Chamber and committees

I thank the witnesses for those answers. I am clear that that discussion is one that we need to have, but that there are a lot of things that we need to work out—namely, the transitions and flexibility. I note that, up to the age of 19, the services have some flexibility. It is helpful to know that, in Polmont, you have some flexibility beyond the age of 21.

On that point, when you look at serious offences such as murder, culpable homicide and so on, are you thinking that perhaps there should be a separate element of secure accommodation estate? I am thinking about seriousness of offence and the age of the offender being between 18 and 25 and how the answer might lie in reorganising the secure accommodation estate. Might that work?

Your daughter made a very astute observation. People will be divided on it, but with regard to sentencing, it begs the question of whether custody should be the first thought in such cases. I have no further questions. Thank you very much.

Good morning. I want to explore this area of policy—Linda Allan, you have said that we should go further—and whether, if we were to explore it further, we are actually equipped to do it. Like Jamie Greene, I am trying to get my head around all this. Kate Wallace, earlier, you spoke about what your concerns would be, and you focused on the need for a risk assessment for secure accommodation. Does it all fit together in policy terms? In my limited understanding, for a start, we do not have enough secure accommodation, so that is a question that we will have to address to ministers. However, the principle of the welfare of the child is the overriding principle of the children’s hearing system. Therefore, regardless of any offences, we must look after the welfare of the child.

If we go beyond the age of 18, we need to explore how that would operate, because between the ages of 18 and 21, people are not children. Therefore, if we were to put them in secure accommodation, it seems to me that the pieces do not all fit together. As you were speaking, I was wondering whether, if we are serious about that, a bit of a redesign is needed.

I am reading through the briefing, which says that we are not going to hold under-18s in Polmont any longer, and we might go beyond that. There are also references to remand and how that can either be in secure accommodation or in a “place of safety” although I really do not know what that means. It just feels as though the policy does not really fit and there is going to have to be a wholesale change to the system.

My own view is that I do not think that a risk assessment of someone who committed a serious offence would be enough to satisfy victims or their families that simply putting everyone together in secure accommodation is a solution. If you want to respond in any way to that, I would be grateful.

I thank Liam Kerr for bringing this important subject to the chamber for a members’ business debate. If he does not mind, I will focus almost exclusively on court delays, because Labour members have been very critical of the current situation. I took an interest in court delays in 2018, following a constituency case—a horrendous case of gang rape—that took three and a half years to come to court, after which there was an acquittal.

I accept that Covid-19 has caused significant disruption to operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland and elsewhere. It has caused considerable strain in the system and has led to significant delays in processing of cases. However, the issue pre-existed Covid; I am clear about that.

As Liam Kerr did, I put on record my sincere thanks to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which have done an incredible job throughout Covid to keep our courts running. However, the delays cause uncertainty for the people who are caught up in our criminal justice system, including victims, witnesses and accused persons. It is not justice if people have to wait years to be heard.

Long before lockdown and the disruption to the criminal justice process, the challenges that victims and survivors faced as a result of delays in their case progression, poor communication of and uncertainty about trial dates, and last-minute changes to courts, were well established. How far back they go would be an interesting point to research. However, the remoteness from the system that victims feel from not having communication through long delays is one of the reasons why Katy Clark and I support advocacy for victims of sexual offences who are waiting for justice in court.

There are a large number of outstanding criminal trials, which Liam Kerr talked about. The number currently stands at 30,588 trials across all criminal courts. The latest figures show that serious sexual offences constitute 70 per cent of High Court work—which is really quite astonishing—and 80 per cent to 85 per cent of cases that proceed to trial. That affects the thousands of women and children who are at the receiving end of such violence. I mention that because I have a specific interest in the issue, but those figures would necessitate an interest in any case, because a crucial dimension of systematic violence against women and girls is lack of access to justice and courts.

The Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, who previously served as a practitioner heading up the serious sexual violence unit, has previously commented on the extraordinary number of sexual violence cases that are caught up in the backlog, which she says “predominantly and disproportionately” affects women and children. That is an issue that the Criminal Justice Committee, along with the Scottish Government, will scrutinise later this year.

