Chamber and committees

I am very sympathetic to all the arguments that have been made, especially with regard to the section seeming to go a little bit too far in starting to prescribe things with regard to judges. Indeed, I think that the committee was particularly in agreement on that.

Does the member agree that, in that case, it is the objective that perhaps needs to be defined? As far as remand is concerned—Collette Stevenson is on record as arguing this, and I support this view, too—supervised bail is a really important alternative for courts. I agree with the member that there needs to be a conversation about that, but we perhaps need to sort out the principles first. For example, if someone spends time on remand, it is only right that that time be considered in the sentence, because they have been detained in a prison. If we are talking about someone with a restriction on their liberty, which can be the case for people who have an electronic tag, I guess that that is the principle behind the provisions of the bill that we are examining.

Therefore, my question for Jamie Greene is whether it is necessary for us to sort out which principle we are adhering to here. I am slightly sympathetic to the viewpoint that consideration be given to cases in which people who have an electronic tag as an alternative to remand have quite a substantial restriction on their movements for a long period. I agree with everything else.

That is helpful. You are saying that the hearing is on the day.

In relation to my earlier exchange with Jamie Greene, I note that, when we first examined the remand figures, the then cabinet secretary—I think—specifically referred to section 23D as one of the restrictive provisions and implied that that might have been one of the reasons why the remand figures were high. On close examination, although we do not have the figures, it does not appear that section 23D is used in many cases, so I am not concerned that it is increasing the remand population per se.

I do not want to pre-empt the cabinet secretary’s response to our post-legislative scrutiny, but I wonder why the point about the domestic abuse provision was not even drawn to our attention by anyone, bearing in mind that the exceptional circumstances test relates to when there has been a previous analogous conviction. I thought that the cabinet secretary might address that in her remarks, but she did not. We are talking about people with analogous convictions—that means that, if the offence relates to drugs, the previous conviction must relate to that and not to a summary offence. I assumed that the fact that someone had a previous conviction made it more likely that they would cause harm or abscond and that that was why an exceptional circumstances test was built into the 1995 act. I am probing the issue, and the Government needs to set out what the equivalent of the exceptional circumstances test is.

As I said in my opening remarks, I am sympathetic to the Law Society’s view in that the fact that someone has an analogous conviction from 20 years ago does not necessarily indicate that there is cause for concern. However, if the previous conviction was, say, five years ago, there might be more concern in that it might be more likely that the person will offend while on bail.

Similarly to Katy Clark, I would like to tease out the issues on the subject. On the face of it, the provision seems good, but we have heard evidence that suggests that further clarification is needed. As Katy Clark said, amendment 49 would simply remove the requirement on the court and would mean that the information “may” be provided. I have provided an alternative to that in amendment 53, which would give the sheriff the right to determine a period of time for the information to be provided.

I would like to say why I have lodged the amendments. The provision in section 1 states:

“Before determining whether to admit or refuse to admit the person accused or charged to bail, the sheriff or judge must also give an officer of a local authority an opportunity to provide (orally or in writing) information relevant to that determination.”

Our committee report refers to the evidence from Dr Hannah Graham of the University of Stirling, who rightly said:

“There are acute time pressures at the point of bail and remand decision making.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 January 2023; c 25.]

We can see that there is already a highly pressurised point in court proceedings, but there will now be this mandatory requirement. As Katy Clark said, in principle, the requirement seems good, because we would want all the information to be available to the sheriff. Of course, currently, if the sheriff wants that information, they can request it. The first issue that the committee raised concerns about was the resourcing of the provision. I realise that we have a new cabinet secretary, but the current cabinet secretary has probably seen the Official Report of the meeting at which the committee asked for clarification on resourcing.

More importantly, there is some confusion not as to why, but as to how. I will quote the Lord President:

“The prescriptive nature of what is proposed is likely to make submissions to the local sheriffs lengthier, increase the time taken to determine the issue of bail, result in some accused persons being detained unnecessarily while inquiries are carried out, produce more errors, increase the opportunities for appeals and add to the heavy burden on the sheriffs and the staff who are tasked with the management of what can be extremely busy custody courts.”

I am sure that the cabinet secretary can understand that that gives cause for concern on a number of fronts. The provision could potentially undermine the principle of the bill, if it was to result in unnecessarily long detentions in order to gain the information as described in the bill.

I put on the record that I had a meeting with the previous cabinet secretary’s officials, who said that those concerns were a misunderstanding of the provision. The follow-up that I received indicated that there was no suggestion that it should be cause for additional time to be taken to determine bail. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will share my concerns. Why did the Lord President, on behalf of the judiciary, think that? What went on between Scottish Government officials and the judiciary? I presume that they discussed how the provision was going to operate. That needs to be clarified.

At stage 3, when I come to vote on the bill, I want to make sure that we have achieved the objective of providing relevant information to the courts but that that does not result in lengthy delays and, if it is a mandatory provision, that we are able to resource it.

Let us face it: it is a complex area of law, especially for us legislators to get our heads round when we are not practitioners. [Interruption.] Yes, cabinet secretary, please intervene on me.

I speak in support of the amendment in my name.

The timetabling of the debate was pretty fast on the back of the publication of the report on Friday. Would the cabinet secretary take my point that that is not ideal, given the importance of the issue? Further, the Criminal Justice Committee begins its important stage 2 consideration of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill tomorrow.

That being said, as Katy Clark said, Scottish Labour welcomes fully the publication of the trauma-informed justice framework, which seeks to ensure that our justice system does not introduce additional trauma into people’s lives and that it avoids retraumatisation.

