Contents
- Portfolio Question Time
- Homelessness Prevention and Housing Supply
- Scotland’s Finances and the Cost of Living
- Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland
- Business Motions
- Decision Time
- Celebrating Autism Acceptance
Portfolio Question Time
Constitution, External Affairs and Culture
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is constitution, external affairs and culture. Should any member wish to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letters “RTS” in the chat function during the relevant question. As ever, succinct questions and answers to match are much appreciated and will ensure that we get in as many questions as possible.
Workers in Scotland (Impact of Rejoining the European Union)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on workers in Scotland of an independent Scotland rejoining the European Union. (S6O-02132)
The Scottish Government believes that the best future for Scotland is as an independent country that is a member state of the European Union. We set out in the third paper of the independence prospectus the multiple benefits that rejoining the EU as an independent country would bring to workers, including greater mobility to work in any EU country, a fairer labour market and better regulation and protection of workers’ rights. We will continue to build the case for a socially just, independent Scotland within the EU and to give the people of Scotland the information that they need to make an informed choice about whether Scotland should become an independent country.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the recent findings by the Centre for European Reform that predict that the average worker will be £1,300 worse off as a result of Brexit. Despite Scotland’s voting overwhelmingly to remain, our being forced out of the EU against our will is hitting workers hard. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Tories—and Labour, for that matter—must answer as to why workers in Scotland are being forced to pay such a heavy price for their Brexit obsession?
I whole-heartedly agree with Clare Haughey. The United Kingdom Government—with the support of the UK Labour Party—has imposed an unnecessarily hard Brexit, which is having a damaging impact on businesses and workers in Scotland and is making the cost of living crisis so much harder to bear.
The Office for Budget Responsibility expects that the UK’s gross domestic product will be 4 per cent lower in the long run, which is the equivalent of around £100 billion in lost output and which will damage employment prospects for workers. That further demonstrates why securing independence and getting back into the EU—a market that, by population, is seven times the size of the UK market—is essential for the future wellbeing of people in Scotland.
Earlier this month, Mike Russell, the president of the Scottish National Party and a former constitution secretary, told The Herald newspaper:
“I don’t think Scottish independence can be secured right now”.
In the light of that statement, why is the SNP Government wasting time contemplating such hypothetical situations instead of focusing on the real and present priorities of the Scottish people?
It should not come as a surprise to Sharon Dowey—or to any members on the Conservative benches, who lost the last Scottish Parliament election—that the parties that won the election were elected on a manifesto to hold a democratic referendum in Scotland. There is no technical reason why the UK Government cannot transfer the responsibility to have a referendum, which is, after all, the policy favoured by the majority of MSPs in this Parliament.
It would be entirely incorrect and false for this Government not to make the necessary preparations. We want people to be as informed as possible, and I would hope that democrats would all agree that, if a Government is elected to do something, it should be able to get on with it.
I must be getting a bit deaf in my old age, because I did not hear the minister set out what the impact of leaving the UK internal market would be on those very same workers. Why is he embracing the obvious benefits of the European Union but ignoring the problems that would be caused by the break-up of the United Kingdom?
All that I can say to Willie Rennie is that nobody on these benches is a tectonic separatist. We are in favour of the best possible trading relations across these islands, but we also want to be part of the biggest single market in the world, which is the European Union’s single market.
I am not one of those people—perhaps Willie Rennie is—who are pleading for Scotland to remain dependent on a single market the size of the United Kingdom. Why does he not embrace the credible historical European support of the Liberal Democrats for the European idea and join Scottish National Party members by seeking our place in the European single market?
Edinburgh Festival Fringe
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported comments by the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society chief executive that the festival faces an “existential threat”. (S6O-02133)
The Edinburgh festival fringe is a top cultural brand in Scotland that attracts global talent every year.
The Scottish Government acknowledges the challenges that the culture and events sector, including the fringe, has faced due to the pandemic, Brexit, lower audience numbers and high energy costs. To support the fringe’s resilience and long-term viability, the Scottish Government has offered a combination of loans and grants in recognition of the festival’s importance to Scotland’s cultural scene. We aim to keep working with the fringe society and the wider culture and events sector to understand how to provide support during these trying times.
I am sure that the grants that the minister mentioned will be welcome; perhaps the loans will be less so. I hope that she will join me in welcoming the £8.6 million that the United Kingdom Government has pledged for Scotland’s festival economy, which I hope will create a permanent headquarters for the fringe in Edinburgh and year-round opportunities for artists and local talent.
