Chamber and committees

With the exception of amendment 1021, which is on reporting, all the amendments that I have lodged in the group are probing amendments that relate to the current extension of time limits, which the Scottish Government suggests should continue. The examples that I will give are illustrative. I will not speak to every amendment, because there are so many of them, but I will provide a flavour of them.

Allowing the bill to pass would have the effect of extending the 11-month pre-Covid time limit for the time from appearance and petition to pre-trial hearing to 17 months, as provided for in the emergency legislation. The lead amendment in the group suggests that, instead, that period should be increased to only 13 months. I will provide another illustrative example. The emergency legislation extended the time for which someone was allowed to remain on remand until the pre-trial hearing from 110 days to 290 days. Amendment 1016 proposes that that should be allowed to increase to only 200 days.

The periods that I have chosen are arbitrary and not evidence based because I have not seen any evidence to justify why, for example, 290 days are required to prepare between the time when someone is taken into custody and the pre-trial hearing. The purpose of amendments 1011 to 1020 is to try to tease out from the Scottish Government the reasoning and justification for why the amount of time that is specified in the bill is necessary.

It must always be said that, in Scots law, there is provision for time limits to be extended on cause shown. It is therefore always possible to go to court to make a case as to why the Crown does not have sufficient time and needs further time to prepare the case for trial. However, the effect of the legislation that has been in place during Covid is that the amount of time for which people are held in custody before they are taken to court and their case is heard has been extended significantly. Many organisations have raised human rights concerns and many consider the time extension to be draconian. The issue before us is whether the extensions are necessary and will continue to be so during the period for which the bill’s provisions will be in place if it is enacted.

The backdrop is that we still have the highest number of people in prison in Europe. I say “still” because it is an historical issue, and it is important for the Parliament to explore it. Why is it that, historically, Britain in general has had high numbers of people in prison, but Scotland in particular has always had higher numbers of people in prison than the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the rest of Europe? We also have an historical problem of high remand rates, which increased staggeringly during the Covid pandemic. We were informed in evidence a number of weeks ago that the remand rates in Scottish prisons are currently at 30 per cent. We were previously told that the figure was 27 per cent. It would be interesting to know whether it has increased again.

The extension of the time limits will almost inevitably lead to an increase in prisoner numbers. We already have a huge problem with prison overcrowding, and it will simply not be possible to build more prisons and create more prison spaces under the timescales in the bill.

Some people are found not guilty at trial after lengthy periods in custody or receive lesser sentences than the period for which they were held on remand. The committee has spoken about that previously and mentioned it in previous reports. Also, given that there is always a tendency in almost any establishment for people to work to deadlines, the concern must be that, if the deadlines are longer, there will be less pressure to ensure that cases are prepared as speedily as possible.

Amendments 1011 to 1020 are probing amendments. They are not evidence based, in the sense that I have not taken evidence on or been able to justify the time limits that I propose. However, I submit to the committee and put it to the Government that the Government has also not presented evidence as to why the time limits in the bill are necessary. Indeed, many people in the legal profession insist that the amount of time that is provided for is not needed by the Crown or the defence. The impact of the time limits on the system has been very significant and it has in large part resulted in some of the problems that the committee has discussed on many occasions.

I might come back to the issue at a later stage but, at this stage, I ask the Scottish Government to justify why the specific lengths of time extension in the bill have been sought, are in place and should be continued.

Amendment 1021, which is on reporting, is similar to the amendment on reporting that I spoke to earlier, but it relates to the issue of remand. As I said, we already have the highest remand figures in the whole of Europe. I will not rehearse all the arguments about that, as members have already heard them.

Amendment 1021 seeks to require the Scottish ministers to lay before the Scottish Parliament

“as soon as practicable at the end of each reporting period”,

which is every six months, a report that sets out the number of prisoners who are being held on remand, the average length of time for which prisoners are being held on remand pre-trial and information on disposals—in other words, whether people received a custodial sentence or a non-custodial sentence, or were found not guilty. The first period for which that requirement would be in place would be the period from royal assent until 31 January 2023.

We have already discussed in relation to virtual trials the significance of information that relates to the scrutiny process. For the Parliament to effectively scrutinise very serious issues around which there are significant human rights concerns, not just for the accused but for all who are involved in the process, including the victim, the more information that can be provided to and shared with the Parliament, the better. The inclusion of such a requirement in the bill would send a strong message to the civil service and the justice system about the level of scrutiny that the Parliament expects to have in relation to such decisions.

I move amendment 1011.

The cabinet secretary can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is the date when the provisions on virtual courts will initially come to an end, although the officials may want to come in on that point. I can be corrected later if I am wrong, but I believe that that is the case.

Basically, for as long as the provisions are in place, amendment 1034 would require the Scottish Government to lay before Parliament a report every six months. That would enable Parliament to discuss how it is going.

One of the concerns is that it might be very difficult to get virtual courts up and running if the cabinet secretary wants to get agreement on all sides, as that may be difficult to reach. That is exactly the information that should be available to Parliament to debate. If the provisions are not being implemented because defence agents and the prosecution will not agree to them, we need to have that discussion.

I am not prejudging the nature or content of the reports. I am saying that it is appropriate that the Parliament has the information available to it. If the cabinet secretary is not minded to accept amendment 1034, I ask him to consider how he could ensure that the Parliament is fully included and that as much information as possible is shared with it.

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?