I welcome what the cabinet secretary said in her opening speech about the importance of the pioneering work of preparing witnesses for court. Like other members, I have, over many years, been contacted by many victims and witnesses of crime who have told harrowing stories of their experiences of the criminal justice system. For example, I have heard about victims who ran into the accused in the lobby of the court. That is totally unacceptable in any system. Only last month, one victim told me that defence counsel pointed to her in the public gallery during sentencing. I am taking that up with the dean of the Faculty of Advocates. There must be accountability for things like that.

However, those are not isolated incidents in the justice system. As many members have mentioned, recent reports that were commissioned by the Scottish Government have also highlighted delays to hearings, people being put at physical and mental risk during the court process, and the impact on young children as major failings in the current system.

Just last week, the Criminal Justice Committee published its “Post-legislative scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018” report, which highlighted delays in specialist Police Scotland training for officers on domestic abuse cases and asked for all officers to be trained in recognising the non-physical violence that elements of that legislation relate to. The report appreciates, however, that that is a very new development in the law.

I agree that it is about time that we ensure that our justice system works for all and does not cause further harm and trauma to those who have experienced or witnessed crime. That is not just the right thing to do; it is wholly necessary in order to ensure that victims and witnesses continue to come forward to report crime, in the full knowledge that—as we would all hope—they will be treated fairly and with the relevant support. Scottish Labour is fully committed to working together in Parliament to deliver meaningful change in those systems and practices, and to enable victims and witnesses of traumatic offences to participate in the legal process effectively.

I agree with Pam Gosal that it is important to consider people whose first language is not English. I would hope that we have come a long way since the Chhokar case many years ago, but that goes back to exactly the point that the then Lord Advocate drew out from that case: that the family could not understand the process because it was not communicated to them in their own language. As Collette Stevenson rightly said, it is important that victims who come forward understand the full extent of the process.

Nonetheless, it is clear that responding in a trauma-informed way is not always sufficient for procedural justice. The framework also needs to be considered alongside and in addition to other work that will enable us to have a fair and effective justice system. I am sure that the justice secretary agrees that the reform of the justice system will be successful only if we also deal with and properly address the current financial pressures, and if we fund services properly in accordance with the six aims that are identified in the framework.

We also need to have regular reports to Parliament. Katy Clark and I have called for that in the past, because the Government needs to continue to bring down the timescales for court proceedings, as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. They are still far too long; as Jamie Greene highlighted, it is outrageous that crimes such as rape are taking years to come to court. We need to check whether we are genuinely making systematic progress in going back to the days when the 1995 act was being fully complied with. The recent “2022 UK Judicial Attitude Survey” report found that nearly half of Scottish sheriffs and judges are concerned about the morale of court staff, amid lengthy backlogs.

All those matters need to be addressed as we look at how we ensure that our court system functions in a better way. We must also ensure that the framework does not simply impose an additional level of bureaucracy on an already stretched and understaffed justice workforce. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary would address that point in summing up.

I agree in principle with creating a trauma-informed justice system, but I ask the Scottish Government whether it intends to monitor the effective implementation of the framework across the sector in order to ensure that victims and witnesses across Scotland are receiving similar treatment when they come into contact with services. Claire Baker also made that point. If we are going to implement the framework at all, it has to be applied consistently.

It is a hugely important component of any democratic society that people have equal access to justice and receive equal treatment when they come into contact with the justice system, and we must ensure that everyone who comes into contact with the justice system is treated fairly and equitably. That includes those who are accused of a crime, while they are awaiting trial.

As Katy Clark said in her opening remarks, and as Parliament has addressed previously, it is time for a form of legal representation for victims. We support the provision in the bill, but we want to talk about how we could go further than that.

I have addressed the points about the framework and not the wider legislative questions, but I hope that we will get the chance to discuss those in due course. Katy Clark and Claire Baker talked about the need for wider reform, and they said—I support this view—that the Government must clearly set out, when we come to the debate, what its aims and objectives are, and the potential impact of the proposed substantial changes to our legal system, so that we can scrutinise those changes properly. If any such changes are to be made, it is very important that we take everybody with us.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to introduce financial incentives to encourage households to install low-carbon heating in their homes, to help reach net zero by 2045. (S6O-02181)

As the minister will be aware, the Scottish Government’s consultation on its draft energy strategy and just transition plan closes a week today. A response this week from the Just Transition Partnership sets out just how inadequate the plans are in their current form, in that they barely exist at all. The Just Transition Partnership has stated that

“Home Energy Efficiency appears peripheral rather than central to this strategy.”

and that

“Engagement with drafting the strategy has been poor.”

I note the minister’s answer. Given that the average cost for the installation of an air source heat pump is between £7,000 and £14,000 and that ground source pumps are far more expensive, will the minister give some detail about where grants are going and who is benefiting from them? Are there targets for the number of installations the Government hopes to reach each year?

The alarming statistics on rape are a further indication of ingrained levels of violence against women and misogyny across our society. Scottish Labour has been running a consultation with the full involvement of Government officials on tackling violence against women. Sadly, it has confirmed existing research findings that young girls are being subjected to a rape culture in schools and across university campuses. Many have received unwanted sexual images, which is becoming a too-normalised behaviour. I hope that the First Minister will agree that we need to tackle the root cause of the problem in our society by talking directly to boys and young men in all of our schools and campuses about their attitude to women and girls.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with ScotRail regarding improving Sunday train services in west central Scotland. (S6O-02159)