Chamber and committees

I will begin by stating the obvious. We MSPs have been protected somewhat from the financial issues that others face and that many of our constituents have. I always try to see things from the point of view of the Government in managing the worst crisis of our time, but we must be alive to the fact that we—MSPs, ministers and even the First Minister—can easily lose touch with the devastation out there. We need to show that we understand that we must, if necessary, meet in the summer recess. We also need access to decision makers in the next eight weeks so that we can work hard on behalf of all those who are concerned about the legislation and the regulations and try to bring the country together.

The nation is distressed and tired, and it is losing a lot of trust in decisions. Indeed, some people are cynical. Businesses feel that they have complied only to find that the Government has changed its position. People are rightly asking harder questions about the inconsistencies in the approach that we are taking, and the narrowness of the bill will reduce our role as representatives. As Jackie Baillie said, the Parliament should not be sidestepped.

The Deputy First Minister has suggested, in a casual way, that we can make any additions that we think are necessary in September. However, there is no way that I, as an elected politician, am going to rubber-stamp any legislation—that is not what I am elected to do. It is important to see what the public think of that.

I would, of course, welcome the fund for tenants. That is a really positive announcement, and I consistently called for that over a year ago.

Today’s announcement by the First Minister at least gives some hope to some sectors about the restrictions being relaxed. I speak on behalf of thousands of musicians, solo artists and bands from various sectors who feel forgotten about. Their livelihoods have been lost and their mental health is in steep decline. They can now be hopeful about 9 August and 19 July, and about live music being played at weddings under level 0. That is great news, but I still want the chance to amend the legislation where I think it is failing.

We need clarity on the announcement that there will be no social distancing after 9 August if, as the First Minister said, the vaccine roll-out and so on go as planned. Can there be bands at weddings? Has socially distanced dancing at level 0 been considered? Can pubs and events have a live band? It sounds as though they can, but I would like further clarification on that, and I hope to get that in the coming days.

Why are we not able to amend the bill? We have many questions about the regulations. Murdo Fraser said that we are taking away freedoms and liberties in the interests of public health, and a huge number of people have questions about that approach. The night-time industry is asking whether it can plan for the date now, whether it can open up and whether it can take out the necessary insurance to plan for when restrictions are relaxed, on 9 August.

I want to concentrate on some concerns that I share with other members about the extension of justice provisions. The rationale behind introducing fiscal fines was to free up the courts to deal with more serious offending behaviour, but I am not clear what offending behaviour would attract such fines, and that should certainly not become a permanent change. I am interested to know whether the Government would consider reporting to Parliament on the range of offences that might be so identified by procurators fiscal.

I have deeper concerns about time limits. Certain time limits will be disapplied so that there is a period during which they will not apply and the court can adjourn a case for such a period as it considers appropriate. Beltrami & Co said:

“the amendment is unnecessary—the existing laws already provide for the extension of time limits.

The amendment serves only to extend the strict time limits within our existing framework, without the need for the court’s prior approval.”

A more serious concern is the extension of time limits on remand. At topical question time today, I said that Scotland’s remand figures are of deep concern. The Howard League commented on that in its report entitled “The Scandal of Remand in Scotland”. I understand the reasons for using emergency powers to extend the time for which people can be held in custody, but we must monitor that closely to ensure that we comply with health and welfare considerations. I hope to raise such concerns tomorrow.

The provisions on hearsay evidence are probably my biggest concern. The 2020 act allows evidence by statement when there would be

“a particular risk ... to the person’s wellbeing attributable to coronavirus, or ... of transmitting coronavirus to others”.

A statement cannot be cross-examined by the defence. Are we talking about the situation for the complainer or for other victims in the process? Why can we not use Zoom, for example? Through amendments at stage 2, tomorrow, I hope to examine such questions and other aspects of the legislation that are not well drafted.

I regret that there is not more scope to amend the bill in the way that I have outlined, but I look forward to stage 2.

I agree that such facilities should be one part of a bigger policy. However, as we have heard, and as Paul Sweeney has seen for himself, Peter Krykant has literally saved lives. I have spoken directly to him. I am trying to point out that the evidence is there for any people who might have concerns that such facilities might extend drug use. We have some hurdles to get over, but by no means do I want Brian Whittle to think that Scottish Labour’s position is that such facilities on their own will be able to deal with the problem. He is correct to say that we need to take a comprehensive approach.

The UK Government’s official advisers—the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—supports the setting up of drug consumption rooms. Westminster must change the law to allow such facilities across the UK, in the same way that Portugal did. Angela Constance is right that it is not just about changing the 1971 act for that purpose; there are other reasons why we want to modernise the law. I hope that other nations will support us in that.