However, we should acknowledge that it is not just Edinburgh that celebrates culture. I would like to hear what the Scottish Government is doing outside the central belt to support regions such as mine, in the west, and rural communities, to ensure that there is a vibrant cultural scene throughout Scotland that is not dependent on large numbers of tourists in the way that the capital is.
I hope that Jamie Greene will also welcome the Scottish Government’s announcement in the past few weeks of financial commitments to the culture sector over the months and years to come.
We have been urging the UK Government to recognise the valuable role that Scotland’s culture sector plays in the Scottish and UK economies, so any additional funding from the spring budget is welcome. However, although such funding is welcome, the UK Government needs to engage with us in advance to ensure that support is aligned and its impact maximised.
We understand that £7 million of the UK Government’s award is subject to a business case being agreed by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and we do not have that yet. That funding is for capital expenditure to assist the fringe society in finding a new home, so that it can offer year-round support to local artists and communities such as the community that Mr Greene represents.
Question 3 was not lodged, and question 4 has been withdrawn.
Scottish Connections Framework
To ask the Scottish Government how the Scottish connections framework will help to address any demographic challenges. (S6O-02136)
The Scottish connections framework seeks to expand links and networks with Scottish people and people with an association with Scotland who live elsewhere in the world.
Scotland faces particular challenges, given that all our forecast population growth is expected to come from migration. That is one of the reasons that the Scottish Government is so concerned about the United Kingdom Government’s approach to immigration.
Migration is therefore an issue that is crucial for Scotland’s future economic and social wellbeing. Activity under the framework will allow the Scottish Government to project Scotland’s attractiveness as a place in which to work, to live, to study and to do business. That will include promoting the talent attraction and migration service, which we aim to launch later in 2023.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that encouraging young talent to migrate to Scotland will help to address Scotland’s demographic challenges and support our economy and public services? Will he outline how the talent attraction and migration service, which will be launched this year, plans to encourage immigration and the retention of young people in areas of Scotland where tourism is not as prevalent?
In 2021, the ministerial population task force published Scotland’s first population strategy, a key building block of which is ensuring that Scotland is an attractive and welcoming country. Inward migration supports our community, strengthens our public services and grows our economy. The talent attraction and migration service will encourage more people to come and live in Scotland. It will help employers to navigate the UK Government’s complex and, sadly, bureaucratic immigration rules, in an effort to help them to meet their skills needs. The service will provide good-quality information and advice to help people to move here and settle into communities.
Although there are restrictions on what the Scottish Government can do through the connections framework and other work to address demographic challenges through international immigration, due to its reserved nature, there are no restrictions on addressing demographic challenges through attracting people from the rest of the United Kingdom to live and work in Scotland.
What is the Scottish Government doing to take forward the work of the industry advisory group for RUK talent attraction to address demographic challenges and increase Scotland’s tax revenue?
Ivan McKee raises some important issues. The Scottish Government is taking action to attract people with the skills that Scotland needs from the rest of the United Kingdom. Our RUK talent attraction programme will continue to be informed and supported by the industry advisory group. As a priority action, we are working with the group to develop an aerospace and space sector talent attraction pilot, which includes the implementation of a recruitment toolkit and marketing activities. People moving from the rest of the United Kingdom to Scotland are extremely welcome.
Leith Theatre (Scottish Government Engagement)
To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it and its agencies have had with Leith theatre. (S6O-02137)
I thank Ben Macpherson for the legacy that he left in the role that I have now taken over. Many of the stakeholders have been asking after him. I just wanted to pass that on.
In December, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, chaired a culture resilience round-table session, which, I am very pleased to say, Leith theatre participated in.
During the height of the pandemic, Leith theatre received £538,000 from our performing arts venues relief fund and the cultural organisations and venues recovery fund. Creative Scotland has had engagement with the organisation and with artists who have presented work at Leith theatre, on a case-by-case basis.
I thank the minister for her kind words and that expansive answer, which highlighted the good work of Leith theatre.
Does the Scottish Government agree that Leith theatre has an important role to play in assisting the Edinburgh festivals in widening their impact throughout the city of Edinburgh and its communities? Would the culture minister agree to visit Leith theatre to learn more about its artistic facilities, community work and plans for the future?
I acknowledge the important role that Leith theatre has played in Edinburgh’s festivals, including the successful hosting of numerous contemporary music events at last year’s Edinburgh international festival. Leith theatre is part of Edinburgh’s rich theatre landscape, and I am sure that festival organisers hear the great case that Ben Macpherson is making for it as a venue.
I invite Ben Macpherson to send me some additional information on the exciting work that is happening at Leith theatre, and I will gladly consider a visit to the theatre with him.
