Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me, cabinet secretary, as I order my thoughts, but I heard that amendments 44 and 45 would not work because of the progress that is being made on digital evidence sharing capacity—DESC—which the committee heard about and was very positive about. On a legislative level, should the law be led by what is happening in practice, or should the law seek to lead, such that the practice follows?

Has any research and investigation been done, prior to the laying of the instrument, into the impact of reducing the threshold for time served to 15 per cent on victims and/or on the general public’s respect for and perception of sentencing in Scotland, given that a criminal can be sentenced to prison but may serve only 15 per cent of their sentence inside?

Finally, you said that there would be more people out on HDC—although not significantly more, to be fair. Logically, your 7 per cent failure rate will increase if more people are subject to the regime. Ultimately, it is for the SPS to consider breaches and whether or not to recall people. What research has been done on the SPS’s freedom to make a decision, given the context, which is that our prisons are full? Does that stay the SPS’s hand when deciding whether to recall people from HDC?

I would be grateful if you could do that.

I understand the point that is being made, but if that is right, why not simply provide that the sum will be increased by the level of inflation, so that it is tied not to crime inflation but to fiscal inflation? If the cabinet secretary is not minded to do that, under which circumstances could she envisage increasing the level of fiscal fines?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her contribution to the debate, but I am afraid that I do not accept the argument. If the issue was truly about sticking at an appropriate level and not crime inflation, as it were, I cannot see why we would not make rises from the £500 level based only on inflation. The committee has already seen the consequences of fiscal fines, with the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association telling us its view that shoplifting is effectively decriminalised, which I mentioned earlier.

I listened with great interest to the cabinet secretary, and I am sympathetic to an awful lot of what she put before us. I might counter that, although the Lord President is, of course, the head of the service and is independent, surely, in the system that we have, ministers must have some oversight of what is going on. Bear in mind that I am not asking for an opinion; I am asking for some way of scrutinising compliance with the timescales and the ability of the service to meet the timescales, and for this Parliament and the Government to help to properly resource the system to make sure that it works as well as possible.

We heard very powerful testimony, which I referred to earlier, about what is happening in the courts and what might happen when the timescales revert, which I am sure causes fellow committee members great concern.

That said, I think that the cabinet secretary spoke persuasively, and I accept that my amendment is perhaps not the right route to achieve my aims, so I will not press it to a vote today. I would like to work with the cabinet secretary offline to work out what the best way of achieving the end game is—I know that the cabinet secretary is receptive to that sort of thing—because I suspect that we share the drive to do things as efficiently as possible and in the best way that we can. However, I accept that there might be a better way to do that than through amendment 55. For that reason, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 55.

Amendment 55, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9—Domestic homicide or suicide review

What does the data show will be the impact of the reduction on rehabilitation? Arguably, if there is less time in prison, there is less time for prison rehabilitation to work and to prepare people for the outside. One would hope that the data is robust, but I ask the question because it could look like just another way to empty the prisons, with criminals serving ever-shorter sentences, at 15 per cent.

The definition point is a good one and I propose to vote for it. I am looking back at our report and see that many witnesses expressed concern about widening the definition, so I understand why the amendments are being made. However, there were witnesses who said that they prefer the original definition as drafted and gave various reasons for that. What does the cabinet secretary say to them? Obviously, their view is not the preferred view.

My amendments 41 and 43 are both relevant to section 2, which deals with virtual attendance at court. When we look at what section 2 does, we need to ask whether, as drafted, it covers all necessary matters. On page 6 of the bill, proposed new section 303K of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 addresses the ability to attend by electronic means. That section states that someone who is excused from a requirement to physically attend court must do so by electronic means

“in accordance with a direction issued by the court.”

Proposed new section 303K(3) sets out what that direction should include. My amendment 41 simply asks that one part of that direction is

“to set out the location of where the person is to appear by electronic means”.

That reflects concerns that were raised in the committee’s report, which said:

“We recommend that the Bill is amended to include an additional requirement for the court to issue a direction in relation to the appropriateness of the location from which an individual participates, to address the concerns highlighted in evidence.”

It is, of course, entirely at the court’s discretion to determine what and where that location might be, and it would naturally take into account all the facts of the case.

On a practical level, I presume that that would be done only after consultation with the person concerned on the appropriateness of the locations that were available to them.

I move to amendment 43. Virtual attendance will be a pretty new concept to us, so the question is whether it will work. I think that it will, but there is a much remarked-on dearth of data and outputs in this Parliament generally. I seek to remedy that in amendment 43, at least at this level, because I am seeking to insert a new section—after section 2—to require a report on how the virtual attendance is working. The report would cover various elements such as reliability and resourcing, and I would like it to be published no later than two years after section 2 comes into force.

Again, that is in line with concerns that witnesses raised with the committee about virtual appearances being dependent on proper resourcing and current issues with technology. I remind the committee that the sheriffs principal told us:

“We would observe that virtual hearings are heavily dependent on the adequate resourcing of technology and infrastructure.”

The Faculty of Advocates told us:

“These undoubted and important benefits do come at a cost to the justice system. Valuable court time is regularly lost due to delays in establishing remote links and reestablishing failed remote links.”

That is also in line with a letter that I have received from the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which I can make available to anyone who requests it. I raised questions about the operation of virtual courts, and, in response, it was conceded that

“SCTS does receive feedback that live links are not always as effective as they could be.”

Therefore, my amendment 43 seeks to have a report on what is happening once the measure is brought in.

For completeness, I listened carefully to Pauline McNeill’s representations earlier on. If her amendment 34 goes through, I do not entirely understand how the costs and logistics might work. I will listen carefully to Pauline McNeill’s closing remarks, but, at this stage, I am not persuaded by amendment 34.

Similarly, I am not persuaded by Pauline McNeill’s amendment 37, as I worry about fettering the courts’ discretion and ability to manoeuvre. Again, I will listen carefully to her closing remarks.