Hansard

I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour.

Many of the changes in part 1 of the bill were introduced during the pandemic, with the Scottish Government now seeking to make them permanent. Although we are generally supportive of that, we have some concerns about how far some provisions in the bill might extend.

We are particularly concerned about whether too many decisions will be left to the discretion of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and whether that service is properly resourced to deliver the changes set out in the bill. Although the Scottish Government has given assurances that there will be no overreach, we believe that monitoring will be necessary to ensure that the provisions do not in any way hinder justice.

It is clear that increased use of digital documents and evidence will be vital to modernising the court system. However, there is also a need to ensure that physical evidence can continue to be available in criminal cases if requested. Labour members made those arguments during today’s debate, as well as earlier in the bill process. Greater use of digital documents and evidence also raises questions about digital inclusion, which the Scottish Government must address. Audit Scotland has previously highlighted the fact that 15 per cent of adults lack foundational digital skills, such as knowing how to turn on a digital device, and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has called on the Scottish Government to publish a digital inclusion action plan.

Members have spoken about the bill’s provisions for virtual attendance at court proceedings. Those provisions were introduced temporarily during the pandemic and we believe that making them permanent will both increase their use and help to reduce the backlog that still exists in courts. Many victims groups, and the legal sector, have welcomed making virtual attendance a permanent feature of our court system. However, we urge the Scottish Government to do more to ensure that virtual attendance is always safe and free from interference. We accept that, regardless of whether the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance are absolutely and utterly watertight, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service sees it as an inherent part of the system. Work needs to be done to ensure that locations offer a strong video and wi-fi connection and good picture quality. We heard evidence that that has been a problem in the courts over the past five years.

The Scottish Government must address the concerns of Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations about the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance. Scottish Women’s Aid has argued that the provisions do not go far enough in protecting women, children and young people who experience domestic abuse. As has been said in the debate, I think, the committee did not look at that in detail during our scrutiny of the process. Even at this late stage, we need to give thought to it, and I am sure that the Scottish Government will be thinking about that as we move forward. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has indicated clearly that she will engage with Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations on the issues that they raise.

As well as increasing the use of virtual attendance, the bill seeks to allow cases in which a person appears from police custody to take place in any sheriff court in Scotland. We recognise that that could lead to savings in court costs—in particular, in the costs of transferring prisoners around the country. However, many organisations, such as the Law Society of Scotland, have rightly raised the importance of local justice. Those issues must also be given adequate consideration.

We welcome the creation in part 2 of the bill of a framework to review domestic homicides and suicides, and we agree with the comments that that has perhaps not had the scrutiny that it should have had, given that it deals with a gap in existing legislation and frameworks. We should remember that similar provisions already exist in England and Wales, and that the ways in which England and Wales deal with such things is very different. We recognise the vital work that victim support groups have played in developing the framework, but we also believe that we need to look closely at how reviews have worked in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.

We urge the cabinet secretary to address the issues that relate to membership of the proposed review oversight committee that have been raised by Scottish Women’s Aid—specifically, to ensure the proper representation of victim support groups, including those that deal on the front line with violence against women and girls.

We support the bill. We very much hope that its provisions will allow a modernisation of the courts that improves the experience of those who use them—victims and witnesses—and that will help to address the considerable backlogs that still exist. However, we also recognise that far wider issues surround the resourcing of our courts and the state of legal aid, so we remain concerned that, although some of the provisions are very welcome, a great deal more work needs to be done to address the significant backlogs in our courts system.