Chamber and committees

I begin by agreeing with Alex Cole-Hamilton and Jamie Greene that this has been a very rushed process. In some ways, what we are trying to do is impossible, because on the one hand we are trying to defend the interests of justice, and on the other we understand some of the issues facing the Government in relation to managing the courts.

I will first address amendment 6, on fiscal fines. The cabinet secretary says that fiscal fines enable a greater number of cases to be diverted. We do not know what kinds of crime those cases would involve, but the use of fiscal fines would be based on recovery from coronavirus.

I note that the cabinet secretary said that retaining the provision would not be desirable in the longer term. That is an important statement to me.

I do not support the general increase of fiscal fines to £500. If I can be so bold as to differ with the Lord Advocate, I imagine that fiscal fines of £500 would be used to deal with fairly high-tariff crime. The Parliament would have a legitimate interest if fiscals were issuing fiscal fines for what we regard as serious crime. Members may say that that might never happen, but I would say that it is quite legitimate for the Parliament to have an interest in that for the reason that I have given. However, if the cabinet secretary is indicating that the provision will be used primarily in Covid times, I am less concerned about it.

Amendment 7 relates to time limits. I think that Jamie Greene said that we are in an impossible position, and I agree with him.

On the one hand, I am very exercised about long delays to court proceedings, not just for the accused but for victims, and I am generally not happy about extending time limits. However, I appreciate that there are difficulties finding court venues across the country that are suitable for social distancing. I have some sympathy with that, but I remind Parliament that the law says that someone in custody awaiting trial should wait no longer than 140 days. Shortly after our discussion of the bill, we will need to think about how we can return to that provision, which, after all, is the current law.

In relation to reporting procedures, I seek to withdraw amendment 4, on the basis that the cabinet secretary will write to me on that specific issue. He said that the amendment duplicates existing reporting mechanisms in Scottish prisons. I would like to hear from him about whether prisoners are getting out of their cells and outdoors, particularly in light of coronavirus.

I will move amendment 8, on hearsay. I listened to what was said about the hearsay principle helping to minimise disruption. Given that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already permits hearsay evidence on application to the court when a person is not fit to give evidence, the provision that amendment 8 seeks to expire is not needed. I know that the cabinet secretary will return to the point, but it does not seem, from the wording in the legislation, that that provision is to be used for exclusively for evidence from those who are isolating due to coronavirus.

Hearsay evidence is seldom used in the courts, and section 259 is not used often, but the provision is dangerous and, for the reasons outlined by Jamie Greene, we must be very careful about its use. In the interests of justice, and to be absolutely fair to the accused, any statement can be cross-examined. I realise that the provision is intended only for extreme circumstances, but given that relevant provisions already exist, I will move amendment 8.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

I am trying to get as much clarity as possible, and I appreciate that there is a lot to consider. Does what the cabinet secretary said mean that, after 9 August, live music can be played without restrictions in pub venues, for example, as well as at weddings? It looks like that to me. It would be good to get the clarity that we did not get yesterday.

I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said. As I said, I am trying to get some clarity. The cabinet secretary knows, because there was a meeting with the wedding sector yesterday, that that sector and the wider night-time economy and hospitality sector have felt that engagement could have been a lot better. Perhaps we are making important progress.

I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on what I have been trying to achieve. There would be no harm in allowing some reporting.

Mitigation measures make sense and would be expected.

My concern is that the provision does not seem to apply exclusively to a witness or a complainer who is isolating. I can understand why the cabinet secretary might want the provision, but can he confirm that the power would not generally be used when someone was not fit to attend? Some of the lawyers I have spoken to say that the provision is not specific in its drafting. That is only part of the concern, but it is a concern.

As members will have heard, I share Jamie Greene’s concerns about that provision. Even the appeal court has been conducted in a virtual setting so, if the Government wants to provide flexibility to allow courts to proceed, it could do so in other ways. Does the member agree that the big question is whether it serves the interests of justice if someone who is accused of a serious crime cannot cross-examine a witness or complainer when an accusation has been made, because a statement cannot be cross-examined?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the number of female prisoners on remand, following reports that one in four women in custody are awaiting trial. (S6T-00101)

I thank the minister for that lengthy response. Time spent in prison can have a catastrophic effect on women’s lives, causing them to lose their home, custody of their children and their job. Amnesty International reminds us that the detention of individuals who are awaiting trial is a matter of special concern because they have yet to be found guilty of any offence and are therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. However, worryingly, Scottish prisons have a greater proportion of women on remand than prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom. Of those women on remand, three quarters will not get a custodial sentence. I hope that the minister agrees that something is not right.

The minister mentioned that the Government is about to adopt the Angiolini report, but the issue was known about nine years ago and there was a proposition that the provision of bail supervision should be consistently available across Scotland. Why has it taken nine years to bring that forward?

It is difficult at topical questions if members ask about something and get answers about a whole policy that they did not ask about. I am asking about remand. At the end of April, close to one in four prisoners in Scotland were on remand, and nearly 42.6 per cent of young people aged between 16 and 20 who were in prison were on remand. Of people held on remand, 57 per cent do not go on to receive a prison sentence—either they are found not guilty or they receive a community sentence. I am not confident that the Scottish Government really accepts the importance of the issue and the human rights considerations.

What is the Scottish Government’s approach to the issue in terms of human rights? In January last year, the Scottish Government commissioned research into the reasons behind decisions on bail and remand, with the aim of trying to reduce the number of people on remand, but that research was put on hold. I acknowledge that that was due to the pandemic, but when will that research be recommenced?

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.