³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning. I am afraid that I, too, have been damp squibbed—if there is such a term—by Jamie Greene, but I will pick up on the line of questioning about the dates that have been specified. I have some concerns that, as other members have said, those could be open to challenge. I would like to be reassured that there is not something more that we could do to help with the intent of that bit of the bill as we move through the legislative process.

I know that local authorities are able to have organised displays and the like, but do you think that there is an argument for them to have more power to set specific dates for their area? All three of the previous speakers have asked about this issue. There are other religious events during the year, and there are also one-off events that might be important to people. Do you have any thoughts on whether local authorities could have an application scheme, for example?

No, I am happy with that, convener. The previous questioners covered the main thrust of what I was going to ask about.

Good morning to the witnesses. You might have heard some of the questions on this area during the earlier evidence session. Quite a few of us had questions about the specific restrictions that are proposed in the bill around the limit on days and times when fireworks can be sold and used. What do you think of those restrictions and do you have any concerns about the legislation specifying certain days?

Okay, thanks. I am happy to leave it there. Those have been two really good answers about those particular restrictions and it is good to have them on the record.

Good morning, cabinet secretary—it is still morning. A couple of months ago, or it might have been more than that, the committee met some vulnerable witnesses who had been through the court system, and we heard the harrowing experiences of witnesses and victims—in some cases, alleged victims—of some of the most harrowing offences, which you will know about. The committee committed to making sure that their experiences, although they were given to us privately, would be fed back when we got the opportunity to do so.

On that basis, I want to go back to an earlier part of our discussion when we talked about the evidence that we heard from defence lawyers last week about needing to see the accuser and interpret body language. We have heard that, if people who had experienced such offences presented as confident and capable, things went against them—or, at least, they felt that they did—and that the same happened if they broke down.

It is worth highlighting that context to indicate why I—and, I know, other members—support a move towards having more remote hearings and ensuring that as many vulnerable witnesses as possible do not have to be present in court. The previous evidence session was really good, as it confirmed that the court system would still have the power to have hearings in person if that was appropriate for all parties.

You probably answered the main part of my question in your opening statement and in your responses to my colleague Jamie Greene, but what I want to know is how much the proposed legislation is actually needed to let us move towards a more remote system that protects vulnerable witnesses, particularly in the most high-profile domestic abuse cases. Does the Parliament need to pass the bill to help us meet that objective?

I do not have any specific questions that have not already been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I have a thought, rather than a question. It is obviously not ideal to be in a situation where we are looking to extend these things but I think that we are all in the same boat there. We are living in difficult times and, as was highlighted at the start, the pandemic is still with us, so, in certain areas where people are living closer together, such as prisons, we still need to err on the side of caution.

Yes—just briefly, convener.

I think that we are all a bit worried about the backlog and what it might mean. I hear that from you, and it was really good to hear at the start that you think that we are on track to have the backlog cleared.

I want to ask about other possible solutions or options that you might have in relation to minor offences. How would cases be identified and prioritised if prosecutions of such offences were no longer taken forward?

Given the time period, how will you take into account changes in people’s circumstances? I will give two examples. You have said that those on remand are a priority, but somebody could have already been on remand for longer than the maximum disposal. We would imagine that that would be taken into account.

There are also more minor situations in communities in which people are not remanded. Would there be scope to look at situations that have almost resolved themselves? We know that it happens quite a lot that the accused and the victim repair the situation themselves. Are such circumstances taken into account when you prioritise cases?

Thank you. You have addressed the issue that I was getting at, which was about the public interest in such cases. If people are spending significant periods of time on remand, their situation can change significantly, particularly in cases involving more minor offences.

There is probably more public interest in continuing with more serious cases, because they can involve psychological and emotional abuse, too. That is not the case in more minor cases. I had in mind the example of youth offending. A kid could have been 16 at the time of an offence. If the case has been going on for a long time, they might be 20, by which time they might have repaired some of the issues with their community. I will not labour the point.

Convener, I have a question as well.

I will let Jamie Greene go first.