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.

That is an extremely helpful question. The answer will depend partly on the appetite of the cross-party groups in question. Among those people who are currently involved in the work to establish the proposed cross-party group, there is very much a willingness and a desire to work with existing cross-party groups.

To use the example that has been given—education—Erasmus is a massive issue, and the organisations that are already involved in the proposed cross-party group are disproportionately in the education sector. So, in the early days, that would be a big issue on which we would need to work with other cross-party groups. We would attempt to be very sensitive to the work that is already taking place and to work collaboratively. If another cross-party group was already leading on an issue, that would be an argument that perhaps we should focus on another area.

The post-Brexit issues are potentially massive, and I have no doubt that there will be a continuing debate about those. For example, some people are arguing that there should be a softer form of Brexit and that we should rejoin the single market. Those debates might or might not become big debates over time, and I would hope that there would be a range of views within the proposed cross-party group—there should not be a presumption that there would be one view. I suspect that we would want to have a range of views and to have that discussion. That is the nature of a cross-party group, and I hope that that is how the proposed group would develop.

No, there is no particular reason for that. We would welcome representation from that party. As I said, it is important that there is an understanding and recognition of the fact that there might be a range of views within the group. I suspect that there is probably already a range of views on many issues among the members who are listed, and that range might expand. It is a case of grappling with the issues and having the discussion in a way that is less heated than might be the case in the chamber—a genuine exchange of ideas and information. I hope that the group will be a forum in which that can happen.

Some members of the proposed group are very keen that we use it as a vehicle to find out more about what is happening in the European Union and to foster direct relations with European politicians and parts of the various European structures—not just the European Union—to find out more about what they are doing with regard to guest speakers and other events that would provide information and a better understanding of what is happening in other parts of Europe.

The group’s focus will be partly determined by what the members of the group want to do and the events that they want, but the group will be pan-European rather than focused on any specific issue. If a lot of work was already happening in the Parliament or in another cross-party group on one particular area, that would be an argument for our focusing on something different. I imagine that that would be how it would develop. We might well have some joint events, which I hope would be successful.

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.