Chamber and committees

The discussion has been useful. We are now getting into the finer detail. I do not think that the committee is necessarily opposed to the principle of the measures in section 8, unless I have misunderstood. I am sure that the detail could be explored at a later stage, but I am happy to press amendment 90.

Presiding Officer,

“there should be no doubt Nicola Sturgeon made huge progress putting in place the building blocks needed to end child poverty in Scotland.”

That is the assessment of the director of the Child Poverty Action Group, John Dickie. However, the Scottish Government is working with one hand tied behind its back. What analysis has it carried out into the impact of UK welfare reforms, and how many children could be lifted out of poverty in Scotland if those key policies were reversed?

Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the planning that is under way for crew familiarisation training to ensure that the vessels can go into service at the earliest possible opportunity upon their completion?

Amendment 66 relates to section 23D. For the record, I thought that we had a very useful discussion on Pauline McNeill’s amendment 65, and I appreciate that the cabinet secretary took time to respond to that.

During evidence taking, I was really concerned about the removal of section 23D. We heard strong reassurances from the legal profession and others that it would not open up risk to victims of domestic abuse and stalking, but I felt that something needed to be put in the bill to strengthen those reassurances.

I was particularly struck by the evidence from Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Speak Out Survivors, which highlighted to us the critical role that bail conditions play in what are uniquely pernicious crimes, both in the practical sense of protecting victim safety and in the wider sense whereby the right special conditions of bail can help a victim to feel safer and more secure.

The message that is sent out to victims is crucial, and I felt that that would be lost with the removal of section 23D, hence the reason for lodging amendment 66. It is really important that we strengthen the role of bail conditions in cases of domestic abuse and stalking.

Currently, when the court grants bail on standard conditions to a person accused of a sexual offence in either solemn or summary proceedings without imposing any further special conditions of bail, it must explain why it did not consider special conditions to be necessary. My amendment 66 would extend that existing duty on the court so that, when the court grants bail on standard conditions to a person accused of an offence involving domestic abuse or an offence of stalking, it must give reasons why no further special conditions of bail were imposed.

Adding domestic abuse and stalking offences to existing requirements for sexual offences cases will ensure that the court must justify any decision not to put in place additional protective conditions in cases in which a victim would feel especially threatened by the risk of further offending by the accused. That is where special conditions of bail are of particular importance. As such, I consider that the amendment is vital. It seeks to emphasise to the court the importance of the consideration of robust special conditions of bail in cases in which the complainer might have particular reason to be concerned about the risk of further offending by the accused, including domestic abuse or stalking.

Amendment 66 would also serve to increase the transparency of court decision making in this area, which, as we heard from those representing victims’ interests during stage 1 evidence sessions, is of the utmost importance. As a committee, we have heard that many times. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 66.

I put on record my thanks to Katy Clark for lodging amendment 37 on data for women on remand. It is a crucial issue and the data is very much needed. I am so glad that she has opened up the matter for discussion, and I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary is willing to look into the issue and bring back something at stage 3. Gathering the data is very worthwhile, and I agree with everything that Katy has said.

I welcome the cabinet secretary to her new role.

Scotland’s justice system is on the verge of transformation, with changes that I believe will finally put victims and witnesses at its heart. For too long, our system has focused on process and penalising, with little thought having been given to the experience of the victims and witnesses going through the judicial process.

I have been a member of the Criminal Justice Committee during this session of Parliament and was a member of the Justice Committee in the previous session. I and my colleagues on those committees have heard countless harrowing stories, as Katy Clark outlined, that have shown how traumatising the judicial process can be for victims, particularly women who have experienced sexual and domestic abuse, and the lack of support for them.

Change to the system is long overdue, but change comes with challenges. With the greatest respect to our legal profession, change does not come easily when traditional, centuries-old practice comes under the microscope. However, in today’s world, doing nothing is not an option if we are to have a fairer rehabilitative justice system that is fit for modern society. That said, we need to take the legal profession with us, and a lot of work has to be done.

The publication of “Trauma Informed Justice: A Knowledge and Skills Framework for Working with Victims and Witnesses” will equip justice agencies with the skills and knowledge that are needed to reduce the retraumatisation of victims and witnesses. The framework was developed by NHS Education for Scotland as part of an overall package of funding from the Scottish Government that was worth £440,000.

The Scottish Government’s ambition, which is shared with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners, identifies six key aims of a trauma-informed justice system. Practice should be informed by people with lived experience, and the system should recognise the importance of wellbeing in the workforce; recognise where people are affected by trauma and adversity; respond in ways that prevent further harm; support recovery; and be able to address inequalities and improve life chances. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will, if passed, be the vehicle for achieving that, and it will enable the most important transformation of the justice system in Scotland since devolution.

The bill will build on the recommendations of Lady Dorrian’s review group on improving the management of sexual offence cases by protecting the dignity of victims through an automatic lifelong right of anonymity for victims of sexual offences. It will also establish a specialist sexual offences court.

I am delighted that the bill will provide an automatic right to state-funded independent legal representation for complainers when applications are made to lead evidence on their sexual history or bad character in sexual offence cases.

