Chamber and committees

It might well be that the Government’s amendment 7 deals with the issues that I have attempted to address in amendments 35 and 36. As I have said, amendment 35 was drafted after work with Victim Support Scotland, and it is also supported by Scottish Women’s Aid, ASSIST, Rape Crisis Scotland and other organisations. It would be helpful to put on the record the reasoning behind that amendment and, indeed, amendment 36, which was drafted following discussions with defence agents. I would want to go back and have discussions with those organisations before the next stage of proceedings.

On amendment 35, as we know, the bill places a duty on the court, when bail is refused, to state the grounds on which it has determined that it has good reasons for doing so. Those reasons are to be entered into the record of proceedings. In that respect, I heard what the cabinet secretary said in relation to amendment 7.

However, the concern raised by Victim Support Scotland relates to issues of equality and rights to information for victims. Although it accepts that the bill as drafted will contribute to transparency of judicial decision making around bail and will, for that reason, be of benefit to victims of crime, it believes that the provisions need to go further by ensuring that written reasons for the granting of bail are provided, too. That will enable victims to have an understanding of the court’s thinking.

Victim Support Scotland has said that, in consultation sessions that it held with Scottish Women’s Aid, women and workers for local women’s aid groups highlighted that the lack of information available to women explaining the court’s reasoning was a common and repeated issue and a source of frustration and concern to them. The organisation has therefore argued that, to ensure consistency and transparency of decision making and proceedings for participants and to assist in the enforcement of bail conditions and safety planning for victims, the reasons for refusal must also be communicated in writing to the victim, particularly women experiencing domestic abuse. I think that we will look at electronic monitoring later, and Victim Support Scotland feels that similar provisions are required in that respect, too. Moreover, the organisation has pointed out the precedent in the 1995 act for the court to give reasons for making decisions on specific aspects of bail that would have an impact on a complainer, referring to section 24(2B) in particular.

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment, but I want to reflect further on the points that are being made by Victim Support Scotland and other organisations with regard to equality and the availability of similar information, whether bail is granted or refused.

The alternative position that I have put forward in amendment 36 came out of discussions with solicitor practitioners and, as I said, some practising sheriffs. They felt that the onerous nature of the provision and the added bureaucracy would involve more time but would lead to the same outcomes. Amendment 36 was lodged to remove the provision completely for the reasons that the legal profession has set out on a number of occasions and that are referred to in Lord Carloway’s submission to the Scottish Government.

I will reflect on what the cabinet secretary said about the provision simply being a formal requirement. However, I want to look at issues around equality and whether the proposal meets the needs of victims. Therefore, I do not intend to push either of my amendments to a vote.

Given what has been said, I will not press amendment 37, which I now withdraw. I also warmly welcome amendment 8, as lodged by the Scottish Government.

Amendment 37, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 5—Time spent on electronically monitored bail

I am happy to move the amendment in Pauline McNeill’s name.

I definitely support the amendment.

I move, amendment S6M-08865.2, to insert at end:

“; further notes recent reports of poor experiences of victims within the justice system, including long waits for court cases to be heard and the re-traumatising effect of the legal process for victims of domestic abuse and rape; invites the Scottish Government to explore the potential benefits of expanding the independent legal representation available to victims, particularly in cases of rape; understands that reform of the justice system will only be successful if the current pressures on the justice system are addressed, and expresses its belief that further reforms must be developed and implemented cooperatively with those who work in the criminal justice sector in order to bring about effective and practical change for victims and witnesses.”

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to speak to the amendment in Pauline McNeill’s name.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the framework, which is a substantial document. We very much hope that it assists with work across the criminal justice sector to address the multiple ways that the justice system exacerbates the experience of trauma for many victims and witnesses. We also hope that it helps to address the impact of experience of the justice system, which is often described by victims as “retraumatising”.

The framework outlines in detail the impact that psychological trauma can have and the need for a person-centred approach. We support the Scottish Government in work to drive a better understanding of the impact of trauma across the system, but we must recognise that our current criminal justice system deals with those issues very poorly, unfortunately.

The trauma that witnesses experience has been known and discussed for decades. The Scottish Labour Party is currently carrying out our own consultation on ending violence and sexual harassment against women, and Pauline McNeill and I are undertaking meetings throughout the country. The emotional and physical risks and difficulties that victims face pre-trial, during trial and at sentencing are raised again and again.

When the Criminal Justice Committee met rape survivors, we heard harrowing testimony. Rape survivors described extremely poor experiences of the criminal justice system, which they felt let them down. Complainers said that giving evidence and their wider experience of the criminal justice system could be as traumatising as the crime itself. The terms “retraumatising” and “second violation” are repeatedly used.

We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge of changing practice in the justice system, because to deliver the necessary change there needs to be greater awareness of the need for trauma-informed practice, and many aspects of the justice system need to be fundamentally changed. The current legal process is not organised around the needs of victims. We need to consider how we can improve the experience of victims and witnesses and ensure outcomes that deliver in the interests of justice.

