Chamber and committees

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.”

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.

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?

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.