Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it is a practical one. There are clearly practical issues around the virtual custody court model. We have heard lots of examples of practical issues, including with policing. We have also heard evidence from defence agents. That was clearly acknowledged by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which leads on the development work around the virtual custody court model, and its representatives spoke about the practical, logistical and technical solutions. I would endorse their assessment.

The arrangements have worked well in most instances. The practice arose out of necessity during the pandemic, and it is fair to say that that would have been done at pace. For the record, I endorse the approach that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is taking in stopping or pausing various pilots to evaluate the work and to explore how we can get system-wide learning. That is important because it will require collaboration, and it will enable further work to be done in developing a robust operational model, which will then lead to a robust business case.

I appreciate why the member would want to explore that thoroughly but, until there is an operational model and a business case, costs are conjecture. The financial memorandum is right to reflect the bill as it stands.

I could draw parallels with other reform work that has been enabled and supported financially, and I would cite DESC—the digital evidence sharing capability. Other work has been led by justice agencies on summary case management, which has led to significant savings for justice partners and, not least, to a better experience for victims.

Those are all examples of practice that has been enabled and supported but that did not require the detail to be set out in legislation. The difficulty—bearing in mind that many justice partners have independence in their operations—is that a lot of operational detail cannot and should not be dictated by Government when it comes to how to do things or how to develop models that will actually work in practice. That relates to partnership. We have a parliamentary and budget process that must be alive to new opportunities as well as new challenges.

I will do my best to be succinct. The member speaks to the fact that there are many applications of virtual attendance. I will try to speak to this with clarity. The default position is that people attend court in person. However, on a case-by-case basis, the court can determine otherwise. Virtual attendance might be used for things such as procedural hearings.

The Lord Justice General has the power to issue a determination to change the default in certain cases or circumstances. They cannot issue a determination that trials should be held virtually by default. In 2022, the Lord Justice General made a determination on when the default is for trials to be virtual: that is, preliminary hearings in the High Court, sentencing hearings, full committal hearings in the sheriff court and bail appeal hearings. However, for things such as custody hearings, the default remains for them to be held in person.

I have given an overview, but Louise Miller may add anything more specific.

Okay, so the concern is a bit broader than part 2 of the bill. I will try to trot through things fairly briefly, if I can.

Several provisions in part 1 make permanent measures that are currently temporary but which have been in practice, broadly, since 2020. The new provisions in part 1 on digital productions and the authentication of electronic copy documents will be addressed through the digital evidence sharing capability—DESC—programme, which the Government is committed to funding to the tune of £33 million.

On areas where we want to see improvements, such as the practical improvements that are required around measures such as virtual attendance or virtual custodies, I know that you will be aware of the evidence from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that it has paused some work for further evaluation.

There is still work to be done on evaluation and on defining models that can be operationalised in a systems-wide sense, and there will be further work on business cases. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland, both verbally and in writing, have indicated that it is a bit too early to say what some costs will be. In broad terms, we are not making mandatory operational requirements as such, although we should bear in mind that the bill will enable innovation and that it bolts in the gains that have been made thus far. We will need people to proceed to develop business cases, which will be brought forward in the normal course of annual budgeting.

In relation to part 2, the financial memorandum states that the costs of setting up the review oversight committee and the public appointment of the chairs and deputy chairs, including financial support for expenses related to their recruitment, would fall to the Government. There is also provision to support families with some of the costs that they bear. Therefore, costs under part 2 will be met by the Government, as detailed in the financial memorandum.

The default position is that reports should be shared with families and loved ones. Nonetheless, consideration needs to be given to sensitive information about survivors who are living. Thought has been given to the need to respect people’s privacy. We live in a world of data protection and the general data protection regulation, but we want to be in a position in which information is shared with families who, in essence, are seeking answers. That is important to individual families, but the learning from such cases is also important to us as a nation.

With regard to what is published, we want to ensure that the learning and the findings are clear. There are always—rightly—sensitivities around information about individuals. Other matters need to be considered, too. I do not want to be in any way graphic, but we would not want to advertise in detail how someone took their life, for reasons that I am sure are obvious to Mr MacGregor. Under the auspices of the task force, there is a working group that is working through the issues of data and information sharing, confidentiality and transparency. That group is in regular engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The whole purpose of requiring ministers to report to Parliament every two years is to provide transparency on findings and to give visibility to learning or points of failure that need to be addressed on a systems-wide basis. It is hard to predict what the costs might be, because there are some lessons and recommendations that one could anticipate could be adopted by engaging in different ways of working, which might not incur costs. However, there might well be learning that has financial consequences, and it would be for Parliament and the Government, as well as for stakeholders, to pursue that in the normal fashion.

I hope that I am not being obtuse. Extra funding has not been ruled in or ruled out; whether that is required will depend on the findings. I certainly acknowledge that recommendations could be made that would mean that financial costs would be incurred.

It is a matter for my attention, and I am sure that MSPs would make sure of that if they had any doubt about it.

All that I am speaking to, Ms McNeill, is the fact that that reform is an on-going process. If we sat back and waited until every business case was completed, the legislation would be playing catch-up. Part 1 of the bill has come about because certain provisions in the emergency coronavirus legislation are coming to an end. Financially, we cannot afford to return to—heaven forfend—wet signatures, when, by and large, the court system communicates via electronic transmission. We do not want to return to those pre-Covid days, so we need to ensure that we are not turning the clock back and that the provisions in the bill will allow justice partners to proceed. I cannot give financial commitments in the absence of system-wide operational models or in the absence of a business case.

Earlier, I said that I endorsed the approach of the SCTS system in pausing the many and varied pilots, getting the learning and seeing how a systems-wide approach can be developed, particularly around virtual custodies. There will indeed be savings for the police in that. It is the right approach, and one that I support.

There will indeed need to be a retention and disposal policy—that is for sure. It will need to be developed. The Government will have an interest in that, but the policy will need to be informed and developed by the justice agencies with expertise in the area, and it will need to be done on a partnership basis.

As for safeguards, the bill gives the court the power to say that the evidence has to be physical, as opposed to a digital image, so that it can exercise that power when it is satisfied that such an approach would be appropriate. The bill also makes digital productions for solemn cases relevant in issues and objections. The use of digital evidence can be a preliminary issue; representatives can, with notice, raise objections, and the court can grant leave to raise a preliminary issue if it believes that cause has been shown. There are, therefore, some safeguards and powers that the court can exercise in particular circumstances, if it so wishes.

Absolutely. There has been in-depth conversation and engagement with stakeholders by the bill team and other officials, both verbally and in writing. The powers and provisions in the bill are enabling; they do not compel or force justice agencies to go down a particular operational path. It is when people come forward with specific operational plans or a specific business case that we can have specific discussions around finance.

As I indicated to Liam Kerr, if the bill is passed in 2025 we will seek to implement it in 2026. The financial considerations will therefore have to form part of the forthcoming budgetary process. I do not suggest that the costs will be in any way insignificant, bearing in mind the continuing pressure on public finances. The cost of the review model varies from £421,000, based on 10 reviews per annum, to £656,000, based on 20 reviews per annum. A high estimate would be 30 reviews per annum, which would cost just under £900,000. I do not suggest that that is not a lot of money, but I would be far less concerned about the affordability of implementing this bill than I would be about the affordability of implementing other pieces of legislation.