We are concerned that the new framework cannot be implemented unless the serious challenges that the criminal justice system currently faces are addressed. We have the highest remand rates in western Europe, crowded prisons, extensive court backlogs, a rise in recorded sexual offences, a shortage of criminal justice social workers and a crisis in legal aid. We know that, during the pandemic, the High Court backlogs disproportionately affected women and children, with sexual crimes amounting to more than two thirds of cases waiting to be heard. Our amendment highlights the retraumatising effect of the court process and the impact of court backlogs and delays on victims.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which the cabinet secretary spoke about, allows for complainers in rape cases to have legal representation when the defence wishes to lead evidence in limited circumstances. We support that, but our amendment invites the Scottish Government to explore further the benefits of expanding the legal advice and representation that are available to victims—in particular, in rape cases.

In recent decades, many other countries with adversarial court systems have introduced greater legal advice for victims and enhanced rights to representation for them in the courts. That seems to have significantly improved the experience of victims in those justice systems. We believe that in order to inform the debate we need to look at what is happening elsewhere.

It is worth saying that Scotland is lagging behind much of Europe on victims’ rights. For example, in Denmark, victims are entitled to state-funded legal advice at the reporting stage, and before and during trial. In Spain, female victims of gender violence have the right to free legal advice, regardless of their resources. In Norway, victims have the right to legal advice before trial and during trial, to the conclusion of the case. For example, a rape victim is entitled to see a lawyer to get legal advice for two hours before they report a rape allegation and they then receive legal representation to the conclusion of the case. Given all the evidence from rape victims about their experience of the justice system, we believe that there is a case for looking at how we can expand the legal support that is available to rape victims in particular, so we ask that the Scottish Government look at what more could be done.

Scottish Labour supports trauma-informed practices for victims and witnesses, but we recognise that that will mean fundamental changes in practice and culture.

The legal profession is threatening to boycott aspects of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill that relate to single-judge rape trials. The cabinet secretary is correct to say that we need partnership and resolve. A great deal more work needs to be done to ensure that reforms can be implemented effectively.

We look forward to hearing contributions to the debate. As a party, we are open to discussing any ideas that will deliver for witnesses and victims.

Theme 3 is about new policies. Quite a number of new policies were suggested under themes 1 and 2. I was going to read them out, but there are far too many of them, so I will not do that. As the deputy convener said, many of the policy levers lie at Westminster but, at the same time, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have substantial powers not only over areas that are their responsibility but over the ability to mitigate.

To develop some of the themes that have already been raised, what new policies do we need to prioritise to tackle the specific issues that have been identified in relation to lone parents? Are there any that would probably not cost significant amounts of money and might be easier to prioritise in the current situation? What permanent changes do we need to make, particularly given the fact that the Scottish Parliament has extensive responsibility for social security? We have to develop our social security system in Scotland differently. How would you develop some of the themes that have been raised?

I will go to Kirsty McKechnie first, if she is comfortable with that.

That could be developed in many ways, although it would take some time. That is very interesting. I think that Martin Canavan wants to come in.

The Scottish Government has a goal of ensuring that robust community justice interventions are available across Scotland, but the community justice budget is facing real-terms cuts over the next year. Given that the Scottish Government’s stated intention is to increase use of community justice, will the First Minister look at that again?

I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing this debate and thank him for lodging the motion. As he pointed out, this is an international day, and the issues raised when firefighters put themselves in danger in the interest of others are also international. I associate myself with all of the tributes that have been made to firefighters who have lost their lives.

Firefighters memorial day is a day of solidarity and one on which to remember all firefighters and fire and rescue services workers who have lost their lives. As has been said, more than 2,500 have lost their lives serving their communities and many thousands more have been injured. The health risks to firefighters are now very clear, with higher death rates, higher rates of heart attacks, higher cancer and leukaemia rates and excess cancer mortality rates linked to different exposures and fire toxins.

My office recently submitted freedom of information requests to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about the conditions in our fire stations. In total, 75 per cent of Scotland’s fire stations are assessed as being of bad or poor suitability. Around 45 per cent of fire stations are assessed as being in either bad or poor condition. In total, around 30 per cent of Scotland’s fire stations do not have dedicated female toilets and about 33 per cent of Scotland’s fire stations do not have dedicated male toilets. Around 40 per cent of Scotland’s fire stations do not have dedicated female showers and around 26 per cent of Scotland’s fire stations do not have drying facilities.

At the Criminal Justice Committee, interim chief, Ross Haggart, estimated that £138 million is needed to address that issue, but he also cited a £630 million backlog in the fire service’s capital budget. Despite strong representations being made, the Scottish Government is cutting the budget in real terms over the next year. We also know that between 2012 and 2021 almost 1,100 firefighter jobs were lost across Scotland, which is around 15 per cent of the workforce.

Last Friday was workers memorial day. The message then and now must be that we must remember the dead and fight for the living. In reality, that means that we in the chamber must put our actions where our words are, and we must commit resources to ensure that firefighters in this country are provided with safe systems of work.

Yes—that was my understanding, Presiding Officer.