Chamber and committees

It is always important, when we bring legislation to the chamber, that we have carried out the correct diligence and consulted experts and others. I know that that was done for the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. However, Parliament agreed that we should consider further a stand-alone offence of misogyny. I and other ministers have spoken to Baroness Kennedy on a number of occasions, and I am satisfied that she is making good progress on that. We are now a short time away from her coming to her conclusions, and it would be wrong to pre-empt those conclusions.

I understand that Baroness Kennedy will consult the Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee, so Pauline McNeill will have a chance to discuss the issue directly with her. If we are to legislate further, it is right that we do so on the basis of the evidence that Baroness Kennedy has gathered, as well as the consultation process that has been undertaken.

I completely agree with that, and my previous answers reflect that position.

Audrey Nicoll is absolutely right in saying that we should never blame any victim of crime for that crime. For far too long, in such crimes, we have pushed on to women the burden of responsibility for keeping themselves safe. That needs to change. For that reason, I do not agree with the comments that were made. I think that the First Minister has also made it very clear that she does not agree with those comments.

We require to focus our attention on men’s violence against women and the behaviours of men, and I think that that informed the police’s response in Scotland. Instead of talking about waving down a bus, the police in Scotland made sure that the onus in their new procedure was put on the police and not on somebody who may be confronted by a lone police officer. That is the right approach.

I certainly agree with Audrey Nicoll that the last thing we should be doing is blaming victims for the crimes that are perpetrated against them.

Crimes of domestic violence have a devastating impact on the victims. We encourage, not least through a new law that has widely been well received, women or anybody who has experienced domestic abuse to report it and seek support.

There is no doubt that the pandemic has been challenging in this regard and that it has created a greater court backlog. That has been caused by necessary public health restrictions, and it has been responded to in a number of ways, not least through remote jury centres and the allocation of over £50 million to the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service to ensure that we can get through as many cases as possible.

Although 25 per cent of all summary cases are domestic abuse cases, 40 per cent of evidence-led trials involve domestic abuse. That shows the prioritisation that is given to domestic abuse cases.

As I said, £50 million has already been allocated to our recover, renew and transform justice programme. We will, of course, look to allocate further resources to ensure that the backlog is further reduced. We acknowledge the impact of the delays on domestic abuse victims and all those in the justice system, including the accused, and we want to work down the backlog as quickly as possible.

The Scottish Government works closely with Police Scotland and the Crown Office to tackle all forms of gender-based violence. Our equally safe strategy maintains a decisive focus on prevention and addressing systemic gender inequalities. We have dedicated £19 million per year to the new delivering equally safe fund to implement the strategy, and in the programme for government we committed to invest more than £100 million to support front-line services and focus on prevention of violence against women and girls.

We have strengthened our laws to tackle sexual violence, threatening or abusive behaviour, non-consensual sharing of images and domestic abuse. However, recent tragic cases and the experience of far too many women show that more needs to be done. We will therefore consider carefully the recommendations from Baroness Kennedy’s independent working group on misogyny and act swiftly on the working group’s advice.

I welcome Police Scotland’s message that the onus is on police to provide reassurance to women, and its new lone police officer verification process is very welcome in that regard.

As things stand, we believe that the courts have the ability to hand down extended sentences in cases in which they think that that is appropriate. We are, of course, continuing to have a dialogue, and other members of Meghan Gallacher’s party have put their case in debates. We will, of course, listen to those views, but, as things stand, we believe that the courts in Scotland have the ability to hand down appropriate sentences, especially in cases as grave as that which has been mentioned.

It is also true—and quite right to say—that the sentence that was handed down by the court in England reflected the fact that a police officer was involved. I think that we share the view across the chamber that we should protect police officers, because they hold a position of particular vulnerability as a result of the job that they do. However, we should also recognise the fact that they hold a position of trust and authority, so that, when they breach that trust, they should get a sentence that is commensurate with that breach as well as the substantive crime.

We will, of course, continue to keep things under review, but we currently believe that the courts in Scotland have the powers that are required.

