Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is one of the key benefits. I fully understand why certain days have been put in the bill. Not only will it allow emergency services to prepare but, as we heard quite articulately from the previous panel of witnesses, it will allow pet owners, for example, to prepare not to be in the area or to seek alternatives; medication and suchlike were mentioned.

My worry, which I know that other members share, is that, by specifying dates, you go into an arena of not specifying other dates such as other religious festivals or other events that might be important to people. I want to work out whether there is any way in which we can improve that aspect of the bill or ensure that it is not open to some sort of challenge in the future—that is our job.

Rob, have you got any thoughts on the specified dates? How would that aspect impact on the people that you work with?

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.

My questions follow on quite well from those that Rona Mackay and Katy Clark asked, so I run the risk of repeating what has been said or of asking the witnesses to repeat themselves.

Like other members round the table, I was involved in the bill that became the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019, which has been mentioned. That was before the pandemic, when we had no idea about the existence of Covid. Scotland was very much on a route—rightly or wrongly; I believe that it was right—to ensure that vulnerable witnesses did not need to go into a court set-up, given the trauma that they could experience. The pandemic then came. As Katy Clark articulated, we all felt that there would be more such trials, so the statistics are perhaps a wee bit surprising, given the opportunities that the pandemic allowed for.

All that said, I note that the bill asks us to allow some of the provisions to continue in order to speed up the process of vulnerable witnesses being able to give their evidence out of court. Will the bill as drafted allow you to continue to take steps, which began with the 2019 act and other processes that were already in place, to ensure that vulnerable witnesses in the most difficult of cases do not need to appear in court?

I am hearing good levels of support from both of you, but is the bill required? You have both identified that other processes are in place. Is the bill required to make the transition easier and give you more tools in order to get to the point where we want to be?

Yes—thanks a lot. I have to say that the previous panel, who were from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the courts, indicated quite strong support for the bill. I do not want to step on Katy Clark’s toes here, as I am sure that she will go into this but, when I asked the previous panel about the progress that they had started to make, their answer seemed to be that there had not been as many virtual trials as we had expected throughout the pandemic, but that there was a clear desire to move in that direction. The previous two witnesses felt that the legislation was needed to allow us to do that. I suppose that I am just following up with you the question that I asked them, but I think that you have answered it.

Thank you. It was important to get on the record some practical examples of how the bill might impact.

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?