Chamber and committees

I have a specific question on your argument about cases timing out. Something that concerns me about amendment 1001, which relates to time limits on proceedings on sexual offences being extended in “exceptional circumstances”, is the risk of timing out or other unintended consequences. Have you given thought to that? Perhaps the cabinet secretary could also come back on that. Would the impact be as has been described, or could there be unintended consequences?

Yes, and there is a very strong case for them in some situations. We have heard already about the kinds of evidence that are already taken virtually, and I do not think that anything that I am saying would undermine provisions on that.

What I would say is that we cannot presume what the outcome of cases will be, given what happened, for example, in the pilot in the north-east, which was predominately domestic abuse cases. That actually had a high level of acquittals. That might not mean anything, given that it was a very small number of cases, but it shows that we cannot make presumptions about what we think will be the implications of virtual courts, and that they need to be evidence led. The more evidence that the Parliament and the committee has over a longer period, the more likely we will come to the right decisions.

One of the points that Rona Mackay is making is that victims and those giving evidence might find virtual courts an easier and, we hope, less traumatic experience, although it would no doubt still be a very difficult experience for them. That is one of the aspects that we have to look at.

We also have to look at the outcomes of cases, so we need proper evidence with which to move forward.

Potentially, the amendments in this group will make very significant changes to the system. Virtual attendance may lend itself well to case management hearings, but where witnesses and the accused have to give evidence, we might need to be clearer about what the implications are and whether it is possible for the evidence to be tested as well virtually as it would be in an open court.

As the cabinet secretary says, there is not a consensus on how virtual courts should be implemented. The cabinet secretary previously said that virtual courts would proceed only if there was agreement on all sides and from all parties.

I warmly welcome the debate and the opportunity to consider the significant announcements that were made last week.

We have heard from many members about the backdrop to the discussion. Across the UK, we have the sharpest fall in living standards, rising food and fuel prices and rising inflation. As members said, Brexit, the pandemic and Ukraine make the economic situation more challenging.

As members also said, there seem to be specific issues in Scotland around poor productivity and earnings growth. The growth forecasts are poor.

We know that, given the announcements last week, we face significant cuts in budgets for many sectors for which the Scottish Government is responsible.

I will focus on the impact of those cuts. Local government will be significantly affected by a cut of approximately 7 per cent. When the announcements were made last week, Unison’s Scottish secretary, Tracey Dalling, said:

“This is a desperate day for public services that will have catastrophic consequences for Scotland’s communities”.

I want to focus on a sector for which the impact of the cuts will be disastrous: the justice sector. The sector is already in crisis. Before the pandemic, approximately 13,400 sheriff court trials were outstanding. As the Criminal Justice Committee indicated in a report earlier this year, there are now approximately 32,400 outstanding cases in the sheriff court.

In last week’s announcements, significant real-terms cuts of at least 20 per cent over the next few years were proposed. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service budget is frozen at £170 million per year until 2026-27, the community justice budget is frozen at £47 million per year until 2026-27, and the justiciary budget is frozen at £29 million per year until 2026-27. The legal aid and Scottish Police Authority budgets are also frozen, along with the budgets for the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

I fully appreciate that politics is about priorities and choices, as members have said, but those real-terms cuts will have significant impacts on a sector that is already in crisis. The projected gap is £3.5 billion. The Parliament needs to debate such issues, because the impacts will be significant.

We know that there is a massive backlog in trials—43,606 as of February—and that Scotland has the highest proportion of people in prison anywhere in Europe. It has historically had very high percentages of people on remand, which rose to 30 per cent, and perhaps higher, during the pandemic. We also know that it costs £40,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. There are significant impacts and consequences of the types of cuts that were announced last week, which the Parliament needs to debate.

I have focused on one sector, but other sectors have similar stories. It has been said that it is a matter of choice and that other sectors have perhaps done better. The challenges that we face in the health sector and social security budgets have been mentioned.

I hope that we have a serious debate about how we make the Scottish Parliament’s budget bigger. I do not think that it is helpful to specifically focus on independence in this debate, because the Parliament can do many things with the powers that it already has. We heard a number of speeches about income tax, and we heard my colleague Paul Sweeney talk about what could be done with district heating. There is much that could be done on municipal energy production that would contribute significantly to many of the issues before us today.

We urgently need to consider what we could do on land taxes, and we need serious proposals for a land value tax, including looking at what we can do to tax the profiteers such as Amazon, which operates out of warehouses that could fall under a land tax. Those are the kinds of debate that we should be having in the chamber.

A land-based tax would be lawful, and I hope that we come back to that debate. I look forward to debating the member on that specific issue in future.

A number of reports have indicated the types of taxes that are within the powers of the Parliament. The Scottish Trades Union Congress, in a joint report with the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland, listed a number of areas that we could be looking at, including local inheritance tax, local payroll tax, fair work supplements on business taxes, local income tax and carbon taxes.

I hope that, in coming debates, we seriously engage with those suggestions and that the Scottish Government comes forward with proposals on how we meet the massive challenges of the coming years.

I will take an intervention, and I hope that I will get my time back.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent reports, whether it will provide further information regarding existing ScotRail contracts with Abellio. (S6T-00768)

The information in the media came from a freedom of information request. Can the cabinet secretary inform the Parliament how much money is involved in those contracts?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that answer. Perhaps she will reconsider some of the issues around confidentiality and write to me in detail on the contracts, given that we are talking about fare payers’ and taxpayers’ money.

I hope that the minister agrees that every penny of money that we put into our railways should go into the system, rather than leaking out of the public sector. Could she outline whether any rail replacement services are being provided by Abellio, given that we know that there are contracts relating to that, yet there is currently a lack of rail replacement services? Will she commit to looking at that commitment and the other Abellio contracts in order to bring them back in-house as soon as possible, as she has indicated? Will she give us a timescale in relation to that?

My amendments 54 and 55, which are in some ways similar to Russell Findlay’s amendments, would enable local authorities to designate an area as a firework control zone in which fireworks could not be used by any person and no person or, indeed, professional organisation would be exempt. In effect, fireworks would be banned in the area. Obviously, the statutory defence would remain in place. If the provision were enacted, a local authority could decide to ban fireworks in the vicinity of, for example, an animal rescue centre, riding stables, a hospital, a facility for a vulnerable group or a larger area or neighbourhood in which there were particular problems.

I have a number of statements in support of the amendments. I do not intend to speak to the amendments in detail, because I believe that the minister and the committee are well aware of the antisocial impact and, indeed, the health and safety concerns that can relate to the use of fireworks. As I have said, I have statements from, among others, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the National Autistic Society and the Scottish Community Safety Network, which I will provide to the clerk and which go into detail as to why those organisations are sympathetic to the amendments.

I am interested in hearing an explanation from the minister as to why there is no provision in the bill similar to the one that I and Russell Findlay have outlined.

It occurred to me during our evidence taking that one issue is potential challenges under the Equality Act 2010. Jamie Greene has spoken specifically in relation to religious communities, which would be directly covered by equalities legislation. We also heard in evidence that fireworks are being used for gender reveal events. Has there been an equality impact assessment? What consideration has been given to aspects under the 2010 act, given that—as Pauline McNeill has outlined—the 57 days would be a baseline, and that, if challenges under the act were successful, they would add to the number of days?