In addition, a pilot of single-judge trials for cases of rape and attempted rape will take place to gather evidence on their effectiveness. I realise that that is a controversial proposal that is, as we know, being resisted by many in the legal profession. However, my colleagues and I met in private with rape and sexual abuse survivors who said that they would welcome that measure. That should be of paramount importance; we must listen to them. Research has shown that prejudice and preconceived notions of some jury members have dictated the outcome of such trials. With the proviso that the judge that is appointed to such a case must be trauma aware, I think that that approach could be a great step forward for victims.

The proposal to end the not proven verdict is one that I welcome whole-heartedly. During the 1970s, a young woman was murdered less than a mile from where I lived. The accused walked free on a not proven verdict due to a legal loophole. That met widespread astonishment and the matter has stayed in my mind since then. A shocking number of trials for rape or attempted rape result in a not proven verdict.

As convener of the cross-party groups on women, families and justice and on men’s violence against women and children, I know that urgent action is needed to improve the experiences of women and children and to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard and acted on. We know that many women who are in prison for low-grade offences have suffered domestic abuse or head injuries and have mental health and addiction problems. Prison is no place for them. It wrecks families and exacerbates the existing issues that led them there in the first place. Providing early intervention and holistic support is the only way to alleviate the situation.

Equally, prison is no place for children and young people. I am pleased that the Government recognises that and is legislating to stop young people being held in adult prisons and to instead place them in holistic secure care. I do not have time to talk about the bairns’ hoose approach, but I am delighted about it.

The radical and transformative proposals that I have mentioned are a huge step in the right direction towards modernising and improving our justice system. With our greater understanding of trauma and how it impacts people—including victims, witnesses and offenders—we must look towards a humane and rehabilitative system of justice that works in Scotland.

I am especially pleased to speak in this important debate and I thank my friend and colleague Jackie Dunbar for bringing it to the chamber.

May is melanoma awareness month. Each year, 16,000 new cases of melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer—are diagnosed across the UK and 2,300 people sadly die. It is a largely preventable disease, as 90 per cent of cases of melanoma could be prevented by staying safe in the sun. That is why the VAT burn campaign, launched by my friend and colleague Amy Callaghan MP, is so vital.

I will say a few words about Amy, who is in the gallery. She has beaten melanoma twice—while in her teens and in her early 20s. I will do my best not to embarrass her, but she is a remarkable young woman. She was my office manager when I was elected in 2016, until she won the constituency of East Dunbartonshire in 2019 in stunning style, beating the sitting MP Jo Swinson. I never doubted her ability to do that or to tackle issues head on. She has dealt with considerable health issues with amazing courage and determination and, if anyone can win this campaign, she can. Amy is a winner.

Amy’s VAT burn campaign aims to remove VAT from sunscreen products of SPF 30-plus and four-star UVA protection rating. We know that using an effective sunscreen is the safest way to enjoy the sun and protect the skin, but sun cream is expensive. As we heard from Jackie Dunbar, research suggests that one person in eight does not wear sunscreen because it is too expensive. As someone who has always used a factor 50 sun cream—I still have to limit my time in the sun to avoid burning—I know how necessary it is and have never understood why the higher the factor, the higher the price. It makes no sense.

Melanoma Focus, which is backing the campaign along with the Teenage Cancer Trust, Skcin, Melanoma UK, Young Lives vs Cancer and Melanoma Action and Support Scotland, states that factor 30-plus sun cream is a healthcare item and I whole-heartedly agree. There is no valid reason for retaining VAT on sunscreen products. The policy change would cost the Treasury in the region of £40 million per year, which is a drop in the ocean when it comes to saving lives. However, despite cross-party support, the UK Government has refused point blank to take forward the initiative of removing VAT. That is shameful.

In the 15 to 44 age group, melanoma skin cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the third most common in females. One male in 36 and one female in 47 will be diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer in their lifetime. Cases are increasing, but most cases can be prevented if people use a high-factor sunscreen. We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis and our summers are getting hotter, although admittedly not yet this year, so there will never be a better time to review the policy of paying VAT on a healthcare item.

It is good news that supermarkets Tesco and Asda have recognised that cost is a barrier to people buying sunscreen. As Jackie Dunbar outlined, Tesco has reduced the price of its own-brand sunscreen by 20 per cent, Asda has called for VAT to be removed and Morrisons has also pledged to pass on VAT reduction.

Removing VAT from sunscreen would not have been possible under European Union rules but is now possible. Perhaps that is the only benefit of Brexit. In the US, sunscreen products have been federally exempted from VAT-style taxes since 2012. In Australia, they are exempt provided they are marketed principally for use as sunscreen and have an SPF rating of 15 or more. It is high time that common sense and a duty of care to save lives prevailed and those healthcare items were exempted from VAT.

I again thank my colleague Jackie Dunbar for bringing the debate to the chamber and wish Amy Callaghan all the best with her commendable campaign.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the digital prescribing and dispensing pathways programme.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the digital prescribing and dispensing pathways programme. (S6O-02192)

I thank the minister for that answer.

Last week, I met a group of local general practitioners who told me about technical problems that they are having in using the electronic system, which have resulted in patients waiting for paper prescriptions that GPs need to print and sign. They also asked about potential expansion of the programme to secondary care patients, who need to wait for paper prescriptions from hospital doctors. Can the minister confirm whether the programme will be progressed in order to alleviate the burden on general practices and hospitals?