Chamber and committees

Good morning. In your opening remarks, minister, you mentioned the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, which the Criminal Justice Committee is considering. As you said, a key part of that bill is about improving the process of release from prison. I know that removing barriers to people accessing services and treatment on release from prison is dealt with in some detail in the cross-Government response to the task force’s report.

In the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, there is a duty on ministers to publish throughcare standards for remand and sentenced prisoners so that there will be an improvement in the consistency of throughcare support. In the context of drug harm, the work that you are doing in response to the task force’s report, and the vulnerability that individuals face at the point of release, when they have perhaps come from a period of abstinence but are vulnerable to going back into an environment that will place them at risk of harm from drug use, will you give some commentary on what those throughcare standards should look like?

Thank you, Justina. I put the same question to Kirsten Horsburgh.

It is very welcome that, despite years of UK Government austerity, the Scottish Government has increased the policing budget by £80 million, which is a 6.3 per cent increase on last year. How will the budget ensure that the police can respond to the changing nature of crime and continue to keep communities in Scotland safe?

It was evident in the committee’s work that the point when someone is walking out of the prison gate is too late for throughcare and aftercare.

Will the minister outline the action that is being taken to ensure that all mental health and substance use staff are trained on how to effectively assess and manage co-occurring mental health conditions and substance misuse disorders?

I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. I thank the committees clerks, Scottish Parliament information centre staff and our committee adviser, Mr Chris Miller, for their support throughout stage 1. I also thank the Scottish Government for its detailed response to our stage 1 report.

The committee gave detailed consideration to the proposals in the bill. We received a substantial amount of written and oral evidence, and we took the time to engage more widely with those affected by bail and release issues. We held extremely valuable sessions with survivors of serious crime to hear their experiences of bail and, where relevant, release from prison. We also visited organisations that support prisoners on release to hear about the challenges that they and their families face when leaving prison, and we visited Glasgow sheriff court to observe a typical busy Monday afternoon custody court. All that evidence helped inform our views on the bill.

I welcome to Parliament Fiona Fawdry and Nicola Caldwell of the GRAFT project, and I thank them for hosting members during an extremely informative visit to their project in Kilmarnock.

Some members of the committee felt unable to support the general principles of the bill due to concerns about its overall purpose, its impact and issues around resourcing. However, all members agreed that it contained some useful provisions, and the conclusions and recommendations in our stage 1 report were agreed without division. Committee members will set out their own views on specific areas of the bill during today’s debate, but I will highlight some—certainly not all—of the main findings outlined in our stage 1 report.

Section 1 of the bill requires a court to give justice social work the opportunity to provide relevant information when bail is being considered. We welcomed that new requirement in principle, as justice social work has a valuable role to play in informing court decisions. However, the committee had concerns that if justice social work is not properly resourced to carry out that enhanced role, there is a risk that the policy objectives of the bill may not be achieved, and that in fact we unintentionally introduce delays into the court system.

In its response, the Scottish Government agrees that resourcing an enhanced role for social work will be challenging and provides an assurance that it will

“engage closely with Social Work Scotland and COSLA”

on the matter.

Section 2 of the bill would change the grounds on which a court may decide to refuse bail. That means that bail would be refused only if an accused were considered to pose a risk to “public safety” or where there was

“a significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice.”

We heard different views about the impact of changes to the bail test. Some witnesses were unclear on whether it would be a minor reframing of the rules or a more fundamental reform. There were concerns expressed about what is meant by “public safety”, which is a key part of the new bail test. We did not think that the bill fully addressed the concerns that were expressed by the senior judiciary that the outcomes of bail decisions might not, in fact, be changed by the new bail test.

Some committee members felt that it would be preferable if the factors that judges take into account in making bail decisions were included in the bill. In its response, the Government notes the range of views that were expressed on the new bail test and highlights that it seeks to

“combine ... a requirement for the court to use its judgement to determine the risk of an adverse event happening (e.g. offending while on bail) with the likely impact of such an event”.

One of the more difficult issues that some members grappled with was the proposal to repeal section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The section currently restricts the granting of bail in certain cases—notably, when an individual is accused of a violent, sexual or domestic abuse offence or drug trafficking and has a previous conviction under solemn procedure for such an offence. The Scottish Government argues that repealing section 23D would simplify the legal framework on bail and aid the decision making of the court.

Our main focus was to satisfy ourselves that the repeal of section 23D would not lead to adverse effects on the safety of victims, which has been a major concern of organisations that represent the victims of crime. On the other hand, many other organisations argued that the removal of section 23D was reasonable and would not impact the way in which courts consider victim safety. Some members of the committee were persuaded that the necessary safeguards will be in place if section 23D is repealed; others were not persuaded. In its response, the Scottish Government provides an assurance that it will continue engagement with victims groups

“regarding the repeal of Section 23D and how the new bail test has public safety and victim safety at the heart of how it operates.”