Historic Environment Scotland (Closed Sites)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the Historic Environment Scotland sites that remain closed. (S6O-02138)
Historic Environment Scotland has recently announced the reopening of more than 20 properties in care as part of its seasonal reopenings. It has also fully reopened or increased access to more than 40 sites as part of its high-level masonry programme of inspections. The first batch of inspections was completed in summer last year, and work is progressing well on the next batch.
I have asked Historic Environment Scotland to write to Sue Webber with a fuller answer to her question.
The minister will know that, in 2022, Linlithgow palace had to close due to the masonry inspections that Historic Environment Scotland carried out. It is very much hoped that it will reopen this summer, but that will be only partially.
Linlithgow palace has recently been victim to vandalism. Conservation teams are working to assess the damage, which will no doubt be costly to repair, and experts will be required to carry out the work.
Can the minister assure me that the closure and lack of full accessibility will not adversely affect Linlithgow’s local economy and tourism industry? Can she confirm that the recent vandalism will not hinder the palace’s partial reopening date?
As I said, I will get Historic Environment Scotland to write with particular details on timing. I do not have that information to hand. I condemn the vandalism at Linlithgow palace.
We want the programme of assessment to enable all attractions to be opened fully, but we have to err on the side of caution and be safe. However, as I said in my original answer, we are making great progress on that work, and I will get HES to write to Sue Webber on that.
It should be known that the Scottish Government takes heritage crime very seriously, and significant legislation is in place to protect nationally significant historic spaces. Heritage crime can rob us of our history. Linlithgow palace and other places have had enough to deal with over the past few years, with the issues that have been experienced through the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. For the palace to then be vandalised is just not acceptable.
I, too, would be interested in seeing that reply.
Does the minister agree that the vandalism that took place on Thursday 20 April at historic Linlithgow palace in my constituency is of great concern and highlights the danger of leaving properties closed? That attracts antisocial behaviour and, in some cases, heritage crimes. Does the minister further agree that the reopening of properties does not have just a heritage and tourism role, because properties need to be reopened to promote responsibility around the sites?
Yes. I will ensure that the advice from HES goes to both members who have asked questions.
That act of vandalism in particular and, indeed, any vandalism of our historic sites is completely unacceptable. The incident is subject to a police investigation, so I will not say much more on that. However, as I said, heritage crime can rob us of not only our history but some of our children’s future learning, and its impact on communities is enormous. In my new role, I will discuss closely with Historic Environment Scotland the current safety-related closures at the property, the care required and the impacts of the vandalism, and I will report back to both members on the issue.
On behalf of Conservative members, I welcome the minister to her new role.
I previously asked the minister’s predecessor, Neil Gray, about two particular sites in the Highlands and Islands: Kisimul castle on Barra and the Bonawe iron furnace in Argyll, both of which I believe remain temporarily closed. Can the minister give Parliament an update on those sites? Does she recognise the damage to the local economy—especially the tourism economy—of sites across Scotland remaining closed to the public?
I do not have details on those particular sites, but I will get those to Donald Cameron.
I thank Donald Cameron very much for his good wishes. I am looking forward to the work.
It is important to say that we have substantially increased the resource for Historic Environment Scotland in recognition of the impact of not just the pandemic but all the other issues, in particular the impact on its commercial income. The quicker we can get the assessments done, the quicker we can get those places open and the quicker that will have an impact on local economies. Again, I will get the most up-to-date information that I can for Donald Cameron on the two sites that he mentioned.
I, too, congratulate the minister on her new role.
At the end of last year, the Scottish Government’s budget predicted a fourfold increase in commercial revenue for Historic Environment Scotland. However, at the beginning of this year, 60 Historic Environment Scotland sites remained closed or partially closed to the public. Can the minister advise how Historic Environment Scotland’s revenue will rise as predicted if so many of the sites remain closed throughout the summer?
That ties in with the answers to the other questions, the impact that the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have had on those particular attractions, and the issues around the safety and inspection work that needs to be done. As I have said, we have completed one tranche of that work, and we are well on our way to completing the other tranche. That has an impact on the revenue that those attractions can raise.
We have supported Historic Environment Scotland with £72.7 million to maintain Scotland’s heritage and historic environment. That is 82.6 per cent higher than the £39 million of support that it received before the impact of the pandemic in 2019-20. I hope that the fact that we have given that financial commitment reassures the member, but I have also given the commitment to work very closely with Historic Environment Scotland to ensure that we can get all those sites partially, if not completely, open.
