Chamber and committees

We are seeing a worrying increase in the uptake of vaping among young people. Will the minister give an update on the current UK Government plans for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the consequential legislative consent memorandum, which fell before last year’s election but if revived would see some control being introduced to the advertising and promotion of vaping products?

I thank everyone who supported scrutiny of the bill through its passage to stage 3 this afternoon. As we have heard, the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill seeks to do two things: first, to provide a basis upon which our justice system can continue to modernise, specifically through embracing digital technology; and, secondly, to establish a review process that supports learning in the aftermath of a domestic homicide or suicide.

I want to make a couple of points in the debate. On part 1, I note that justice systems value tradition; that is certainly no different in Scotland, where deeply rooted customs and formal rituals are highly regarded.

The Covid-19 pandemic obviously posed a monumental challenge for the justice system, but, in doing so, it created an opportunity to modernise the justice sector through greater use of digital technology. The bill seeks to make certain processes permanent, one of which is virtual attendance at court, which has already been examined in detail in the debate. At stage 1, as we have heard, there was strong support for that from victims organisations, which cited trauma-informed practice and giving victims agency.

However, the virtual attendance provision understandably raised a number of questions about scope, reliability of technology, appearance from custody and security—that is, ensuring that witnesses are not susceptible to any undue influence. The latter point was discussed earlier this afternoon. A key point that the cabinet secretary made is the default arrangement, whereby attendance should be in person. I agree that Pauline McNeill’s well-intended amendment 58, which proposed a requirement for closer supervision of anyone attending court virtually, would have had monumental resource implications and would have been completely unworkable.

I am pleased that, since the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Government has engaged with stakeholders, including the Lord Justice General, on virtual attendance. There is consensus that the current provisions have been in place for some time, that practitioners are familiar with them and that they work well, as currently framed.

I very much welcome the Government’s amendment 9, on the addition of charges to an indictment. I note the conditions that the cabinet secretary outlined and welcome that amendment.

I turn to part 2. Scotland does not currently have a statutory system to review deaths linked to domestic abuse, which means that the opportunity to learn lessons is lost.

During stage 1 scrutiny, the scope of the review process raised questions in so far as it is broader than the current definition of domestic abuse, as outlined in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. The Criminal Justice Committee heard conflicting views on whether the definition in the bill was too wide in scope and should only apply to incidents that would fall within the definition that is in the 2018 act. Strong arguments were made by Emma Forbes of the Crown Office and Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid on that point.

On the other hand, it was recognised that many of those who experience domestic abuse do not report their abusers to the police. That is often an action of last resort, so a broader definition would create wider opportunities to learn through the review process and to prevent future deaths. I agree with the view that the impact of domestic abuse reaches beyond the relationships that are set out in the 2018 act definition and that the bill allows wider opportunities for learning and, ultimately, the prevention of future deaths.

I very much welcome the provisions in the bill. They reflect the fact that Scotland’s justice system is determined to modernise and move with the times. I ask members to support the bill this evening.

Will the member give way?

[Made a request to intervene.]

I hear what the member is saying; I simply want to point out the significant implications that the proposed provision would have for Police Scotland. The member might recall that Police Scotland communicated that to the committee some time ago. However, given that it has a significant role in the management of productions once they have been taken possession of, I simply want to flag the significant burden that her amendment would place on Police Scotland.

I note the rest of Pauline McNeill’s speech following my request to intervene. I will simply point out that, with regard to amendment 58, I was not clear under what circumstances the court would require an official to be present at a virtual hearing—that is, with a witness or an accused. I am aware that, as the member says, a significant amount of work was done by the Scottish Government on that particular point following stage 2. I hope that some of that has been clarified.

I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s work to respond to the immediate priorities of energy businesses in my constituency and across the north-east, with £8.5 million of new funding for clean energy careers. It is vital that we continue to support the communities that, through oil and gas, provided energy security for generations and that, as the country accelerates towards a clean energy future, we ensure that those communities remain at the centre of Scotland’s energy future. Will the First Minister say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to support jobs and skills in the north-east, particularly in the face of Labour’s challenging fiscal regime?

I note the cabinet secretary’s comments about the increase in the number of long-term prisoners—she mentioned the figure of 700. Can she advise whether the Scottish Government is aware of any research that indicates an association between the length of sentences that are imposed in Scotland and the increase that we have seen in our prison population?

You referred to Police Scotland’s submission. It has highlighted that

“Crimes of Supply of a Controlled Drug or Possession with Intent to Supply were lower than the same period in 2024, halting a three-year trend of increasing offence numbers.”

That is helpful clarification.

We need to have brief questions and brief responses. I still have quite a number of members looking to contribute.