Chamber and committees

Scottish Labour is genuinely interested in the proposals for a right to recovery that Dr Sandesh Gulhane has outlined. Last year, more than 1,300 people in Scotland died of drug misuse, which was a record number of deaths for the seventh year in a row. As we have previously discussed in the Parliament, that is the highest rate of drug deaths of any country in Europe. As Claire Baker, Stuart McMillan and many other members have said, that is a national shame, with tragic consequences. Therefore, the Scottish Government is rightly under pressure to change that. We desperately need fresh thinking throughout the Parliament when it comes to Scotland’s approach to tackling drugs. If we do not have fresh thinking, we will fail.

A step in the right direction was the Lord Advocate’s announcement last week, in which she confirmed that the scope of the recorded police warning scheme has been extended to include possession-only offences relating to class A drugs. It is important that the Tories speak accurately about the announcement. It is still illegal to possess drugs. The law is not changing. Drugs have not been decriminalised, as the Tories know. It is about diversion from prosecution.

It is important to note that the scheme applies only to drug possession offences; it does not apply to drug supply offences. It is aimed at reducing the number of drug deaths and at getting people on to the right pathway, which is what Dr Gulhane talked about, and I believe what he said. For the Tories to characterise the Lord Advocate’s announcement as a wholesale decriminalisation of drugs does their proposal no justice whatsoever. Has it occurred to them that a route or pathway to recovery might come through a police officer issuing a warning under the scheme and referring a person to treatment services?

It is worth stressing that offering a recorded police warning is not mandatory. Police officers retain the ability to report cases to the procurator fiscal. As the Lord Advocate noted last week, when the police encounter an individual who they know, or suspect, is addicted to drugs, officers are able to direct that person to services that may be able to assist. Surely that is consistent with finding pathways to recovery. The Lord Advocate said that such referrals must become the norm. We need more resources for treatment and recovery programmes urgently.

In the previous debate on the subject, I said that drug consumption facilities are operating in 66 cities around the world. There is some agreement in the Parliament that Scotland needs to provide such facilities. A review by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction concluded:

“There is no evidence to suggest that the availability of safer injecting facilities increases drug use or frequency of injecting. These services facilitate rather than delay treatment entry and do not result in higher rates of local drug-related crime.”

The Scottish Government must work within the legal framework. Following the Lord Advocate’s statement last week, I asked her whether she considers that the supervision of those who are consuming drugs in such facilities contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because it might well be that it does not if the supervision is in order to save lives. I was pleased that the Lord Advocate noted, in response, that she

“would be prepared to consider any such future proposal”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2021; c 26.]

We know that, by the end of March, lives had been saved by Peter Krykant, who has been mentioned. Such facilities have to be a serious part of our consideration if we are not to fail on the matter.

OneKind, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have continually called for an outright ban on the use of snares in capturing wild animals, and I would argue that action by the Scottish Government is imperative. Britain is one of only five European countries where the use of snares is still permitted. It is archaic, indiscriminate and cruel. Why is banning the use of snares not specifically listed in the review of animal welfare legislation if the Government is as committed to animal welfare legislation as it claims to be?

As we all know, police officers have served their country during the pandemic in people’s homes; in accident and emergency departments in hospitals; and on our streets, working alongside other dedicated public service teams. As we have heard, they are exposed to significant risks in their jobs.

Has the First Minister questioned the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation clinicians on why police officers were not a priority for vaccination? I appreciate that, in the past, she has said that it is a matter for them. However, I wonder whether it is time to question why they would not be a priority for the booster programme. That decision should perhaps be reconsidered in the light of the exposure to risk, and so that we are clear as a Parliament, and as a Scottish Government, that we stand up for serving police officers who are facing those risks.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to ban the use of snares to capture wild animals. (S6O-00189)

I note from your submission that you oppose the removal of juries. You will have heard Sandy Brindley talk about another way—about having a judge with lay assessors—and about providing a video for juries to watch in advance, which Lady Dorrian proposed. Would any of those things work or make any difference to outcomes?

First, I will ask Sandy Brindley to go back to where she left off, on the jury majority issue. I want to be clear in my own mind that you would be comfortable with a majority of one if we remove the not proven verdict. I note what you say about a fully unanimous jury verdict being rare; I think that in England, a two-thirds majority is required. Are you comfortable that a conviction for rape or attempted rape in the High Court could be achieved with a majority of one?

That is helpful—thank you.

My second question is to Ronnie Renucci of the Faculty of Advocates. There is quite a lot in your submission, but I will try to narrow it down. I note the faculty’s concerns about the setting up of specialist courts. In your evidence to the committee, you point out that the High Court is already a specialist court. You have concerns about the specific proposal, suggesting that it might downgrade the status or importance of the crime of rape. I wonder whether you wish to say something in response to that.

Staying with the general background, I have a question for Dr Marsha Scott. Everyone seems to be painting a bleak picture. I have been following the issue closely, and I have written to the Lord Advocate.

I note the statistics that Moira Price used. It seems to me that violence against women throughout the United Kingdom, and probably globally, is getting worse. Marsha Scott talked about how the underlying issue is the need for women’s inequality to be resolved. I have been reading in the press about teenage girls of 13 and 14—and some boys, but particularly girls—being bullied to provide nude photographs of themselves.

I am tying all of that together in my own mind. Violence against women by men seems to me to be worse than it was when I first became a politician, in 1999. I follow the international trends. It is a depressing picture.

Marsha Scott, do you agree with that?

I was going to come on to that, but I might as well ask you now, as you are on the screen. What is your view on the complete removal of juries from cases of rape or attempted rape?

I know that. I just want to know what your position is. If we remove the not proven verdict, there could be a majority of one, and you would not have any concerns about that.