Horizon Europe
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the constitution secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding engagement with the United Kingdom Government on a potential return to the horizon Europe research programme. (S6O-02139)
The Scottish ministers have been clear in their communications that association to horizon Europe is a matter of utmost importance to Scotland and is the best option for the Scottish research and innovation sector.
Given the cross-cutting nature of horizon Europe, many Scottish ministers have an interest in, and engage with their UK and devolved counterparts on, the issue. I attended the interministerial group on UK-EU relations meeting on 20 March, in which I raised the importance of UK association to horizon Europe ahead of observing the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council meeting between the UK and the European Union on 24 March.
The Scottish Government will continue to work together with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland’s interests and needs are supported as negotiations are taken forward on EU programmes.
The cabinet secretary pledged to press for a return to the programme in last week’s programme for government document, so he will be aware that that is the exact outcome that the UK Government seeks, but it must be a good deal for the UK. If that is not possible, there is the alternative pioneer plan, which is backed, should it be required, by the Russell group and others. Will the cabinet secretary commit to working with the UK Government on the horizon and pioneer programmes for the benefit of research and development across these islands?
The simple answer to that question is yes. I have worked with UK ministerial counterparts in two recent meetings, the most recent of which I attended with the UK Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, and Maroš Šefcovic, in relation to a number of normalisations that we hope to progress in Northern Ireland. I give Graham Simpson and colleagues a commitment that we want a return to the horizon programme.
I will make a minor point in relation to that. We would not be in any of this difficulty if the UK had not left the European Union, and if we, as we voted for in Scotland, had been able to remain in the European Union, we would not be in the difficulty that we are now trying to dig ourselves out of.
As the cabinet secretary has indicated, the situation with horizon Europe is a product of an unwanted Brexit. However, does he agree that the UK Government should see horizon Europe as part of a process of reopening more doors to our European neighbours and that it should scrap the disastrous Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and remain aligned with high EU standards?
Alasdair Allan is absolutely right: Brexit is, of course, an act of unmitigated self-harm by the UK Government, and it represents a generational disaster for Scotland. Mitigating its impact is a priority for the Scottish Government, and until we are able to rejoin the European Union as an independent nation, we will have to deal with issues such as the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is reckless, damages legislation and needlessly puts at risk vital protections and standards. It should be withdrawn by the UK Government.
Scotland will continue to align as closely as we can with the safeguards and standards that we benefited from as part of the European Union.
On horizon Europe, the Scottish ministers have been consistently clear that association is a matter of significant importance to the research sector in Scotland.
I welcome the conversations that the cabinet secretary is having with the UK Government to rejoin horizon Europe. If Scotland is able to rejoin a European Union programme such as horizon, why is it not making progress towards a replacement for others, such as the Erasmus programme, as has been done in Labour-run Wales, to allow students to come here to study and allow our students the valuable opportunity to study abroad?
Frankly, the best way to protect our place in European programmes is to be in the European Union. The last time I looked, the UK Labour Party was supporting the Conservative Party on the UK remaining outside the European Union. That is a statement of fact, and one will hear a lot of that in the months and years to come.
Of course we should seek mitigation wherever we can, but we have to aspire to more than mitigation. Yes, let us do everything that we can do on the horizon programme, and we need to do everything that we can on student mobility across the European Union, but please let us not wave a white flag of surrender and keep ourselves outside the European Union and suffer this damage.
Why does the Scottish Labour Party not return to its pro-European roots and support Scotland rejoining the European Union, which is where it should be?
This should be an easy fix, given that the Windsor framework is now agreed. Has the cabinet secretary established in his discussions with UK and EU ministers what the barriers are to ensuring that students will not miss out on the horizon research programme?
To be frank, the biggest blockage and impediment to progress relates to the state of negotiations around Northern Ireland and the UK Government’s threat to break international law and international treaties as part of the appalling relations and gunboat diplomacy that it has pursued in past months.
We have now moved beyond that—thank goodness. As I previously mentioned in an answer to a question from a Conservative member, having sat in on a meeting between James Cleverly and Maroš Šefcovic, I know that there is reason to believe that progress can be made now that we have got beyond that stage.
When we meet UK Government colleagues, we will do everything that we can to impress on them the importance of making progress but, to be honest, the biggest impediment that there has been to date has been the appalling relations between the UK Government and the European Union. I hope that we are now beyond that.
