���˿���

I appreciate that other members have questions, so I am happy to leave it there, convener.

Yes, there is a big difference. Most people would agree with the premise that the ability for witnesses not to be in the same room as the accused has been beneficial in many cases, such as the examples that you listed, including the protection of vulnerable witnesses, especially in domestic abuse cases. However, to be fair, that ability existed before the pandemic.

I want to follow up on a point that the convener made, which you picked up on. You said that, overall, the feedback—admittedly from sheriffs—had been positive, but you also mentioned defence. We have heard quite the opposite. I will quote a point that was made by a representative of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, which the convener raised earlier. They said:

“I can say—on behalf of the vast majority of the profession, I think—that the experience has ... been nothing but a resounding failure.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 2 March 2022; c 13.]

That is quite a stark comment to make to the Criminal Justice Committee. Do you simply disagree with that assertion or will you agree to disagree with it?

The big difference is that we are moving from a system of application where, if all parties agree to it, the trial can proceed as a virtual trial. From members’ lines of questioning, it sounds as though there has been a relatively low volume of cases, so it is difficult to see what effect the move to virtual trials has had on outcomes, which is the key point.

Katy Clark made the point that it might be prudent to perform a much wider pilot involving a larger volume of virtual trials to see what the outcome of that would be. The bill proposes to make virtual trials the default, which would mean that people would have to apply for a trial not to be virtual, which represents a complete reversal of the current situation. The key point is that what is proposed is not an extension of, but a big change from, what we are currently doing.

Please give me a second, convener—I was expecting to ask questions on early release, but I will do it in that order.

I do not have a huge amount to ask about time limits, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary has already listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed on the issue. In the previous evidence session, I reiterated the need for limits to be extended to ensure that cases do not expire or time out in any way. No one wants that to happen. However, there is concern about the length of time and the possibility that, because of the backlog, the limits might be permanent rather than temporary. Why might you need a long-term power to extend time limits, given that the proposed limits go way beyond anything ever experienced in the Scottish legal system and, in some cases, beyond international norms, standards and laws?

So you deem the power to be proportionate. When will it expire? Will it be in 2025, as set out in the sunset clause?

On 21 March, most, if not all, Covid-related emergency measures will be relaxed in Scotland, so why do ministers need another two and a bit years of powers to extend time limits other than simply as a result of the backlog? The power is not necessarily directly related to health emergencies; it is simply a means to the end of clearing the backlog and ensuring that cases do not time out. That is a fair criticism.

That is helpful. I am all for consultation, as the cabinet secretary knows.

Some of the other issues raised were about the practicalities. We have heard criticism of how some business has been conducted virtually or electronically. The main gripe from the defence sector seems to be about the inability to work one to one with an accused—the inability to sit with them in the same room and counsel them appropriately. Has that concern been taken on board? There seemed to be much disagreement among the members of the earlier panel about how much of a problem that is for solicitors or the bar, who seem to think that the whole thing is just an unmitigated disaster, according to the evidence that has been given to us. On the other hand, other witnesses seem to think that it has been an unmitigated success.

I do not know where the reality sits; it seems to be one witness’s word against another. Where does the Government think the reality sits?

I do not—it is not a rhetorical question; I do not know the answer. I am sorry that I missed the figures you gave earlier.

That is helpful, as was your analysis of the differences.

I have a wider question for the cabinet secretary. As a society, we are—to use the phrase that is used—learning to live with Covid. As you said, there were 11,000 cases yesterday, but we are heading on a path that involves moving away from restrictions and, we hope, life being back to normal in as much as it can be, although Covid will still be around.

That does not seem to be the case in the prison environment, where higher levels of restrictions are being maintained relative to those for wider society. Is that a proportionate use of temporary powers, given that we in society are no longer in a temporary emergency and are simply living with a long-term pandemic, with the virus becoming endemic?

How will you decide which cases to prioritise? For example, will cases in which a person is being held on remand versus cases in which a person is not being held on remand but is on licence or on bail be prioritised? Will gender-based sexual violence or domestic abuse cases be prioritised? Will cases of a more serious nature that you think require more immediate disposal be prioritised? The biggest point of view that we get from victims of crime is simply about the lack of communication and not knowing and understanding why cases have been delayed or repeatedly put off, sometimes for a number of years. That is a huge cause of concern for many victims.