Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Sections 6 and 7 of the bill seek to put a duty on the Scottish Government to ensure that assistance and support are provided, and the financial memorandum published alongside it estimates the cost of that at £1.2 million to £1.9 million. Do you have a view on whether that amount would be sufficient? What types of support are needed? Would the provisions in the bill be helpful in achieving that?

I will ask Laura Baillie first, as she commented on the issue in her submission.

Laura, I know that you are not in favour of the Nordic model, but is there a model that you are in favour of?

What are the barriers to accessing services just now? What barriers did you find that you had?

Good morning. Following on from Jamie Hepburn’s question, I want to come back to the right to assistance and support. Amanda Jane Quick, you said earlier that services exist but that they do not ask the right questions. Bronagh Andrew, in your submission, you say that

“Glasgow City Council has facilitated specialist services ... since 1989”,

so it has already done a lot of work on this. I am wondering about the costs. The financial memorandum that was published along with the bill estimates that the Scottish Government would need to provide additional funding of between £1.2 million and £1.9 million to cover the cost of the support that is envisaged. Do you have a view on whether that support would be enough? Is there enough in the financial memorandum to provide the support that will be required?

Retailers tell us that asking for proof of age can often be a trigger point for violence or abuse if the sale is refused, and that response times from Police Scotland are poor, if officers even turn up at all.

What communication has the minister had with Police Scotland on that? How many prosecutions have there been under the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021?

Scotland’s justice system is in a state of crisis, and the Scottish Conservatives welcome anything that improves things for those who work in it and, of course, for victims and witnesses. As such, the bill has our support, and the priority now should be to ensure that the changes that are agreed today will genuinely make life better for those who matter most. Although we will vote for the bill, we still have some concerns about implementation and financing, and we remain disappointed that some of our suggestions were rejected.

Like many of our institutions, the courts system is in desperate need of modernisation, so I am glad to see some sensible provisions in the bill. As the cabinet secretary said, some of those were introduced on an emergency basis during Covid, through necessity rather than design. Although it is right that some pandemic-era measures are consigned to history, it is absolutely correct that those that work well are retained.

The courts system is under huge stress. Backlogs show little sign of clearing, and there are fears among senior lawyers that things will get even worse. In addition, the system can cause unnecessary distress and inconvenience to victims and witnesses.

Pauline McNeill highlighted that virtual attendance is a positive change, although it is vital that the correct technology is in place to make sure that such appearances are smooth, free from technical glitches and of good enough quality that it does not matter that the person speaking is not in the room. That point was also emphasised by Liam McArthur.

Similarly, the change to photographed evidence must also come with assurances. There is an obvious risk of tampering when real, physical things are replaced with photographs—a threat that is becoming greater with advancements in artificial intelligence. The system must be absolutely bullet proof.

Another element of the bill that requires caution and monitoring is the permanent increase of the fiscal fine limit to £500. On the face of it, that makes sense and represents a strengthening of the system of punishment for offenders whose crime fits that punishment. However, we already know that criminals are let off with fines when they really ought to be receiving something more serious. That weakens deterrence, emboldening criminals to offend again, safe in the knowledge that the gains from their crimes will probably outweigh the fine handed down by the court. That is particularly true of shoplifting, a scourge that has run out of control across Scotland. Indeed, as the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association highlighted in evidence, shoplifting is already effectively decriminalised, given how readily courts deal with it by way of fines.

What must be made crystal clear is that a raising of the threshold does not mean an expansion of how fines are used. That increase should absolutely not be seen as a replacement for stiffer punishments. It is disappointing that my amendment that would have compelled ministers to produce a progress report within a year of this change was rejected. That will make it harder to know whether the new measure is being used as intended.

As is the case with all legislation, we need to ensure it is matched by resources. We cannot place additional strain on public services without giving them the right tools. That is especially true of the police, who are already under immense strain and on whom many of the changes will fall. Both Police Scotland and COSLA have expressed concern about funding when it comes to the domestic homicide and suicide reviews. However, the finances behind the reviews are vague in the bill, and we need to make sure that the reviews will work effectively in practice. Audrey Nicoll highlighted the benefits of that happening.

I am also disappointed that my amendment on working with family members when producing these reviews was rejected. We know from experience that when the legal and justice system deals with tragic cases, families often feel marginalised and out of the loop. My amendment would have reduced the chances of those mistakes being repeated, and ministers must now find another way to keep family members included. Maggie Chapman also highlighted the importance of communication.

Liam Kerr highlighted the differences between part 1 and part 2 of the bill. The risk of rushing through legislation is that we might not give it the scrutiny that it deserves and that we might miss opportunities to include more improvements. We need to consider that in relation to any further legislation that comes through.

Katy Clark highlighted concerns about digital inclusion. For far too long in Scotland, victims have played second fiddle to criminals. Victims have been let down by a justice system that does not punish or deter, does not keep communities safe and does not rehabilitate offenders. Today, there is at least an opportunity to reverse some of that decline. That is why we will vote for the bill, but it must be the start of a sea change, not a ceiling for victims and witnesses, and not warm words that are matched by little action.

There are a significant number of reports, strategies and policies in this area—you mentioned a few of them in your opening remarks—but we regularly hear that there is an implementation gap in areas in which there has been a lack of progress. The Auditor General for Scotland raised that with the Public Audit Committee in November last year, for example. Do you agree that there is an issue with implementation? If so, what plans does the Scottish Government have to address that?

Good morning. I want to ask about the impacts on businesses and the community. Will you set out some of the drug-use issues that businesses in the community faced prior to the Thistle opening and the impact that its opening has had on those issues? I invite to Steve Baxter to respond first.