Justice and Veterans
Criminal Court Verdicts
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider making proven and not proven the two available verdicts in the criminal courts. (S6O-02140)
The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced yesterday, proposes to abolish the not proven verdict and introduce a two-verdict system of guilty and not guilty. That decision was based on significant high-quality evidence and extensive stakeholder engagement during the consultation and policy development process. The alternative of introducing verdicts of proven and not proven was considered, and engagement made it clear that guilty and not guilty are unambiguous and easier to understand than the alternatives of proven and not proven. They are familiar verdicts that provide greater clarity and have been proven to work well in other jurisdictions.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, and I note the point that she feels that guilty and not guilty are more easily understood, but does she accept that not proven is a more honest verdict than not guilty? After all, someone might have committed a crime but there might not be enough evidence or they might get off on a technicality, so not guilty is surely a subset of not proven, but not proven includes other possibilities.
It is important that we explain why we support the two-verdict system of guilty and not guilty. In many regards, Mr Mason’s questioning demonstrates some of the difficulties with the not proven and proven alternative.
Our evidence is clear that the not proven verdict is not understood by jurors and that it can cause stigma for the acquitted and trauma for complainers. Our consultation demonstrated that 50 per cent of respondents favoured guilty and not guilty compared to 41 per cent who favoured proven and not proven.
Support for guilty and not guilty verdicts was particularly strong among legal organisations and third sector organisations—particularly those that support victims and their families. For example, the senators of the College of Justice commented in their response that the two verdicts available ought to be guilty and not guilty. They are commonly understood concepts that are applied in every other English-speaking jurisdiction.
As well as the removal of the not proven verdict, the victims bill—an excellent name for the bill, I must say—which was introduced yesterday, also proposes another major change, which is the reduction of jury sizes and the numbers that are required for a majority verdict. That is quite a substantial change to how decisions are made about whether someone is convicted. What was the thought process that went behind that proposal? What consultation took place that said that it was the right proposal and direction of travel to take? Also, more importantly, what did the modelling say about the effect that the change would have on the outcomes of trials? Ultimately, that is the key to its success or otherwise.
It is important that I reassure Mr Greene that extensive consultation has underpinned the bill, particularly the work that has been undertaken by the victims task force, and significant research has also been undertaken on matters that impact on juries in Scotland and around the developed world. It is important to stress that matters of verdict, jury size and majority are all very closely related and interlinked. It is important for us to maintain a balanced approach and to consider those matters in the round.
Although there are other aspects of the bill that are focused on improving the experience for victims and survivors, as well as undertaking a pilot to address some of the long-standing concerns that we have had about conviction rates for the most serious of sexual offences, including rape, the issues in and around jury size and not proven are not designed to influence conviction rates, because the not proven verdict, the jury size and the jury majority that is required have to apply for all offences.
I appreciate that it is a somewhat complex area, and I am happy to explore the detail further with Mr Greene directly and also more generally as the bill progresses.
I belatedly welcome the cabinet secretary to her post. I also welcome the publication of the bill. I support the general thrust of the bill in terms of the removal of the not proven verdict. However, she will be aware of the concerns around the impact that that will have on juries.
The Government has carried out quite a bit of mock jury research, but I am aware that Professor Cheryl Thomas at University College London has carried out research with real juries in different areas. Is the Government willing to explore, even at this late stage, the possibility of engaging with Professor Thomas at UCL to undertake further research with real juries on the potential impacts in relation to the confusion that has been referred to?
I assure Mr McArthur that the research that was undertaken, which was specific to Scotland, was indeed extensive and that there is also extensive research elsewhere in Europe. However, it is of course important that, as we progress with this landmark legislation, we have a debate of the very highest standard about all aspects of the bill, and I would expect the Parliament—including committees—to consider a full range of evidence.
On behalf of the Government, I can certainly say that we are always open to exploring all evidence, because, if we are determined to put victims very much at the heart of our criminal justice system, it is imperative that we focus on what works in the real world.
Law on Culpable Homicide
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the Scottish Law Commission regarding its review of the law on homicide, in relation to culpable homicide. (S6O-02141)
Ministers regularly meet the chair of the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the work programme in general. The last such meeting was held in December 2022.
Gary Robertson from Cowdenbeath died in 2019 as a result of falling from a platform while working at Longannet power station. Following Gary’s death, the demolition firm Brown and Mason was fined just £5,000 in a criminal prosecution. The family received no apology from the company; they were not even allowed to make a statement in court, as it was a health and safety prosecution. The £5,000 did not cover the cost of Gary’s funeral.
Through a civil case, Mr Robertson’s family received damages, but families who lose loved ones at work should not have to rely on civil cases, which diminish their loss. Gary’s wife Karen has said:
“We need to make sure the laws designed to hold people accountable can’t be manipulated to let those responsible escape justice ... The first thing Gary’s employers sent to me wasn’t a sympathy card or a phone call—it was his P45.”
