Chamber and committees

My question is on remand accommodation and is for Teresa Medhurst. Did you say that the remand population is now at 30 per cent, whereas the previous figure was 27 per cent? I appreciate that you have to manage the prison environment according to the situation and the legislation that you are given. If 30 per cent is the figure now, and if we extend the provisions of the legislation, is it inevitable that remand prisoners will be held in more difficult conditions?

Good morning. I have just one question. The committee has been asked to comment on the extension of court time limits. You both expressed concerns about the previous level of adjournments. Are you not more concerned that if the Parliament gave its authority to an extension, we could end up in the same place again, being asked to extend the limits by another six months?

Perhaps it is time that we put some pressure on to fix the system. I am deeply concerned about the extension of court time limits, given the evidence from you both. I am concerned that we may be back here again if we extend the limits for six months. Do you share my concern?

What if we are in the same situation in six months? Will you be saying the same thing? Will we be saying that the system is so broken that we have to extend the limits further?

As one of the co-conveners, with Rona Mackay, of the cross-party group on medicinal cannabis, I ask the cabinet secretary whether the Government is opposed to any kind of scheme if it is not in favour of Cancard? The Cancard scheme was designed with the help of doctors and senior representatives of the Police Federation of England and Wales—admittedly, that is for the United Kingdom. We have had a very helpful response from Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie on the issue. Would the cabinet secretary be prepared to meet with us and discuss something similar, so that a similar incident to that in Shetland does not happen again?

It is astonishing that, at a time when the Bank of England is predicting that inflation will go up to 7.25 per cent in April, the SNP still refuses to recognise the consequences for ordinary people of implementing a car tax. The SNP says that it is a levy on the parking provider, but we all know from the legislation that Nottingham City Council used that the cost was passed on to workers. As we have heard from all the SNP back benchers, that is the policy’s primary purpose. It is a devolved policy when it suits the Government but not when it comes to freezing council tax. The Government needs to be consistent about when it thinks that local authorities should be trusted to carry out their own policies. It is total hypocrisy.

No amount of reasoning with SNP ministers in trying to cushion the blow led to exemptions for low-paid workers, single parents and people in our public services who work shifts, including night shifts, such as those in the police and the ambulance service. The SNP gave exemptions for some people but, for some reason, it chose not to exempt anybody else. SNP back benchers voted down every one of my amendments. It could still be a local policy if there was a floor to protect ordinary working people. Even though there is a statutory obligation on the Government to poverty-proof single parents in the anti-poverty plan, the SNP voted down my attempt to exempt single parents from the tax.

The SNP has washed its hands of the consequences of the legislation—one of the most damaging policies in 14 years—on low-income drivers.

I will get to John Mason in a minute. He does not seem to think that any people on low incomes own cars, which is deeply disturbing. If Susan Aitken and Anna Richardson are going to consult about such a scheme in Glasgow, I ask the Glasgow MSPs whether they will support it—let us be clear about that.

The policy is designed to stop people using their cars; that is its purpose. The Government is hiding behind the notion that it is up to cash-strapped local authorities to make the decisions, but it knows full well that, even in Glasgow, public transport is not up to the mark.

Let us look at who will be affected: women with childcare responsibilities, for example. In the city that I represent, there are people who work shifts in factories, and they will simply not be able to get to their work without a car. The Government is going to tax them up to £500. If businesses had been asked whether they had some issues with that, perhaps the Government would have got some deserved feedback.

According to the Government’s figures, in households in which total combined income—that means that it is not just one person’s income—is between £20,000 and £25,000, 59 per cent of people travel by car to work. Does the Government know that? Whatever the merits of the workplace parking levy, is now the time to introduce it? I suggest that it is not.

In its motion and its rhetoric, the Government talks about public transport, but there has been no serious investment in transport in 14 years in the west of Scotland. As I have mentioned in the chamber, the mythical Clyde metro is a nice dream and one that I support, but it does not seem to exist. The Government will not even invest in an air link to take traffic off the M8. I am sorry, but I cannot take the Government’s climate change notions seriously, because in 14 years the SNP has done absolutely nothing to take traffic off the M8. We may see the Clyde metro in 30 years—the Evening Times has reported on that—but the SNP has not even blinked over this policy.

Energy prices are rising by 50 per cent, petrol and diesel prices are up and we have the highest food prices on record, all of which disproportionately affect poor people. If it had wanted to, the SNP could have legislated to say that this tax should be borne by the owners and employers, but it did not—we would at least have had something in common had it done so.

The levy will not raise the levels of public money that are needed for investment. Nottingham raised £2 million. That sum will not even touch the sides of a rail link to Glasgow airport.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You may have me recorded as voting yes. I tried to change it to no within the time limit, but I lost connection. I would have voted no.

The Government is not serious about the scheme and it should rethink it. The SNP will pay the price when ordinary working people see that it has imposed a tax on car drivers.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I can guarantee that the Labour Party will give the proposed bill serious consideration when we see the actual formulation. We are clear that sheriffs and judges need to be given scope within the legislation to make different decisions.

I think that we all agree that there has never, in recent times, been a moment as critical as this when it comes to tackling the widespread problem of violence against women. Previous debates have highlighted that, and it is why Scottish Labour wants the equally safe programme to be rolled out across Scotland as soon as possible. The sad testimony that we have heard from women who have been victims of sexual violence illustrates why we need to make progress on cross-cutting work, which I note is mentioned in the vision that was published today. We need the justice, equalities and education portfolios to work together if we are going to make any serious progress.

Women are now having to seek justice for rape through the civil courts. A running thread is the testimony of women who say that, as victims, they feel that they are treated like criminals. That is why Scottish Labour wants to look at how we balance support for victims in the process. There should be one point of contact in the court system and the police for victims who want to know what is happening with their case. In addition, we need to broaden the scope of the circumstances in which a victim of a sexual offence can be given free legal advice.

The Criminal Justice Committee heard from Miss M that she had to constantly chase the procurator fiscal, as no one would tell her what was going on. Last week, on a BBC Scotland radio programme, another victim expressed exactly the same complaint. I believe that that is a recurring theme, and we need to make the process easier for victims—I agree with Jamie Greene on that point.

As the cabinet secretary said, 43 per cent of trials for rape and attempted rape result in a conviction, in comparison with 80 per cent overall for other crimes. That indicates that the balance that one would expect in a criminal justice system does not exist with regard to sexual offences.

One thing that is missing from the Government’s motion is any reference to access to civil justice. We do not currently have enough lawyers providing legal aid, and it is important that the question of civil justice is addressed in the vision.

I wish that we could have had a longer debate—as Jamie Greene said—in order to talk about how we can support our police force and thank them for what they did in the pandemic. There are many issues to be discussed in that regard. There should be full scrutiny of the Crown’s role in the case against Rangers Football Club. We do not want to see striking lawyers in the months ahead, so let us resolve the matter. We have a system of which we can be proud, but we need to make more progress. I am sure that we can do that in the coming years.

I move amendment S6M-03098.1, to insert at end:

“; understands that Scotland’s prisons have been characterised by overcrowding; notes that 27% of the Scottish prison population are remand prisoners, and that this highlights the need for reform; believes that conditions in prisons must be improved for both prisoners and staff; considers that offering robust and credible alternatives to custody will be a key part of the solution; regrets that women and children continue to be disproportionately impacted by court delays, and considers that clearing the court backlog, which currently stands at over 40,000 cases, and improving support for victims should be among the Scottish Government’s highest priorities for the justice system.”