As other members have done, I pay tribute to Peter Krykant, who has been running an unofficial drug consumption room. As I said, he has saved lives. By the end of March, he had supervised more than 500 injections and had no doubt saved lots of lives without that being on record. There is no further time to waste.

Collette Stevenson and Stephanie Callaghan reminded us that many of us have a personal stake in the issue. I believe that, such is the public concern, the public will, rightly, not allow the Parliament to waste another session. In his excellent speech, Michael Marra said that we must have the data and safe supply, but that we must have same-day treatment, too. I agree. Public Health Wales runs a website and a service that allows users to have their drugs tested anonymously.

The most mesmerizing speaker I have heard in this place—no offence to members—is Nanna Gotfredsen, who is a radical street lawyer who helped open Denmark’s first drug consumption room. I hope to bring her back to the Scottish Parliament so that members can hear her speak. She helped raise a volunteer force to run a drug consumption bus in Copenhagen in 2011, which enabled addicts to consume drugs safely. That soon paved the way for public sanctioned facilities. I chaired the meeting in 2018 at which she spoke, thanks to the work of Fiona Gilbertson of Recovering Justice. Nanna Gotfredsen said:

“We basically don’t have any drug deaths in DCRs and that is the same all over the world. I honestly think it’s crazy that Scotland has such a terrible drug problem and you are not doing this.”

Exactly—what have we been doing? Why are there no beds in Falkirk? It is outrageous. Sue Webber is right to say that the Scottish National Party should be ashamed of its record, but let us work together from this day forward. I raised the issue of high-strength street Valium with the First Minister two years ago and I got a good enough answer, but when I look back now I see that it was utterly complacent. Claire Baker hit the nail on the head: it is about saving lives, and the Lord Advocate should prioritise public health.

As has been highlighted, Scotland is the drug death capital of the world, and we have held that dismal title for six years. As Paul Sweeney said in an intervention, several lawyers—including Aamer Anwar, Mike Dailly and others—believe that we can operate within the law on the ground of the necessity to save lives. We have done that before—for example, in the early 2000s, to protect women in street prostitution in Glasgow. We can operate within the existing law without interfering with the independence of the Crown Office, which is an important point.

In the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area, there were 404 deaths in 2019, which is about the same number as there were in the whole of Spain in the previous year. Scotland accounts for a third of all UK deaths. It is a dark crown to hold, and Brian Whittle is right to say that we have to be able to answer the question: why are we in that position?

Is it any wonder that the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh has called for bold measures, including the decriminalisation of the possession of illicit drugs? Portugal once had a similar drug deaths crisis, until it focused on health, not criminalisation, and funded treatment properly.

Drug consumption facilities supervise people who inject their own drugs. No one has ever died from an overdose in such a facility. That is one strand of a bigger policy. Drug consumption facilities are currently operating in at least 66 cities around the world. Concerns that such facilities might encourage drug use or increase crime have proven to be unfounded. Use is also restricted to existing dependent users. 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.”

An accused person may not be held in custody for trial for more than 140 days unless the trial has commenced, but that period may be extended by a judge on cause shown. Prior to the pandemic, there were significant delays to High Court trials. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that the use of cause shown is a high enough test to prevent court delays, or will that become meaningless if it is going to take such a length of time to get back on track? Will the cabinet secretary make a full assessment of the impact of delays on victims—especially victims of rape and serious sexual assaults?

Surely we have learned the lessons from complacency in the past—never again.

Why can there be a live band with singing in the fan zones in Glasgow, but not at a wedding, in a pub or even outdoors in a music venue? On behalf of musicians in the wedding sector and in pubs and clubs, will the First Minister clearly set out the public barriers to singing and dancing at weddings and in pubs? When will she set out the conditions that would allow that to happen? Will she consider a proposal that I and those from the industry are putting together on the mitigations that the industry could support? Will the First Minister engage with us and consider running a pilot scheme that other countries and cities have run, to give musicians, publicans and those in the wedding sector hope that there is a road map on which we can work together and that we can trust?

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, and the Minister for Community Safety, Ash Denham, for meeting me yesterday. I hope that we can continue to work in that fashion. As is Jamie Greene for the Conservatives, I am delighted to lead for Scottish Labour on the justice brief in the new session. I am also delighted to be joined by Katy Clark, who will bring her knowledge and passion to the brief, and I look forward to hearing her first speech later today.

As I was saying to the cabinet secretary only last week, it has been a long while since I have had any involvement in justice issues. I served as convener of the Justice Committee what seems like a century ago and presided over the internationally renowned fingerprint evidence inquiry. I have a lot of catching up to do, so please bear that in mind.

