evidence to justify why, for example, 290 days are required to prepare between the time when someone is taken into custody and the pre-trial hearing. The purpose of amendments 1011 to 1020 is to try to tease out from the Scottish Government the reasoning and justification for why the amount of time that is specified in the bill is necessary.

It must always be said that, in Scots law, there is provision for time limits to be extended on cause shown. It is therefore always possible to go to court to make a case as to why the Crown does not have sufficient time and needs further time to prepare the case for trial. However, the effect of the legislation that has been in place during Covid is that the amount of time for which people are held in custody before they are taken to court and their case is heard has been extended significantly. Many organisations have raised human rights concerns and many consider the time extension to be draconian. The issue before us is whether the extensions are necessary and will continue to be so during the period for which the bill’s provisions will be in place if it is enacted.

The backdrop is that we still have the highest number of people in prison in Europe. I say “still” because it is an historical issue, and it is important for the Parliament to explore it. Why is it that, historically, Britain in general has had high numbers of people in prison, but Scotland in particular has always had higher numbers of people in prison than the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the rest of Europe? We also have an historical problem of high remand rates, which increased staggeringly during the Covid pandemic. We were informed in evidence a number of weeks ago that the remand rates in Scottish prisons are currently at 30 per cent. We were previously told that the figure was 27 per cent. It would be interesting to know whether it has increased again.

The extension of the time limits will almost inevitably lead to an increase in prisoner numbers. We already have a huge problem with prison overcrowding, and it will simply not be possible to build more prisons and create more prison spaces under the timescales in the bill.

Some people are found not guilty at trial after lengthy periods in custody or receive lesser sentences than the period for which they were held on remand. The committee has spoken about that previously and mentioned it in previous reports. Also, given that there is always a tendency in almost any establishment for people to work to deadlines, the concern must be that, if the deadlines are longer, there will be less pressure to ensure that cases are prepared as speedily as possible.

Amendments 1011 to 1020 are probing amendments. They are not evidence based, in the sense that I have not taken evidence on or been able to justify the time limits that I propose. However, I submit to the committee and put it to the Government that the Government has also not presented evidence as to why the time limits in the bill are necessary. Indeed, many people in the legal profession insist that the amount of time that is provided for is not needed by the Crown or the defence. The impact of the time limits on the system has been very significant and it has in large part resulted in some of the problems that the committee has discussed on many occasions.

I might come back to the issue at a later stage but, at this stage, I ask the Scottish Government to justify why the specific lengths of time extension in the bill have been sought, are in place and should be continued.

Amendment 1021, which is on reporting, is similar to the amendment on reporting that I spoke to earlier, but it relates to the issue of remand. As I said, we already have the highest remand figures in the whole of Europe. I will not rehearse all the arguments about that, as members have already heard them.

Amendment 1021 seeks to require the Scottish ministers to lay before the Scottish Parliament

“as soon as practicable at the end of each reporting period”,

which is every six months, a report that sets out the number of prisoners who are being held on remand, the average length of time for which prisoners are being held on remand pre-trial and information on disposals—in other words, whether people received a custodial sentence or a non-custodial sentence, or were found not guilty. The first period for which that requirement would be in place would be the period from royal assent until 31 January 2023.

We have already discussed in relation to virtual trials the significance of information that relates to the scrutiny process. For the Parliament to effectively scrutinise very serious issues around which there are significant human rights concerns, not just for the accused but for all who are involved in the process, including the victim, the more information that can be provided to and shared with the Parliament, the better. The inclusion of such a requirement in the bill would send a strong message to the civil service and the justice system about the level of scrutiny that the Parliament expects to have in relation to such decisions.

I move amendment 1011.