Chamber and committees

A BBC investigation found that paedophiles are using artificial intelligence technology to create and sell lifelike child sexual abuse material online and that, shockingly, they are accessing images by paying for subscriptions to accounts on mainstream content-sharing sites such as Patreon. An investigation found that Patreon accounts are offering AI-generated, photorealistic, obscene images of children for sale with different levels of pricing that depend on the type of material that is requested, which is shocking.

Will the cabinet secretary consider whether anything can be done within devolved competence to address that? What is being done to work alongside the UK Government to hold tech companies to account and ensure that the images that are found on their sites can be taken down and eradicated for good?

However, the Government did not accept that either—it was quite deflating that nothing that we suggested seemed to be accepted.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am resolute in my commitment to victims but, unfortunately, Scottish Labour cannot support the bill.

I thank members of the bill team for making themselves available to the Scottish Labour team and the committee clerks for their incredible support in creating the stage 1 report. At stages 1 and 2, Scottish Labour stated that it could not support the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill if the Scottish Government did not address serious deficiencies in the bill and, crucially, provide clarity on its purpose.

There has not been any consistency from the Scottish Government team on whether the bill’s purpose is aimed at reducing the remand population or is about something else. When the former cabinet secretary was first asked to clarify the purpose of the bill, he did not confirm that it was to restrict the use of remand, and he subsequently seemed hesitant to confirm that that was the purpose. I appreciate that, yesterday, Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, used exactly that language, but I need to emphasise that, right up until that point, we had been trying to clarify the purpose of part 1 of the bill.

The description on page 1 of the bill does not use such language. The policy objectives section in the policy memorandum states that the purpose of the bill is

“to refocus how imprisonment is used.”

It also says that

“the use of custody for remand is a last resort ... to give a greater focus to the rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals leaving custody.”

Although the policy objectives section says that the bill’s decision-making framework is to be

“reserved for those who pose a risk to public safety (including victim safety) or for when it is necessary to prevent a significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice in a given case”,

it is hard to see why the new bail test will make any real difference as compared with the old one that is contained in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, where there is also a presumption for bail.

Exceptions to that are provided for under section 23D of the 1995 act, but, as Jamie Greene mentioned, the Government has deleted that section through the bill. That provision means that, in all solemn cases where there has been an analogous previous conviction on specified serious offences, including domestic violence, the person must be remanded to custody unless there are exceptional circumstances. The bill removes that provision, but we do not have any evidence either way on whether keeping or removing it will make any difference to the remand population, and the deletion of section 23D of the 1995 act does not have the confidence of victim support organisations.

Last night, Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and the ASSIST project urged members to vote against the bill to protect the interests of people affected by crime in Scotland. They are adamant that the removal of that vital safeguard presents a serious risk to the safety of people affected by crime in Scotland and, in particular, victims of gender-based violence.

The Scottish Government tried to explain its position today and disagreed with that assessment, but I do not think that it has adequately explained what the removal of section 23D would result in, and I do not think that it has adequately worked with victim support organisations to convince them of the need to remove that section.

Members should remember that subsection (3A)(c) of section 23D, which added domestic abuse to the category of offending, was only inserted into the 1995 act by the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Last night, victim support organisations reiterated that section 23D is, in their opinion, still

“a vital part of Scotland’s commitment to eradicate violence against women and girls.”

We are all concerned about having one of the highest levels of remand population in Europe but, on the face of it, the bill does not appear to change that. One of the biggest factors, as has already been mentioned, is lengthy waiting times for court hearings, which we have tried to reduce, but that might not happen until 2026. We believe that our primary focus should be to get those waiting times down.

The Scottish Government has not given any indication of what specific reduction it anticipates seeing, although I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said about that today.

The concerns of Scotland’s judiciary, which we have discussed yesterday, have caused me a great deal of concern, too, and I am not convinced that the issues that Lord Carloway raised in his 17-page letter on behalf of the senators of the College of Justice have been adequately addressed.

During the consultation process, Lord Carloway stated that the bill introduces

“an unnecessary, cumbersome and artificial process.”

He also said that it was

“difficult to see how the proposed new structure will make any practical difference in outcomes. The overarching test, that bail is to be granted unless there is a good reason to refuse it, remains the same.”

The Scottish Government’s “Vision for Justice in Scotland” programme aims to have a justice system that prioritises the experience of victims of crime and places women and children at the heart of service delivery. Many things in part 2 of the bill on the management and release of prisoners are important, but they are not enough for us to pass the legislation today as some of that could be done without legislation.

As we proceed to a final vote, Scottish Labour believes that we must balance the interests of justice for those people who are accused of crimes with the safety of victims. A clear consensus exists among all parties that Parliament needs to do more work to change the experiences of victims. Yesterday, I tried to show, through a serious amendment, what I think is a gap in the law in relation to the notification for bail—

Okay—but do you think that is a fair question to ask somebody who could answer it?

I agree with that. On the new offence that will cover Scotland on encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, I do not know the background to that particular clause, but there was a very concerning case about self-harm on social media. Would that be an example of something that we would want to address?

Oh, sorry—have I?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You might not be able to answer this, but, if the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government have some issues with the way in which the legislation is framed—albeit there has been some change—what is the driving force behind the bill, if not the parties in Northern Ireland? Has it come purely from the UK Government? It seems odd. Usually, there would be a campaign somewhere behind such a measure that had been pushing the Government to do something.

Where is the bill coming from? That is the difficulty that I have in making an assessment on the matter. Did the Scottish Government fully review what changes had been made to the bill?

So, that concern is still there.

I am confused, because I was expecting to see Maree Todd speak to the item. I am sorry.