I want to take an approach similar to that which Jamie Greene outlined, and that is to find common ground with the Scottish Government and the other parties to work to make a difference to the everyday experiences of victims in our system, to apply human rights and fairness in sentencing and in our prisons, and to recognise the work of Police Scotland but to ensure accountability for the decisions that the police make—not just in the tragic case of Sheku Bayoh, who died in custody. We desperately need answers on that case but, in all cases, we need accountability.

I do not understand why the previous cabinet secretary did not stand up for police officers on the front line in relation to early vaccination. We know that 40 officers caught the virus after policing public disorder in Glasgow only a few weeks ago.

Scottish Labour recognises the importance of a progressive justice system, with alternatives to custody and investment in community service and other alternatives. There is an urgent need to tackle the backlog of cases that has left victims waiting longer for justice. We also need to ensure that our courts are not overusing remand sentencing. The practice is putting pressure on already overcrowded prisons and we need to remember that people on remand are not convicted prisoners. A recent report shows that almost half of young adult prisoners aged 16 to 20 are on remand and we need an answer as to why so many young offenders are in custody awaiting trial.

A central theme of my work in the role will be to tackle violence against women in our society and that is why I particularly welcome the contribution of Ash Denham, who will be doing very serious work on that. Like everywhere in the world, violence against women and girls is widespread in Scotland and at least one in five women in Scotland will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime. On average, four rapes are reported per day, but the crime is chronically underreported. We have said many times in the Parliament that those figures mask the true extent of sexual violence.

I am also pleased to work with Rhoda Grant, who has done work on violence against women and who will close the debate for Labour.

If members need to be convinced of the importance of that work—after the high-profile cases of Sarah Everard, Libby Squire, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman, the elderly lady Esther Brown, who was raped and killed in her flat in Woodlands in Glasgow last Tuesday, and many other women—they should listen to the eight-part podcast by Sam Poling on BBC Scotland, “Who Killed Emma?” Emma Caldwell was murdered 16 years ago and her body was found in woods near Roberton in South Lanarkshire. The podcast includes the testimony of the women who knew Emma and were working in Glasgow’s red light area, as it was known at the time, and who say that they were regularly assaulted and raped by men, but that complaints were not taken seriously.

I believe that any attack on any woman is unacceptable and that every woman should be treated as a human being. No one has been brought to justice for Emma’s killing. The case was reopened in 2015 but has stalled, despite a key suspect being named in a report to the Crown Office in 2018. The biggest manhunt in the history of Strathclyde police continues to be unsolved and the killer of Emma Caldwell remains free. That leaves Emma’s family still without justice and the lives of other women still threatened. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary would make a commitment that he and the next Lord Advocate will treat that as a priority.

I will finish on this point.

When it comes to decision time, it would be helpful for us to know what the Green amendment means by “institutional violence”, as there is a lot in the amendment that we support.

I move amendment S6M-00294.3 to insert at end:

“; recognises the role that Police Scotland has taken on during the pandemic and agrees there is a need to promote the strong connections between the force and local communities; further recognises that overcrowding in prisons and high levels of remand were chronic challenges prior to COVID-19, the causes of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic; considers that the continued prevalence of violence against women in Scotland to be abhorrent and believes it must be taken seriously by the justice system; acknowledges that the COVID-19 restrictions have increased the risk for victims of domestic violence and hindered their ability to access justice, and calls on the Scottish Government to roll out domestic abuse courts across the country and establish a specialist sexual offences court.”

I appreciate that.

Talking about the prime suspect in the case, investigative journalist Sam Poling said that

“All the evidence I’ve seen suggests this man is incredibly sexually violent towards women and has serious questions to answer about the murder of Emma Caldwell.”

Sarah Everard’s death also painted a clear picture of flaws in our society and the handling of gender-based violence. Authorities advised women to stay home to protect themselves and not walk alone at night, which sparked outrage. Such recommendations put the onus on women to stop gender-based violence; that often happens. In this Parliament, we must be clear that we will stand up for women and demand safer streets.

Forecast data on scheduled trials in Scottish courts suggests that the number of criminal cases that were registered but still awaiting a trial date at the end of April 2021 was nearly 50,000, which is more than double the number of cases in April 2020. The Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service has predicted that the backlog will not be cleared until 2025. I am aware that, yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was not able to put a date on when the backlog would be cleared. I hope that we can have a detailed discussion on that.

We have discussed the issue before, but when we carried out the reform that extended sheriff court sentencing powers to five years, it was always intended that, in complex cases, people would get legal aid for counsel. Does the cabinet secretary think that it is time to look at that issue? It seems to be virtually impossible to get such legal aid now.