���˿���

Amendment 1036 refers to “an appearance from custody”. Can the member confirm that her intention is for it to apply to those who have been arrested and are held in a police station and not to those who are in a custodial sentence environment?

I thank members for their contributions thus far. I have a couple of short comments to make. There are probably things that we can agree on. All the amendments in the group, including mine, are very well intended.

Nobody wants cases to time out. That is not a scenario that any Government wishes, and that has necessitated extensions, unwelcome as they are to everyone in the system. It remains the fact that there was a considerable backlog of cases before the pandemic and it is entirely true that the pandemic has added to the pressures on the courts and all partners in that process.

Equally, however, I hope that we all agree that nobody wants temporary extensions to become the new norm. We have heard concerns about there being a bit of mission creep, with statutory maximum time limits continuing to be extended for substantial periods of a couple of years for the wrong reason. For me, the right reason would be to ensure that cases did not time out due to circumstances, while the wrong reason for extending for long periods of time would be to deal with backlogs, given that they would be matters of resource, capacity and capability in the court system. As for whether it is right to extend criminal procedure time limits in that way, I have to say that I believe that the extensions are lengthy—320 days is a substantial period of time—and I hope that we will agree that the measures must be temporary and that the limits must drop back.

We are arguing that this proposal is the best way of doing this, because if we do it the other way and make the case-by-case approach the default, as Pauline McNeill has alluded to, it would undoubtedly lead to a huge volume of traffic in the system, with the courts and those involved in the process seeking to extend thousands and or even tens of thousands of cases.

I will, in a second, but it is important that I address my amendment first.

The way in which we can address this issue is via amendment 1022, which seeks to insert a duty to carry out a

“Review on extension of this chapter”.

In other words,

“Scottish Ministers must undertake a review at the end of each reporting period on the operation of the provisions in this chapter”,

which covers criminal procedure time limits and their extension. The amendment goes on to say:

“A review ... must consider whether the provisions in this chapter remain necessary.”

That is the important line.

I have specifically asked for the review to be carried out every three months. It could be argued that that would be onerous, but I point out that the original coronavirus legislation that we passed put a statutory duty on the Government to carry out a review every two months, and it became quite normal practice for the Government. I therefore do not think that three months is an unreasonable period of time.

I will take the intervention, if there is time.

This will be a record-breaking short speech. My amendment would ensure that a prisoner could not be released more than six months before their scheduled release date. It is a one-line amendment and is fairly self-explanatory. The rationale for it will become obvious to committee members. A prisoner being released any more than six months before the scheduled release date runs the real risk of rendering the sentence meaningless, and for all the reasons that have been eloquently expressed by my colleague on his amendments, it feels intrinsically unfair and unjustifiable in that context. For that reason, I will move my amendment.

It sounds like a lot, but it is not. I will deal with amendments 1031, 1032 and 1033 first. On the face of it, these are technical amendments, but they seek to achieve some of what Mr Simpson was trying to do, which is to revert scrutiny of the regulations from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. Regulations made under sections 39, 40 and 41 are currently split between two different procedures, so that is the rationale for those amendments. I do not think that we need to rehearse too much the arguments for why that is helpful and appropriate, given the debate that we have just had.

I will briefly address the other two amendments in the group. Amendment 1029 is on the expiration of the temporary justice measures and their subsequent potential extension. As we know, the measures in the bill that are temporary, as opposed to permanent, are due to expire on 30 November 2023. However, ministers may, by regulation, defer that expiration date by one year, until no later than November 2025. That is fine—we have debated that, too. Amendment 1029 seeks to ensure that such extension may not take place without consultation with victims organisations, to seek their views on such modifications. Again, it will not come as a huge surprise to members that I feel that that is appropriate, given the effect that the extension will have on such organisations, which have been widely quoted in relation to a wide range of issues in our debate. I hope that it is not a contentious proposal, given the subject matter that we are considering.

However, amendment 1030 is slightly different. It would add a new section, “Review of temporary justice measures”, after the bill’s provision on the expiry of such measures. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section sums up the position quite nicely by saying that ministers

“must review and report on the operation and effectiveness of the temporary justice measures in this Act.”

They must then publish a report on the review, lay a copy of it before Parliament and

“consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”

I have intentionally left that wording quite loose—for example, I have not gone into great detail about what should be in the report. We have already had debates about being overly restrictive or specific about what reports can or cannot do and about the people to whom ministers should or should not talk. However, I feel that, if we are to extend the temporary justice measures until 2025—which is a long time away—it would be appropriate that ministers conduct a review of the measures’ operation and effectiveness, report back to Parliament and give members a chance to scrutinise them properly in due course.

I move amendment 1029.

I have a brief question, given that the only evidence that the committee is taking is from the Government. Could the cabinet secretary summarise or paraphrase how the legal profession has received the change and whether the permanent changes that are proposed have been positively received or otherwise?

I welcome the comments that have been made on amendments 1029 and 1030. We all want amendments that are fit for purpose, and I will work with the Government on these particular ones.

That said, the points that I have made on amendments 1031, 1032 and 1033 are important, so I will move them. Again, the Government is seeking to make a technical argument about the affirmative procedure taking too long, but the effect is that it simply avoids the Parliament’s due scrutiny of its proposals.

Amendment 1029, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 40 agreed to.

After section 40

Amendment 1030 not moved.

Section 41 agreed to.

Section 42—Regulations under this Part

Amendment 1031 moved—[Jamie Greene].

My question is more of a technical one. The problem with amendment 1036 as drafted is that it simply removes an appearance from custody as an exclusion altogether, which means that it cannot happen. Notwithstanding the concerns that you have validIy raised, if an accused who is held in custody agreed to and was happy with virtual hearings, would it not be better to have some flexibility in that respect? Perhaps the issue can be addressed at stage 3.

Amendment 84 is quite self-explanatory—unusually for an amendment—and is based on the premise of an appeals process. It says:

“The Scottish Ministers must provide information to a person about how the person may appeal—

(a) at the point of applying for a fireworks licence under section 9,

(b) when a decision has been made by the Scottish Ministers under section 14(1).”

Information would be given up front to an applicant for a licence about the application process and about the appeal process in the scenario in which their application was rejected.

I intentionally did not go into great detail about who, when and where; in the spirit of being helpful, I thought that that information could be clarified before stage 3 or in regulations. As public awareness of the licensing scheme develops, and given our debate last week about taking account criminal convictions and other factors, there is the possibility that some applications will be rejected. Those people will want to know why, and how to appeal the decision.

That approach would be in line with other licensing schemes that include some form of independent appeals process. As I said, I have not gone into detail: I just ask that the information be given to applicants at specific points in the process. It would be for ministers to make regulations in that regard.

I hope that this is a helpful discussion point that will elicit from the minister information about what an appeal process might look like.

I move amendment 84.

That is my point. My amendments ask the Government to go away, have a proper think about the dates and come back to us. The committee could then have the debate again, quickly and soon. It will not make sense to people that two religions—or arguably three, if we include the Christian religion—have been included, with the Government being specific about the dates on which fireworks are permitted to be used, but others have been excluded. As you said, the wider public will not understand why this is included but that is excluded. Whether an awareness-raising exercise needs to take place is another matter.