Chamber and committees

Would it not be more sensible to have a pilot with a significant tranche of cases being dealt with in that way and then to evaluate the outcome of that, rather than making a permanent shift to a position where virtual trials are a default, which would be a significant change in the Scottish legal system?

Concerns were first brought to people’s attention on 13 February, although I appreciate that the full extent of the problem might not have been apparent at that point. However, as yet, we have not got to the point at which cases are being looked at by those who deal with this work. Is that right?

I appreciate that somebody might be a dangerous individual but might not have been convicted of any serious offences. However, many of that cohort would have had convictions. Did you ask for that information?

Thank you.

What is the cabinet secretary’s understanding of how prisons differentiate between different types of prisoners? For example, during Covid, children in prison have been subject to the same measures to combat virus infection as adults have. How do the prisons balance those rights and look at individuals, particularly those who might be more vulnerable?

I want to pick up the point that was made about other systems. Have you been able to work out the profile of the cases that we are talking about, particularly some of the more serious offences? How many sexual offenders are involved, for example? Given the huge workload that is involved in reviewing the cases, how have you prioritised them? Have you been able to prioritise some of the cases that would cause the public most concern? Perhaps you can outline your approach in layperson’s language.

I very much hope that the Parliament will look sympathetically on the motion.

The debate is about the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state and about whether Governments and public institutions have a duty of transparency and honesty to those who are affected when something goes wrong. It is also about whether the families of those who have died have a right to information and to know the truth, and it is about the equality of arms between the individual and the state in any legal proceedings that look at what has gone wrong. The debate is not about undermining front-line staff who provide public services but about the rights of families when there are state-linked deaths, whether that be in the NHS or any other sector.

I will refer to a few recent deaths in custody that are relevant to the debate. Katie Allan was a third-year student at the University of Glasgow from East Renfrewshire who died in Polmont in 2018, and we still await a fatal accident inquiry. She was sentenced for drink driving and died by suicide after a catalogue of failures. Warnings that she was vulnerable were not heeded.

Allan Marshall also died in custody. The sheriff said that his death was entirely preventable and that guards involved in his death were “mutually and consistently dishonest.”

We hope that the fatal accident inquiry in the case of Sheku Bayoh will go ahead later this year. Again, that involves the state and the actions of the police force.

The Parliament has discussed death in custody in the past, and it has made attempts to improve fatal accident inquiries. I was not involved in those discussions, but I know that the average time between death and a fatal accident inquiry was 509 days on average between 2005 and 2008 whereas, since the 2016 legislation, the length of time has actually increased. It is clear that the issues need to be considered again.

The proposal that is before us calls for a charter for families who have been bereaved through public tragedy, which would be binding on all public bodies. It asks for improved access to legal advice and assistance so that bereaved families can take part in public inquiries. It asks for evidence from public inquiries to be taken into account in criminal trials. It asks for an extension of the duty of candour to bodies such as the police.

The member raises an important point, which I do not have time to come back to in detail in this debate, but I hope that we will be able to explore it on another occasion.

The demands are not just being made in Scotland. Recently, Lord Rosser’s amendment to introduce a duty of candour into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was passed in the House of Lords. Such demands are being campaigned for throughout the UK, partly spearheaded by the Hillsborough campaigners, who have been campaigning for rights because of their treatment. The demands are also being backed by those who have campaigned for nuclear test veterans and victims of the Grenfell fire and of the Manchester arena bombing, and by those involved in many other campaigns.

In 2017, the Angiolini review of serious incidents and deaths in custody called for non-means-tested funding for families immediately after a state-related—

It is a pleasure to make this closing speech on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party and associate myself with the solidarity with women and girls around the world that the First Minister and other members have expressed.

This is a day to celebrate the achievements of women against the backdrop of centuries of oppression. It is a day for sisterhood. I welcome the speeches from women MSPs who have spoken of the systematic discrimination against women in Scotland and throughout the world. I also welcome the speeches from men who spoke of the actions that men must take.

My colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted the specific challenges for disabled women. Kaukab Stewart, Foysol Choudhury and Pam Gosal spoke of the challenges that women from black and ethnic minority backgrounds face. Ruth Maguire and Gillian Martin spoke eloquently of the horrific situation of women in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Yemen and many other countries. Rona Mackay and Christine Grahame spoke of the struggles and strength of women in working-class communities over many generations and confirmed again that education will be the liberation for women.

International women’s day was created by working-class women fighting for their rights. In 1908, women in the needle trades demonstrated in New York to form their own trade union for better pay, shorter working hours and the right to vote. The fights of women in the United States reached Europe and inspired socialist women, such as Clara Zetkin, who suggested the creation of an international day for women. In 1975, the United Nations made that an official day, and this year’s theme, #BreakTheBias, asks us to imagine a world free of bias, stereotypes and discrimination.

This Parliament has a good record when it comes to improving women’s representation in Scotland, although, as we all know, there is still a long way to go. More women have been elected to this Parliament since 1999 than have been elected to Westminster since 1918. Forty five per cent of members of the Scottish Parliament are women, which of course means that women are still underrepresented in this chamber. Even more needs to be done at council level, for example.

We have heard from members of all political parties, who talked about many aspects of women’s lives. We heard about women’s health and women’s achievements in sport and many other fields.

There were many expressions of solidarity with women in Ukraine. Of course, it is women who bear the brunt of violence, including sexual violence, in war. It is right that we also express solidarity with the people in Russia who are protesting against the war, many thousands of whom have been arrested—even children have been arrested.

The challenges for women are challenges for humanity. We have to recognise that the position of women in the UK has worsened, due to the pandemic. The World Economic Forum says that the time that is needed to close the global gender gap has increased from 99.5 years to 135.6 years, due to the pandemic. It is not necessarily the case that the position of women and girls in society continues to get better. What we heard about Afghanistan reinforces that.

Austerity, too, has had a disproportionate impact on women. I ask politicians in all political parties to think about that when they make the political decisions that have an impact on communities.

We know that there is a growing rape culture in schools and that new technology has created a new range of pressures on girls and young women. In Scotland, 40 per cent of the sexual crimes that are recorded by the police relate to a victim who is under 18 years old. The Labour Party has strongly welcomed the report from Helena Kennedy and the proposal that misogyny be made an aggravating factor in criminal cases.

I am a member of the Criminal Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which has heard repeatedly from victims about the retraumatising effect on women of going through the criminal justice system in cases of rape, attempted rape and other forms of sexual violence. We look forward to the recommendations in Lady Dorrian’s report being implemented during this parliamentary session.

International women’s day was created as a day on which to fight for women’s rights. It has changed over the years, with a far greater range of organisations involved and a far greater range of events taking place. The fact that a whole afternoon is dedicated to this debate, with speeches from members of all political parties, demonstrates that change.

Fundamentally, this is a day on which to celebrate the struggles of women and the fight of women and girls against the challenges and discrimination that we face. It is a day on which we can refocus ourselves, not just on the massive challenges that women and girls face but, more important, on what we all need to do as we fight collectively to ensure that historical oppressions become a matter for history, so that we go forward, united as sisters, with the rights that mean that such oppression is discussed in history classes but does not need to be discussed weekly in chambers such as this one.