A year ago this month, as Parliament discussed the backlog of cases, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, told us that the Government had allocated £53.2 million to tackle the backlog, including measures to provide 16 additional courts, which we have seen none of, as was pointed out by Liam Kerr. Over time, we will have to look at what that £53.2 million amounts to, because that money must create results and get the delays down.

During the debates on Covid emergency legislation, we thought that we should not extend the time limit to 360 days until 2026. We were clear about that because we were concerned that if there were to be such a deadline, it would be used. We need to ascertain whether, as we head towards 2026, the delays will come down. At the moment, the delay in the High Court is an average of 49 weeks. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which Parliament agreed to, provides for maximum numbers of days for the High Court of 110 days and 140 days. We did that because, in Scotland, we believe that justice includes having strict time limits. The country that previously had the best time limits in the world, apart from those in two countries, is probably now looking pretty poor, when compared with other countries. I hope that my figures are correct—I will be corrected by the minister if I am wrong—but the 49-week delay amounts to 105 days more than the 140 days that are set out in the 1995 act. That is not good for survivors and victims, and it is not good for accused people.

The Criminal Justice Committee has highlighted the issue of people on remand waiting for their cases to be heard. We have heard of people waiting on remand for two years or more and not knowing what priority is being given to their case. I have pleaded with the Crown Office about that. There must be transparency about delays, to give the accused in particular some idea of when their case will be heard.

We must continue to return to the issue, because it is a really important one for our criminal justice system. We must get week-on-week progress in reducing the 49-week waiting time to what is set out in law, which is no more than 140 days on remand for High Court cases.

Follow that, as they say.

I do not apologise for bringing people back down to earth, though, and I thank members for staying, because it is time to stand up for taxi drivers across the country. Taxis are a vital part of our public transport system. In fact, the taxi sector has become more vital in recent years, due to unreliable train and bus services, which I hope will get better over the years.

This is my first members’ business debate in this session, and I chose to make it about the plight of taxi drivers because the industry needs our focus and immediate action. I, along with many Scottish Labour colleagues, will speak today about our clear support and our demands for the sector. Today, as a Glasgow member, I stand in support of Glasgow taxi drivers, in particular, in order to highlight the contribution that they make to the city’s economy, connectivity and cultural life. As I have said, they play a vital role in our public transport system by plugging the gaps that are left by our unreliable train and bus services and by covering times of the day when other forms of transport are not running.

I worked with taxi drivers in the previous parliamentary session and have, like many other members, been working with them during this session, too, in lobbying Glasgow City Council and the current Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, on their behalf. I believe that they were neglected throughout the pandemic and are being neglected now, with their concerns about the low emission zone that is being introduced in Glasgow—I cannot speak for other cities—being ignored so far.

Glasgow taxi drivers have said that they support the principle of LEZs; all that they have asked for is a short delay of a year to give them time to comply with the scheme. Even if that happens, it will not be enough time for many. Black cabs, in particular, have been an iconic feature of Glasgow city centre, and I do not understand why any city administration would, seemingly, go out of its way to ignore that important fact.

As we know, around 1,000 cabs out of the fleet of 1,420 are not Euro 6 compliant. In other words, there are 1,000 taxi drivers who, at the moment, would not be able to enter the LEZ in Glasgow. One can already begin to see the extent of the problem. Although 200 cabs have been given an extra 12 months, people in the rest of the taxi sector have been left to find thousands of pounds that they simply do not have during a cost of living crisis.

The worry, therefore, is that many will just leave the trade and will not be replaced. With the high cost of a new electric vehicle, at approximately £60,000, and the average age of a cab driver being nearly 60 years old—believe it or not—the finance option for a new vehicle is, for many, not a viable solution. Due to global supply chain shortages, the second-hand market is sparse, too, which means a significant lack of options for compliance. As we can see, there are layers upon layers of problems. The LEZ will have a devastating impact on traders, taxi drivers and low-income and older drivers who are unable to buy new cars.

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that pupils who lost out will be identified for further support?

Before you move on to that, I want to highlight something that Paul Sweeney talked about. It is a good point that has also been made to me in conversation. Do you have any influence in your post—I wish you well in it in the future—to talk about how local authorities such as Glasgow could sit down with companies in other parts of the sector and bring them together a bit more?

