Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what you are saying. Nevertheless, in the committee’s defence, some of us were members of the Justice Committee in the previous session of Parliament, and we are well aware of what was available pre-pandemic for remote contributions. Some of us were involved in the consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill, for example.

I accept what you say, but we are now hearing in evidence that, because of the pandemic, completely virtual trials are now possible. We have heard from witnesses that, in some of the most extreme cases, it can be hard for someone even to go into the same building as the accused person, even if they are in a different room and there are safeguards in place. Some of those crimes involve emotional abuse, and even being in the same building can have an impact.

I do not want to go back over the issue—I can feel the convener’s eyes burning into me, and I know that we are short on time. I was simply making the point—perhaps you can come back to this in a later answer—that, for some individuals in some cases, fully virtual trials, which mean that witnesses are nowhere near the building at all, may be appropriate.

Rather than going back to Stuart Murray at this point, I will pass back to the convener so that he can decide what he wants to do next.

I take that point.

I am happy with what has been said. We need to bring in the cabinet secretary for his update after three months of the provision’s being in place. I am happy with that timescale.

My question, which picks up on Jamie Greene’s point, is probably for Dr Scott.

Early release for people convicted of domestic abuse offences will be really worrying for victims; I hear what is being said in that regard. However, I am sure that Dr Scott would agree that domestic abuse sentences are not usually very long in any case. In my view, the issue is the rehabilitation of those people. I worked in the field previously. If we are talking about early release for specific groups of offenders such as those involved in domestic abuse, would it be helpful if their early release was not only highlighted, so that victims could be prepared—Kate Wallace made that point well—but attached to some sort of work programme that is effective and actually works?

The Scottish Government recently invested further in criminal justice social work services, which was a welcome move given the pandemic situation. What does Dr Scott think about my suggestion in respect of early release for such prisoners?

Thanks, convener. I had a lot of questions on child welfare reporters and contact centres, but the issues have been extensively covered, so in the interests of time I am happy to leave it at that.

Thanks, convener. I had—[Inaudible.]—I think Judith wants to come in.

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. It has been a really interesting session. A lot of the areas that I was going to ask about have already had quite a good airing, which is down to the flexible way in which the meeting has been convened and members’ questions.

That said, I would still like to ask some questions. We have spoken about children’s participation, which is a big issue and was a big issue for me when we considered the Children (Scotland) Bill in the previous parliamentary session. Could the witnesses who might not have had the chance to articulate their points on the subject suggest to the committee ways in which we could ensure that children’s voices are better heard in the family law process? I know that the convener has asked members to ask their questions of specific witnesses. I am not sure whether anybody who has not had the opportunity to speak about the issue would like to come in.

I say good morning to the cabinet secretary and his officials.

I am glad to hear the commitment that the cabinet secretary made in response to Alexander Stewart. I have some mining communities in my constituency and I have witnessed first hand not only the impact of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s work and the Scottish Government’s support but the continuing need to regenerate those communities, which still struggle because of their mining past.

I have two questions. The first follows on from Maggie Chapman’s line of questioning. It is about the definition of a miner. Obviously, we will produce our report and go into a stage 1 debate, but it is fair to say that the committee is inclined to think that the scope of the definition could be widened. Maggie Chapman’s question was more about other things that happened in the community, but we heard some examples of miners’ relatives being on the strikes. We heard from one miner’s son who was on a strike. He was not charged, but there might be examples of that happening. Will the cabinet secretary consider widening the scope of the bill to cover that?

We have heard that it might be difficult to establish the exact numbers of other people who are involved. When we spoke to retired police officers, they could not recall anybody who would be outside the current definition criteria. When we spoke to miners, they suggested that there might be some people but that it would be a limited number. I understand that there are difficulties with establishing a number. It might be quite a small number, but it might be very important and significant for those people if they could be included. However, I hear and take on board the points that you have made.

We have heard quite a bit about the compensation aspect as well. What are your thoughts on compensation for individual miners who have lost out—for example, miners who might have been dismissed because of being arrested?

Initially, I was sympathetic to the issue of compensation for miners—and, of course, I still am—but, having heard the evidence and listened to what the cabinet secretary has said, I think that the bill is not the place to address that matter. Indeed, it could even hold up the passage of the bill and the miners getting the pardon that they need. As an MSP from a mining community, I—and I hope the whole committee—will join you in pushing the UK Government to do more on this.

You are absolutely right, cabinet secretary. Given where employment law lies, it is right for compensation issues to be taken and dealt with there. I am very satisfied with what you have said, and I would not want the bill, which is so needed in communities around Scotland, to be delayed. That said, I remain sympathetic to these miners, who have missed out on so much, receiving the right compensation.

That is me, convener.