Chamber and committees

I understand the point that Christine Grahame makes about comparative justice. My concerns are focused more on the bill as it is currently drafted, as it creates permanent provisions rather than a time-limited pilot, after which we could assess how that pilot had operated.

The Scottish Government has said that conviction rates will not be the criteria that are used—the cabinet secretary was pressed on that point in committee—but it has not indicated what the criteria will be.

Given that I am coming to the end of my allotted time, I will just say clearly that Scottish Labour has listened carefully to the proposals that have been put forward. We are very aware of the need for transformative change in the justice system. We await the Scottish Government’s amendments with interest, and we will lodge amendments to strengthen the bill as it proceeds.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I thank all who have worked on the substantial stage 1 report, particularly the clerks and staff who were involved in the drafting.

As has been said, we need transformative change in the justice system for complainers, victims and witnesses. We believe that the status quo is failing women and the victims of sexual offences, who repeatedly describe their experiences as retraumatising. The cabinet secretary said that the bill is needed. It is clear that significant change is needed, but it is less clear that the bill will deliver the change that is needed.

Labour believes that it was unwise of the Scottish Government to come forward with so many changes to the system in one bill, often without sufficient detail. For example, the proposals on anonymity are important but have not been given sufficient scrutiny. One of the main concerns of complainers was the impact that delays have on the criminal justice system, but the provisions in the bill are unlikely to have an impact on that.

The bill also does not introduce measures such as having a single point of contact, which is significant and could make a big difference. Many parts of the public sector are already very aware of trauma-informed practice, so legislation is not needed to drive that further. In many other countries, complainers and rape victims have access to independent legal representation, often from before they report an incident to the police until after the conclusion of their trial and after any compensation is paid. The provisions in the bill are narrow and relate only to legal representation in relation to medical evidence. We welcome those provisions, but we believe that there is a strong case for further independent legal representation, particularly for rape victims.

We are particularly concerned about the provisions on change of jury size and jury majority relating to the abolition of the not proven verdict. As has been mentioned a number of times in the chamber, the Lord Advocate gave evidence to the committee that the proposals as they stand could risk fewer convictions. That is obviously of particular significance with regard to rape and other sexual offences cases, for which there are already very low conviction rates. As a representative of survivors said to the committee, that is like

“giving with one hand and taking away with the other.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 6 December 2023; c 17.]

We are disappointed that the Government did not address some of those concerns in more detail in its response to the stage 1 report. We believe that it was unfortunate that the Government sought, in its response, to rely so heavily on the mock jury research. We appreciate that the Scottish Government has said that it

“will give careful consideration to the issues”

that are raised in the committee’s report. However, we would have found it helpful if we had received more substantial responses before the debate today.

We believe that substantial changes are necessary, and we were therefore very interested in the arguments that were put forward in relation to the creation of sexual offences courts. However, we are concerned about the lack of detail in the proposals and about a major reorganisation taking place.

We are particularly concerned, partly because of our experience of previous legislation, about the lack of protections in the text of the bill, such as those relating to rights of audience. We support the creation of specialist divisions in the sheriff courts and High Court to strengthen trauma-informed practice. We support specialisation, and we believe that the rules of court need to be redrafted to take into account the needs and interests of complainers, victims and witnesses. Of course, that does not require legislation.

We believe that, without protections in the text of the bill on issues such as the right to representation by an advocate, we cannot support the provisions. We hope that the Government will come forward with further detail on that aspect as the bill progresses.

Good morning. One aim of the bill is value for money. Compensation recovery could cost up to £5.1 million per year, and estimated income is up to £5.5 million a year. What is the financial justification for bringing in compensation recovery?

I congratulate my colleague Pauline McNeill on securing this important debate. The age at which prison officers can retire from the service and collect their pension is currently set at 67, and it is due to increase to 68. While their retirement age continues to be linked to the UK state pension age, prison officers face the real prospect that the age could be increased even further. As it stands, 67 or 68 is too late. It puts prison officers, the colleagues for whom they provide back-up support and the prisoners whom they look after at unacceptable levels of risk.

The omission of prison officers from the list of uniformed services for which a pension age of 60 was agreed to be appropriate, in recognition of the unique toll that such professions take, was a significant error. As Pauline McNeill said, the Hutton review in 2011 concluded:

“for the uniformed services ... where pension age has historically been lower to reflect the unique nature of their work a pension age of 60 is appropriate.”

Prison officers should have had a pension age of 60. We must appreciate that, historically, there have also been lower pension ages in other sectors, such as for staff in psychiatric hospitals. Firefighters, prison officers and the armed forces were all included in 2011, yet prison officers were then excluded.

The current retirement age fails to recognise the unique pressures on prison staff. It is abundantly clear to me from speaking to them and reading the many responses that they provided to the Prison Officers Association’s all-member survey on the issue that the situation is untenable and unsafe. More than 90 per cent of the Prison Officers Association members who were surveyed said that they believe that they will not be able to continue to work until the age of 68, with more than 95 per cent fearing that they will need to leave their job before they reach that age because of the considerable physical and mental health challenges that they face in their work.

In the words of one prison officer,

“By the time we reach 68, we will already be suffering from ill health, hip and knee issues, and the stress that comes from working in the job. Including strokes and heart attacks and high blood pressure. Most of us barely live until our 70’s.”

Another describes how they are already

“struggling to cope”

at the age of 49. The injuries that they frequently receive in the course of their duties

“are taking longer to heal from”,

yet that officer will still be required to work a further 19 years of service before they are permitted to pick up their pension. It is clear that the mental and physical impact of carrying out those roles is incredibly high—and, as Sharon Dowey said, the prison environment that officers work in is becoming increasingly dangerous.

Prison officers work with an ever-expanding prison population and respond to high levels of prisoner violence, which is often instigated by those who are high on psychoactive substances. As has been said, prisons are becoming more dangerous, given the presence of drugs and the increasing numbers of members of organised crime gangs. All of that is coupled with a Scottish Prison Service that is understaffed and overstretched.

I urge the Scottish Government to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss those issues and, thereafter, to make appropriate recommendations to the UK Government.

[Made a request to intervene.]

Thank you, Stephanie, for being so brave as to come along today. It must be incredibly difficult. From what you said to Rona Mackay, it sounds as though you did not have a single point of contact and had to deal with quite a number of individuals, which is clearly a major issue.

I want to ask you about the duty of candour that the bill would create. Do you feel that there was candour from the police in your situation? Would such a duty have made a difference?

Thank you very much, Maggie, for being willing to speak to the committee.

You are suggesting that we start again with the complaints process. The PIRC, which is what we have at the moment, has been in place for only a relatively short period of time—just a few years—and you have talked about wanting an organisation with a different set of morals. How would you ensure that any new system does not fall into any traps or failings that the PIRC has? Do you not think that the PIRC could be reformed to incorporate some of the changes that you are suggesting?

It looks as though you have done a lot of preparation for today. Would you be happy to share anything that you have put in writing if we do not already have that?

Okay. Thank you.

It is question 22—I am not sure how it is numbered for you. It is probably question 5. It is about whether you feel that there was openness from the police when you were—