As we approach international workers memorial day, what will the cabinet secretary do to ensure that families such as Gary’s can get justice, given that no cases in Scotland have been prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007?
I recognise Ms Baker’s long-standing and committed interest in this area. There are existing laws that can be used, such as the common law of homicide, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and, of course, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
It is important to note that, since 2009, 13 cases have been reported to the Crown Office in respect of corporate homicide as well as other charges. Of those cases, nine have resulted in convictions in court, three remain under consideration by the Crown Office and one led to no further action.
Although Ms Baker is correct to say that there have been no convictions under the 2007 act, the cases that I have just referred to have resulted in guilty pleas to breaches of other legislation such as the 1974 health and safety act. However, it is an area that I would be more than happy to continue to engage with Ms Baker on.
Autistic Women (Protection from Sexual Violence)
To ask the Scottish Government what its strategy is for protecting autistic women from sexual violence. (S6O-02142)
We are fully committed to protecting all women from violence as part of our commitment to the equally safe strategy. The “Learning/Intellectual Disability and Autism: Towards Transformation” plan sets out to shape supports, services and attitudes to ensure that the human rights of autistic people and people with learning and intellectual disabilities are respected and protected and that they are empowered to live their lives, the same as everyone else.
A recent report revealed that 90 per cent of autistic women are victims of sex attacks, but very few of those are reported to the police. The Scottish Women’s Autism Network has teamed up with Police Scotland to raise awareness and create strategies to help that situation. Does the minister believe that an early diagnosis of their condition would help women to cope and might prevent them from becoming victims in the first place?
I do. It is essential that perpetrators of sexual violence are held to account and that the onus for change and action is focused on the perpetrator and not the victim. That is why our equally safe strategy prioritises robust responses to perpetrators and aims to change the attitudes that allow such behaviour.
Rona Mackay is correct: support for survivors is vital. A diagnosis can be essential in enabling an autistic person to access relevant information and support. We encourage all victims of sexual violence to report crimes, and we welcome Police Scotland’s work to better understand those with neurological divergence in order to ensure that victims are treated respectfully.
Veterans’ Families (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to families of veterans. (S6O-02143)
The Scottish Government fully recognises the importance of supporting the families of veterans where they face challenges as a result of service or events such as the transition to civilian life. We therefore seek to incorporate them into our support for veterans wherever possible. For example, partners and spouses of veterans are eligible for veterans employability support such as the going forward into employment scheme. We fund the national education officer role to support both service children and the children of veterans, and projects that are supporting veterans’ families are eligible for funding through the Scottish veterans fund.
I appreciate that this is perhaps not the minister’s portfolio now.
The wives and partners of people who are serving in the armed forces, such as those who live in my constituency at Glencorse barracks, find it very difficult to sustain employment because of regular relocation. Is there a role for Women’s Enterprise Scotland, for example, in assisting partners to establish their own businesses that they can take with them as they move around?
I will get back to the member about the specific point. Inspired by the Scottish Government’s supportive can do places programme, the Leuchars co-working hub for spouses and partners of veterans opened in 2017. It was the first hub in what has now become the Military Coworking Network, which is a network of co-working spaces that are close to military bases throughout the United Kingdom. The criteria for the women’s returner programme, which assists women who have been out of work for six odd months to successfully return to the workforce, was extended to include female veterans, veterans’ spouses and partners as well as service personnel. Skills Development Scotland continues to work with the service and veterans’ families in order to provide careers information, advice and guidance. For example, SDS advisers work once a month at community centres in Helensburgh and are considering how to set up regular opportunities across Scotland, including the Borders. Mr Dey, the minister with responsibility for veterans, would be happy to meet Christine Grahame to discuss that further.
Glasgow’s Helping Heroes, which is run by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—Forces Help, offers a vital service across greater Glasgow, offering holistic support to veterans and their families via its one-stop shop in Govan. For every pound that is invested in that service, Glasgow’s Helping Heroes delivers £6.63 of social value back to the Scottish economy. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of that service, and will it consider allocating funds to scale up the programme as a model of exemplar quality in providing support for veterans in Scotland?
I do not have the information to hand, but I am happy to write to the member regarding the organisation that he mentions.
I can attest to the fact that the Leuchars project working hub is a fantastic exercise.
The education of the children of veterans and members of the armed forces is characterised by constant disruption as the families move from base to base. In England, there is a pupil premium specifically for service children. Should there be a similar one for Scotland, in addition to the pupil equity fund, to help those very children here?
