Chamber and committees

Since 2006, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of bus routes across Scotland, and 190 routes have been cut in the past year alone. More than 83 per cent of passengers support the idea of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport implementing bus franchising across the region, which would allow for better oversight of fares, routes and timetables. What work is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that SPT has the necessary financial support to enable it to proceed with franchising?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the decision by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport to progress with proposals for bus franchising. (S6O-05042)

The evidence in relation to proper resourcing is extremely helpful and is important for everybody in the debate to understand. However, many of us will be looking carefully at the provisions on paying for sex, because that is probably the area where there is the biggest divide in people’s views. We will be looking at what evidence we can find in relation to how that model or other models might impact on levels of prostitution, violence against women and human trafficking. I know that you have already said quite a bit about that in relation to other questions, but any further information that you can give us would be helpful.

The previous witnesses made a point about the impact of prostitution on wider society, and I think that we need to think about that carefully. How would you respond to the points that were made about the attitudes of prostitutes’ clients towards prostitutes and the more general issues about the objectification of women and the increased normalisation of pornography in our society? This Parliament has been considering the increased levels of sexism and misogyny, the attitudes of young men and young women, and what that means for society more generally—it is a massive issue. I am asking about what the Parliament tells people in Scotland is acceptable and the impact that that has on how people behave.

We know the issues around human trafficking, but we also know that the prostitution industry is a multimillion-pound industry that profits from women. We have heard evidence in relation to that, and our witnesses have been very clear about poverty being a massive driver for women entering the industry. In terms of what the Parliament can do to support women, what other impactful measures would you suggest be included in the bill? For example, it has been suggested that there could be amendments that would allow women to work in groups as long as no profit was extracted by anyone else. Is that the kind of thing that you think the committee should consider?

I am happy to leave my questions to the next evidence session to save time.

I have a question for Niki Adams. You said that you felt that the model that is being proposed meant that the prostitute would have less time to check out the client. However, would completely decriminalising the regime for women not empower them in that situation?

As the cabinet secretary said, the No Knives, Better Lives programme has been successful. It has been credited with helping to reduce the number of young people who have been convicted of handling knives by 85 per cent since 2008. However, despite a recent increase in knife crimes, there has been a 12 per cent real-terms reduction in the funding of No Knives, Better Lives since 2022. In the forthcoming budget, will the cabinet secretary look at the issue again, reinstate the funding and consider what further the programme can do?

I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour.

Many of the changes in part 1 of the bill were introduced during the pandemic, with the Scottish Government now seeking to make them permanent. Although we are generally supportive of that, we have some concerns about how far some provisions in the bill might extend.

We are particularly concerned about whether too many decisions will be left to the discretion of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and whether that service is properly resourced to deliver the changes set out in the bill. Although the Scottish Government has given assurances that there will be no overreach, we believe that monitoring will be necessary to ensure that the provisions do not in any way hinder justice.

It is clear that increased use of digital documents and evidence will be vital to modernising the court system. However, there is also a need to ensure that physical evidence can continue to be available in criminal cases if requested. Labour members made those arguments during today’s debate, as well as earlier in the bill process. Greater use of digital documents and evidence also raises questions about digital inclusion, which the Scottish Government must address. Audit Scotland has previously highlighted the fact that 15 per cent of adults lack foundational digital skills, such as knowing how to turn on a digital device, and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has called on the Scottish Government to publish a digital inclusion action plan.

Members have spoken about the bill’s provisions for virtual attendance at court proceedings. Those provisions were introduced temporarily during the pandemic and we believe that making them permanent will both increase their use and help to reduce the backlog that still exists in courts. Many victims groups, and the legal sector, have welcomed making virtual attendance a permanent feature of our court system. However, we urge the Scottish Government to do more to ensure that virtual attendance is always safe and free from interference. We accept that, regardless of whether the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance are absolutely and utterly watertight, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service sees it as an inherent part of the system. Work needs to be done to ensure that locations offer a strong video and wi-fi connection and good picture quality. We heard evidence that that has been a problem in the courts over the past five years.

The Scottish Government must address the concerns of Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations about the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance. Scottish Women’s Aid has argued that the provisions do not go far enough in protecting women, children and young people who experience domestic abuse. As has been said in the debate, I think, the committee did not look at that in detail during our scrutiny of the process. Even at this late stage, we need to give thought to it, and I am sure that the Scottish Government will be thinking about that as we move forward. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has indicated clearly that she will engage with Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations on the issues that they raise.

As well as increasing the use of virtual attendance, the bill seeks to allow cases in which a person appears from police custody to take place in any sheriff court in Scotland. We recognise that that could lead to savings in court costs—in particular, in the costs of transferring prisoners around the country. However, many organisations, such as the Law Society of Scotland, have rightly raised the importance of local justice. Those issues must also be given adequate consideration.

We welcome the creation in part 2 of the bill of a framework to review domestic homicides and suicides, and we agree with the comments that that has perhaps not had the scrutiny that it should have had, given that it deals with a gap in existing legislation and frameworks. We should remember that similar provisions already exist in England and Wales, and that the ways in which England and Wales deal with such things is very different. We recognise the vital work that victim support groups have played in developing the framework, but we also believe that we need to look closely at how reviews have worked in other jurisdictions in the UK.

We urge the cabinet secretary to address the issues that relate to membership of the proposed review oversight committee that have been raised by Scottish Women’s Aid—specifically, to ensure the proper representation of victim support groups, including those that deal on the front line with violence against women and girls.

We support the bill. We very much hope that its provisions will allow a modernisation of the courts that improves the experience of those who use them—victims and witnesses—and that will help to address the considerable backlogs that still exist. However, we also recognise that far wider issues surround the resourcing of our courts and the state of legal aid, so we remain concerned that, although some of the provisions are very welcome, a great deal more work needs to be done to address the significant backlogs in our courts system.

I will speak to my amendments 64 and 65. The bill will allow national jurisdiction in custody cases. It will allow individuals to appear from custody away from their local area and the part of the country where the alleged offence took place. During stages 1 and 2, concerns were raised about the loss of the judge’s local knowledge of a community or an accused. Those issues were raised by the Law Society of Scotland and the criminal justice committee of the Sheriffs and Summary Sheriffs Association, although I note that the cabinet secretary has indicated today that those issues have not been raised during the time that the emergency legislation has been in place.

My amendments would encourage communication with the local court in national jurisdiction cases. I do not intend to move the amendments and press them to a vote, but I have noted carefully what the cabinet secretary has said. I hope that, in the operation of the legislation, maximum communication will be encouraged to ensure that the interests of justice are served.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Amendments 5 to 8 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 64 and 65 not moved.

After section 8

How much of the infrastructure to increase home detention, bail supervision, electronic monitoring and, indeed, victim notification will be in place by the time of the proposed releases? Given the high remand population, can the cabinet secretary say whether there is any sign that the new bail test is working? In addition, can she provide data on the reoffending levels further to the most recent set of releases? After the first set of releases, reoffending rates were very high, due to a lack of planning.