As I said, women and girls in Scotland should feel safe on our streets and in our public places, including in online spaces. That is why we have set up an independent working group on misogyny and criminal justice, which is chaired by Baroness Kennedy, to independently consider how the Scottish criminal justice system currently deals with misogynistic conduct and whether there are gaps in the law that require to be remedied. The group is also looking at whether to add the characteristic of sex to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.

The group is currently drawing upon a range of evidential sources, including a survey that was filled out by 930 participants, academic evidence and presentations from third sector and justice agencies, including Police Scotland, which will present at the working group meeting this week. The group is due to report in February 2022.

I do not agree with the Prime Minister that it is possible at this stage to rule out the need for a stand-alone offence of misogyny.

I note from my recent experience at committees that there have been a number of times during the pandemic when the usual expected patterns of development for measures have been curtailed, for fairly obvious reasons. It was probably not possible, even in July, to predict what stage the pandemic would now be at, although when the powers were due to expire was predictable.

The extension of the powers is not being nodded through. I acknowledge that the consultation process was limited; however, I again emphasise that the SPS did not have to undertake it, although it was right to do so. I am also not sure that it is true that the balance was critical here. Officials might have the exact details, but some who were contacted did not respond at all while others said that they had no comment to make.

You are right to say that the issues raised were significant and probably reflect those that members will raise today; indeed, they are the obvious issues of concern. As a result, the Government did not seek to have the proposed extension nodded through. We talked to the Prison Service about it and, on balance, believed—for the reasons that I gave in my opening remarks—that allowing the powers to be extended was the right thing to do.

I understand that the extension runs to 31 March next year but, as I have pointed out, the pandemic has changed in nature and, indeed, is changing all the time. I hope that, when we see the figures today, further progress will have been made. I undertake, if the nature of the pandemic changes again—and if the committee so wishes—to come back before that date next year and further discuss the need for the powers. I am more than willing to do that. However, at this point, the Government has considered the consultation responses and believes that, on balance, this is the right way to go.

That may have been a technical answer, but it is also a factually correct one. We have observed the standing orders of the Parliament. There is a role for the committees, if they wish to take earlier consideration. This is the second committee of the Parliament to consider the powers, and that is in the context of a pandemic. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has undertaken a voluntary consultation exercise, which was not required. The SPS has done the right thing in that regard.

If the committee wanted to annul the instrument, it could do that, or that could be done through the Parliament, and the powers would continue until that process happened. I do not think that there is a material loss of benefit to the scrutiny process in that regard.

On the consultation responses, as I tried to explain in my response to the committee, we did not get permission from the consultees to publicise their responses. Work is being done to do that—although some of them are already known to members of the committee. As soon as those permissions have been granted, the responses will be published. You are right to say that that will be next month, but next month starts on Friday. I am not saying that the responses will be published on Friday, but next month starts on Friday, and they will be published as soon as it is possible to do so.

Given Jamie Greene’s previous question, I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the information that we can provide. I get an update every week—sometimes more often—on vaccination rates for prisoners and staff, as well as on the presence of the virus. As Fulton MacGregor rightly said, that has implications for visiting. In addition, when people come directly into custody as part of the judicial process, there are processes in place to minimise transmission. As far as I am able to, I will get specific figures to you on that. In general terms, it is the same profile as the general population, so the same process is followed in relation to the age that people are when they get vaccinated. From memory, there is a higher incidence of refusals in the prison population but, again, I will get that detail to you.

It might provide further reassurance to say that governors have to act in consultation with health professionals. If a prison governor, for whatever reason, wanted to have a more stringent regime, they could not have one just because they wanted to. They can use the powers under the regulations only if a health professional says that that is required, and it is not likely that health professionals would insist on such measures.

We are dealing with a closed population. We have had a number of outbreaks and, as I said, the virus is currently in nine different prisons. When it bubbles up in a particular prison, the incident management team goes in and takes relevant measures. It is a very real threat, because the virus is able to spread more quickly than it can among the general population. The powers are being extended for the right reasons—and only those reasons. It would not be in a prison governor’s interest to use the powers for anything other than health reasons. I will get as much information as possible and write to the convener with that information for the benefit of members.