The national education officer for children and young people of armed forces families, a post that is funded by the Scottish Government, has been undertaking a national data collection exercise with accompanying analysis to help put together an accurate picture of the distribution and number of service children in Scotland. The data reports that are collated from that exercise will be shared more widely with key stakeholders and used to improve educational outcomes for service children and young people.
Diversion from Prosecution
To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made in the use of diversion from prosecution in Scotland. (S6O-02144)
Decisions relating to prosecution policy, including the decision to offer diversion from prosecution are, of course, matters for the Lord Advocate as independent prosecutor. However, with diversion cases at their highest level in the past decade, noting some caution given to the impact of Covid-19, we welcome the recent “Joint review of diversion from prosecution” report and will work with justice partners to consider its recommendations. We know that diversion can allow individuals to address a range of issues or needs that have contributed to their alleged offending behaviour at the earliest opportunity, helping to improve outcomes for individuals and keeping communities safe.
Diversion from prosecution provides an accused person with support to address the underlying causes of their behaviour and, as the cabinet secretary has outlined, the number of diversion cases commenced rose by 12 per cent between 2019-20 and 2020-21.
The cabinet secretary also referred to the joint review of diversion from prosecution, which found that, although some community justice partnerships expressed readiness to respond to an anticipated increase in referrals, others were less confident about their capacity to manage an increase against the backdrop of already stretched resources.
I acknowledge that prosecution policy is a matter for the Lord Advocate but, given that future reform of, for example, bail and release from custody is likely to place additional demands on community justice agencies, can the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that the Scottish Government will review funding arrangements to maximise use of diversion at the earliest opportunity, as was recommended in the report?
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting community justice services as part of our wider focus on reducing crime and reoffending. We continue to protect the community justice budget and, in 2023-24, we will invest a total of £134 million in community justice, including £123 million to local authority justice social work services for the provision of community interventions.
That investment contributes to our long-standing aim of encouraging a shift in the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community where that is appropriate, reflecting evidence that community interventions can be more effective at reducing reoffending and assisting with rehabilitation than short-term custodial sentences. However, we very much recognise the challenging budgetary situation for our delivery partners, including local authorities, and we will continue to work in collaboration to maximise the use of available resources and understand the issues as they arise. Of course, we very much welcome the joint inspectorate review report into diversion from prosecution and will work with justice partners to consider its recommendations and our response to those.
In the three years up to 2021, hundreds of alleged criminals caught by the police rejected the offer of a fiscal fine as an alternative to prosecution. However, having done so, they faced no further action, despite the previous Deputy First Minister telling Parliament that refusal would be treated as
“a request by the alleged offender to be prosecuted”. —[Official Report, 23 June 2021; c 64.]
Such smoke and mirrors can only shake public faith in Scottish justice. Can the cabinet secretary tell me whether those who refuse are now being prosecuted and provide the most recent figures for comparison?
I am sure that I do not need to repeat the fact that prosecution—and all issues in and around it—are matters for the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. I will accept the point that, if our justice system says that we are going to follow a course of action, it is important that we follow through on intent. I will look at the matter that Mr Findlay has raised with me today and will seek to provide him with further information.
Police Station Closures (North-East Division)
To ask the Scottish Government how many police stations have been closed down in the area covered by Police Scotland’s north-east division since the force’s foundation in 2013. (S6O-02145)
Police Scotland has confirmed that, across the north-east division area, 21 facilities have closed since 2013. It should be noted that five of those closures relate to relocations in the same area, with a further two locations having been acquired in Aberdeen.
Service provision is carefully considered by Police Scotland prior to any decision being made, including through consultation. Moving officers to modern, co-located accommodation supports the long-term vision of policing, which includes enhanced partnership working and responding to the changing needs of communities while also maintaining visibility and public confidence.
This month, Police Scotland celebrates its 10th anniversary, but the Scottish National Party’s centralisation project has come at the cost of local police on the ground.
In my constituency, Kemnay police station’s closure is keenly felt. As the cabinet secretary is aware, a quarter of all Scottish police counters have shut since the forces merged, in 2013, and there are plans for more closures.
Seventy-three divisional offices have been lost from the north-east region, all thanks to SNP neglect. What can the cabinet secretary tell my constituents who contact me about increasing numbers of cases of antisocial behaviour, vandalism, theft and drug abuse—all due to a reduced police presence?
It is important that Mr Burnett tells his constituents that, since 2017-18, this Government has doubled the capital budget that is available to Police Scotland, which now amounts to around £50 million. It is also important to stress that, although police stations remain important, these are, as he well knows, matters for Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, particularly in relation to the implementation of their estate strategy, which was published in 2019.