I have called for a new deal for taxi drivers. Part of the issue is that Glasgow was the most locked-down city, and the city is obviously not returning to what it was. I know that you are talking to lots of people, minister. That suggests to me that perhaps you could encourage authorities such as Glasgow to make a deal encompassing companies that can bring something to the table.

I could not agree more. There are so many dimensions to the issue that impact on the Scottish economy, including how people, particularly young people, get to school and to work.

Steven Grant of Unite the union’s Glasgow cab branch has said that the situation will have a

“devastating impact on the trade”,

which is why the union has called for a delay for all cabs with regard to the LEZ scheme until at least June 2024. I support Unite’s call and I hope that the Government is listening to the cab drivers who work day in and day out in our city.

I hope that other members will address what is happening in their cities. So, if members will forgive me, I will focus a bit on Glasgow. Glasgow City Council must work with the drivers—which it has not done up until now—and allow time for them to source compliant vehicles. Taxi drivers have been crying out for support due to the inadequate grant support and the unfairness of restrictions that affect busy town centres. We need a new deal for the taxi trade, and we need a strategy that recognises the importance of taxis to our economy.

Glasgow City Council noted, in relation to the night-time economy, that its 2020 city centre strategy was

“aimed at ensuring Glasgow remains one of the top city centres and urban tourism destinations”.

Research has revealed that

“the night-time economy—defined as activity from 6pm until 6am—generates £2.16 billion per annum for the city, supporting 16,600 full-time jobs, whilst the retail sector generates more than £3.3 billion and supports 17,000 full-time jobs.”

The impact on the economy is extraordinary, and I am sure that that is the case in other cities.

It has also been reported that

“Combined employment from the sectors represents over a fifth of the City Centre working population.”

Many workers in the city centre rely on taxis to bring them home after their shifts, and people who work in nightclubs and bars during the evening and in the early hours will be severely affected, as they will now have to rely on public transport.

I am sure that, like me, other members have had parents contact them about the matter—perhaps even people in their own families. Many people simply walk home from the city centre because they cannot get a taxi. It is quite frightening for a parent to think that their child or young person is walking quite a long distance to get home because they simply cannot get home any other way.

The lack of availability of taxis will greatly affect people who work in the city centre during the evenings and busy weekends. We must recognise the vital role that the taxi sector plays in cities such as Glasgow. I am sometimes in the city centre quite late at night. As some members know, I am a musician, and I play in Glasgow city centre. I can already see that people are starting to leave the pubs earlier than they used to, which is simply because they are worried about getting home. There are obviously other issues around public transport, but having a properly viable taxi trade is absolutely vital to getting the city centre back into its former patterns.

Taxi drivers also provide a safe transport option for women, which was addressed in a debate a few weeks ago, and for vulnerable people at night. It provides an important service for people with mobility issues—a topic that will be covered by my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy.

Glasgow Taxis has demonstrated on-going commitment to city safety through its commitment to the safe taxi scheme, which is a safety initiative to ensure that Glasgow students who are alone and find themselves stuck after a night out with no money can still make it back home safely by using their student card as payment in emergency situations. Too often, students end up in potentially unsafe circumstances and unable to get home. Glasgow Taxis is to be commended for its commitment to getting young students home safe at night.

As a Glasgow regional member, I have watched the Scottish National Party administration on the city council set up a policy that could quite literally wipe out the black cab trade in the city, with no response so far being offered as to how we will see our way through the situation.

Taxi drivers from across Scotland, who lobbied Parliament only recently, were given grant funding to compensate for the impact of restrictions during Covid. Some local authorities paid out more than once, but Glasgow did not. Glasgow City Council paid just once out of the fund, and there seemed to be no realisation that Glasgow, being the most locked-down city in the United Kingdom, would experience such a devastating impact, which we are still feeling now. That is why I have brought the debate to Parliament today.

We must learn lessons from the restrictions that were imposed. I hope that a pandemic of the kind that occurred will never happen again, but we must learn that we have to support trades such as the taxi trade in the period in between, while they try to recover.

I am glad that I have had the chance to speak in the debate and I look forward to hearing the other contributions.

To ask the Scottish Government what mitigations the Scottish Qualifications Authority will have in place during this year’s exam diet for any senior phase pupils who have been adversely affected by targeted strike action. (S6O-02047)