Chamber and committees

I hope that the Scottish Government will support the Labour Party’s amendment, because we are being constructive in backing significant reforms to the criminal justice system in this parliamentary session, although we have specific views to offer.

I will begin with an overview of our prison system, which is far from modern—and the pandemic has set us back in many ways. I agree with Jamie Greene that it is deeply concerning that Scotland as a nation has such a large remand population. As the Scottish Government says in its vision for justice, that is a problem for population management. Overcrowding is a major problem in our prisons; reports have noted that Barlinnie has been operating at more than 40 per cent over capacity for the past couple of years, although I think that that has happened for a lot longer.

The vision notes that

“international evidence suggests that remand is associated with negative effects that may hinder longer-term desistance from crime including an increased risk of suicide and mental distress, disintegration of social supports and family ties and disruption to employment that increase the likelihood of reoffending upon release.”

No one should need any convincing that one of the Parliament’s jobs must be to reduce the remand population. We need to tackle the issue urgently. I look forward to hearing proposals from the Scottish Government on how it plans to reform bail legislation and to hearing whether electronic tagging will be used as an alternative to custody, when appropriate.

Our ageing prison estate accentuates the difficulties that are borne by staff and management. Prison staff have written to me—I have had several letters—to raise concerns about staffing levels putting pressure on prison officers, who are doing their job. I have asked twice to meet the Scottish Prison Service, and I will use this opportunity to say that I would like a response to my letter.

If we want to have minimum standards, we desperately need to modernise the estate. The work has still not started on the new Barlinnie prison and it is set to miss the deadline of 2025.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that prison is appropriate for many offenders and will remain so, but, for some, punishment is better conducted outwith prison and through community sentences. Community sentences can be more effective than prison sentences in preventing reoffending, but judges will use community sentencing more only if they are confident that such sentences are robust.

The number of deaths in custody remains too high—the figure was 54 in 2021, and the number has more than doubled since 2015. It is also taking far too long to complete fatal accident inquiries. In 2021, the average time that an FAI had taken was almost three years, which is unacceptable for families who are waiting to find out what an FAI has concluded. I await with interest the Government’s response to the independent review on deaths in custody, which said that, when such deaths happen, there should be unfettered access to establish the cause of death.

Given that we have heard the testimony of women victims who said that they felt like criminals, will the Government give any thought to what reforms of the system could address that issue? I am not convinced that the victims commissioner is the answer. Will the Government give some thought to how we deal with that point?

I congratulate Jenny Gilruth on her appointment—I hope that she brings fresh eyes to this crucial debate—and I declare an interest as a member of the RMT parliamentary group.

At last, we have public ownership of our rail services in sight—it will happen in the very near future. We should grasp the opportunity to reverse poor services and high fares, to modernise our ticketing system and to renew the relationships with the workforce. It would be a real test for any Government, but it is a particular test for the current Scottish Government to show that it has the energy and the ambition to bring about a better rail service.

In no way is Labour looking back. We are highlighting the realities of the present situation. We must have a confident and satisfied workforce on which we can rely, and we must address the present realities and talk about the future.

Why does it matter who runs our railway? I believe that it matters because public ownership is the best way to ensure the strongest accountability and to have a train service that is run in the interests of ordinary travellers who need the reliable and affordable service that many members have talked about. After all, it is a public service.

To address John Mason’s question about why there are empty seats on trains, which he seems to raise at every opportunity, maybe that is because some people cannot afford to get on a train in the first place. There are many people with whom I have common cause when it comes to the affordability of train travel. It is a central issue for a publicly run service that ordinary workers should be able to afford to get on the train in the first place. Why is the importance of that to a thriving economy not understood?

Glasgow, which John Mason and I represent, has the largest urban rail network outwith London, which was created to serve commuters going to work. However, it is now time for Glasgow, as the driver of the west of Scotland economy, to have more investment.

I must put on record my disappointment with the proposal for the Clyde metro, which appears to be extremely vague. It is up to 35 years away, and there is not even a commitment to the first phase of it: the airport link, which would form a vital component of the commuter link to Paisley. It is disappointing for Glaswegians that there are no concrete plans on the table. I say to the minister that the people of Glasgow will not be fooled by the pretence that the Clyde metro is something real. If the metro really exists, I want to see the Government put its money where its mouth is.