Most people recognise the importance of the co-location of public services and how that improves partnership and collaborative working, which is all to the benefit of improving safety for communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Mr Burnett might be interested to know that, as of the end of 2022, there are now 64 co-locations, which currently make up 21 per cent of the Police Scotland estate. That surely has to be a move forward.
Child Sexual Exploitation (Prevention)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action to prevent child sexual exploitation. (S6O-02146)
Keeping children safe from sexual exploitation and abuse is a key priority for the Scottish Government, and, in the coming weeks, I will meet the Minister for Children and Young People to discuss the matter further.
We are committed to ensuring that robust child protection measures are in place, and we are working with partners to prevent abuse and to intervene, so that risk and harm to children and young people is recognised early and acted on quickly and effectively. That includes online harms, and we continue to press the United Kingdom Government to ensure that its Online Safety Bill provides robust protection for children and holds the technology industry to account.
In East Dunbartonshire, in my region, the number of crimes that are recorded as “indecent photos of children” has increased by 140 per cent since 2017 and by 200 per cent since the year ending 2021. A lot of actions can be taken in the short term to prevent the tidal wave of that horrendous crime. What preventative actions is the Scottish Government taking, and how is the effectiveness of those actions being measured?
Ms Gosal raises some very important points, particularly in and around measuring the effectiveness of interventions. I am closely interested in that, not just as it relates to the justice portfolio but as a germane matter for all Scottish Government ministers who have responsibilities in this area.
On the action that we are taking, Ms Gosal will be aware of the revised national guidance for child protection in Scotland, which was published in 2021. That provides the most up-to-date information on the work to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation and the support that is available in local areas such as Ms Gosal’s to develop effective, evidence-based responses.
The Government’s overall response is framed by the Promise, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Scotland’s getting it right for every child approach. The matter that Ms Gosal raises around the sexual abuse and exploitation of children on online platforms is important and is one on which we will continue to engage constructively and collaboratively with the UK Government, bearing in mind where some of the powers rest.
I can squeeze in question 8 if I can get succinct questions and answers to match.
Under-25s Pleading or Found Guilty
To ask the Scottish Government how many people who have been sentenced for a crime were aged under 25 when they pled guilty, or were found guilty, since 26 January 2022. (S6O-02147)
Data is currently available only up to the end of 2022. From 26 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, 10,725 offenders who were sentenced for a crime were aged under 25 when they pled guilty or were found guilty. It should be noted that, when an offender is subject to multiple separate proceedings, that offender will be counted multiple times.
Without referencing any particular case, the cabinet secretary will be aware that there is widespread public concern that, under current sentencing guidelines, someone convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl could avoid prison and be given a non-custodial sentence because they were aged under 25 at the time of the offence.
I know that sentencing guidelines are set independently of Scottish ministers, but, ultimately, the Parliament has the power to set sentencing, including setting minimum sentences for offences, as it has done in a number of cases. Does the cabinet secretary think that it is acceptable that a convicted rapist should not be sent to prison? If she does not, what will she do about it?
Before I ask the cabinet secretary to respond, I remind all members that a case that might be seen to have been referred to in Mr Fraser’s question is a live case, so any references thereto should take into account the law that is applicable to such references.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be commenting on live cases of individual offenders who are either in the community or in our prison establishments.
I assure Mr Fraser that I have a long history in and around the need to tackle sexual offending. It is important to recognise the legislative framework that was passed by the Parliament, which frames the duties and responsibilities of the Scottish Sentencing Council. It is also important to put on record that, under the sentencing guidelines for young people, nothing prohibits the use of punishment or imprisonment in informing the sentencing that is undertaken by our independent judiciary.
Matters of rape are dealt with in the High Court. The High Court has unlimited powers in such matters and can use life sentencing for rape convictions. I hope that it is of at least some reassurance to Mr Fraser that 98 per cent of all rape convictions across all age groups in Scotland result in a custodial sentence.
It is the view of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland that young offenders institutions are inappropriate for bairns. What steps are being taken to ensure that young offenders have access to appropriate care and, where it is deemed necessary, appropriate secure accommodation?
When it is decided that it is appropriate for a child under 18 to be deprived of their liberty, it is the view of the Government that they should be placed in secure accommodation as opposed to a young offenders institution. That is on the basis of our commitments around the Promise and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which are cross-party and cross-parliamentary commitments.
It is also important to put on record that, when deprivation of liberty is required, secure accommodation is the best place to manage risk and the needs of high-risk young offenders.
That concludes portfolio questions on justice and veterans. Before we move on to the next item of business, there will be a short pause to allow front-bench teams to shift position, should they wish to do so.