I agree with Stephen Kerr that it is not enough to say that services should be run under public control; we must show that we can run a better service. I have discussed that with ASLEF. I support the union’s view that staff should be paid for working unsociable hours. Many trips are made by car on Sundays. That is because people often do not have the choice of using a rail service on Sundays. If we are serious about getting people out of cars, we must think about improving the service.

Since 2009, the cost of a ticket has risen faster than wages. The cost of a UK train journey is now so high that we pay five times more, as a proportion of our salaries, than our European neighbours. I had a look today at the ScotRail website and found that a day ticket from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs £31.50. For someone on the living wage, that represents half of their daily wage. That is totally unacceptable. Jim Fairlie said that Scotland has cheaper fares than the rest of the UK. That may be true for some comparisons, but not for the biggest service. That is an absolute outrage. A part-time worker who wants to work in Edinburgh has absolutely no chance of survival, because they would not be able to afford those fares.

We need a publicly run service that is invested in with public money. We need to get the public behind that and we need to deliver it in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Last September, Glasgow City Council leader Susan Aitken confirmed that the metro was part of the plan to decarbonise Glasgow, and indicated that it was a multibillion pound project that would be partly funded by private investment. Last month, we learned from the publication of the STPR2 that there is no final design for the metro, no date is attached to its completion and there is no known funding. When will we see genuine progress on this matter? Is there a timetable for the first phase, which I understand is for the air link?

Good morning, Mr Strang, and thank you for the work that you are doing.

My question continues on the law reform issue and is about the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the possibility of creating safe consumption rooms to prevent deaths. You said that it is important to explain to people what we are doing in any reform. In 2018, I hosted a visit by Nanna Gotfredsen, a street lawyer from Denmark who led the charge in the Danish Parliament to change policy on safe consumption rooms. She is very much behind what is going on in Glasgow. I have researched the issue and found that there are 66 cities with such rooms where, apparently, there have been no deaths and there is no evidence of increased drug use.

Do you agree that it is important to have credible evidence on the issue so that we can make a judgment about whether safe consumption rooms are one of the tools that we can use to stop deaths?

I am sorry, convener—the connection cut out for a second.

Yesterday, we heard from the United Kingdom Minister for Crime and Policing, Kit Malthouse, and a number of us had an exchange on this subject. He said that it is a very complex issue. As you know, our Lord Advocate might consider the question and she is already consulting the police and so on. Kit Malthouse asked, “If we set up an overdose prevention site in Govan, would you arrest someone who was travelling to Govan from Edinburgh?” I think that there is quite a simple answer to that, but I want to ask you, as a former chief constable.

In Glasgow, we had tolerance zones for what was then called street prostitution. It is not complex, to my mind. If you set up a zone in which you disapply the law, anyone outside that zone would be breaking the law. Is it your view that the question is too complex? I know that you support the setting up of tolerance zones. The minister who is in charge of the 1971 act says that it is really complex. I am not sure that I agree with that.

The minister of state went on to say that he thinks that there are complex questions that need to be answered if we are to legislate in that way. I recognise that, ideally, reform of the 1971 act would be the best position—for other reasons, as well.

As the minister said, provision of safe drug consumption facilities is not a magic bullet. Nothing is. However, the Lord Advocate is on the record saying that she will consider whether it might be in the public interest. It would be complex for any Lord Advocate to make a decision about whether, in the public interest, you would not prosecute under the 1971 act in certain areas if it was a public health issue and prevented deaths. My question is twofold. Do you think that those complexities can be overcome? If the Lord Advocate—who is yet to make a decision—were to make a decision in that vein, would it negate the immediate necessity to reform the 1971 act, because it would have the same effect?

Thank you.

Yes.

Good afternoon, minister. I hope that it goes without saying that I realise that the challenge is huge and complex. I am interested in the overdose prevention safety issue. I have hosted Nanna Gotfredsen, who is a street lawyer from Denmark who pioneered that country’s drugs policy and has been influential in the debate in Scotland.

There have been quite a few exchanges on the subject—you probably heard the comments from the UK Minister of State for Crime and Policing at yesterday’s meeting. In response to Gillian Martin’s line of questioning, the minister of state seemed to put across that he is concerned that, if the 1971 act were to be reviewed to include the ability to pilot safe consumption rooms, that would send out the wrong message. Will you respond to that?