On part 2 of the bill, we welcomed the provisions on personal release plans for prisoners and minimum standards applying to throughcare support for prisoners, which will provide extra focus and structure to the arrangements for supporting prisoners on their release. The committee hopes that the measures will help to avoid the sorts of gaps in the provision of support that we have heard about. However, the committee also made the point that the

“policy objective of reducing reoffending and supporting reintegration into the community”

will be undermined

“unless the required resources are made available.”

The bill would allow information about a prisoner’s release that can already be given to a victim of that prisoner to be given to a victim support organisation. That was welcomed, in principle, but some victims organisations raised concerns about information being shared without the consent of the victim. We are pleased that the Scottish Government is willing to discuss those concerns further.

The committee heard evidence directly from survivors of crime about the current deficiencies of victim engagement in the justice system. The committee asks the Scottish Government to consider what further information can be provided to victims, to give them confidence that bail conditions are supervised effectively.

There are differences of views on the bill among committee members. However, there is also agreement from all members that it contains some useful provisions, some of which I have highlighted. If the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today, we stand ready to scrutinise it at stage 2.

On the definition of “public safety”, I agree that most, or probably all, members of the committee scrutinised that issue. I just point out that my recollection of evidence from witnesses was that there is a desire for guidance on what “public safety” means, but there was no specific request for a definition. That is perhaps because people understand that a definition can almost make things more difficult.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the Aberdeen computing collaborative, which brings together Aberdeen City Council, the University of Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University and North East Scotland College. It aims to raise the profile of computing science and to make Aberdeen the destination of choice for computing science graduates who are entering teaching. How is the Scottish Government working with such collaboratives to build on that work and attract new graduates into computing science teaching?

I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for undertaking the comprehensive range of work that informed its excellent report on the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland.

The contributions to today’s debate have been helpful in analysing many of the key areas that the committee feels need to be addressed so that the Scottish Government supports greater empowerment of, and provides meaningful support for, councils, given that they will play a pivotal role in delivering net zero. That is, of course, against a backdrop of, as the committee puts it,

“unprecedented ... demands being made on ... resources and skill-sets against”

an extremely

“challenging financial backdrop.”

The committee’s recommendations focus on a wide range of issues and themes, but my contribution will focus on three areas: funding, private investment and planning.

First, we need to improve the way that local funding is configured so that larger, fewer and more flexible funding streams offer a more holistic and place-based response to climate change.

Secondly, there is the need for private investment at scale and the development of an investment strategy that will increase investor appetite and lead to deals being agreed. I note the call for an expanded role for the Scottish National Investment Bank. I am attracted to the proposal for it to

“act as an interface between local government and investors”

and, essentially, to support contemporary models of co-financing.

In its briefing that was submitted ahead of today’s debate, COSLA calls for the simplification of national funding for net zero programmes and more core funding for local government to help to deliver local and regional net zero projects and programmes.

As a north-east constituency MSP, I have spoken to a number of businesses that are ready and waiting to invest in renewables projects. In many cases, they would bring their vast experience in the oil and gas sector into the renewables sector, but the current funding arrangements—particularly the yearly funding distribution—are challenging for them and create potential disincentives. Therefore, I ask the Scottish Government to consider how funding can be better accessed through more effective co-funding models and to further explore the proposition that the Scottish National Investment Bank should act as a more effective interface between local government and investors.

Thirdly, I note the committee’s concern about the “churn, repetition and delay” in the planning process. That is having an impact on major renewables projects and other projects. The committee also highlights the urgent need to reverse the decline in the number of local authority planners.

The complex nature of planning law and the associated lengthy timescales are pressing issues, which are further compounded by the consenting timescales for new projects. Although consenting is a separate process and was not directly considered by the committee in its report, I nonetheless consider it to be important to acknowledge the unintended but significant challenges that both processes create for businesses. Indeed, I have raised the issue of consenting with the Scottish Government on behalf of businesses in the north-east that are eager to invest in projects but for which planning and consenting timescales are a major challenge, particularly in relation to offshore wind projects.

I note the comments that were made by COSLA and Scottish Renewables about the need to disentangle aspects of planning law so that we can increase our onshore wind capacity from 8GW to 20GW in order to meet our 2030 target.

I am aware that the committee raised the issue of staffing reductions in planning departments over the years with the Scottish Government in its letter on the draft NPF4. It commented that, unless the trend is reversed,

“there is a risk of NPF4 being more of a wish-list than a blueprint for truly transformational change that is urgently needed”.

In addressing that issue, I am drawn to the specific proposal that planning could be placed within the tertiary education landscape, as one of the STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects.

In that regard, I highlight the work that Aberdeen City Council is undertaking to develop its senior phase curriculum and align it to the anticipated demand for the skills required by offshore energy production; to broaden the pathways that are available to young people to maximise the use of vocational courses and alternative routes into further and higher education; and, importantly, to develop digital and computing skills and a broader range of computer technology pathways. I commend the passion and commitment of Eleanor Sheppard, director of education at Aberdeen City Council, who has been pivotal in driving forward that work.

Members have highlighted many examples of the work that is under way in the north-east involving council-business partnerships. Some of those are in my constituency, including the energy-from-waste facility and the Aberdeen hydrogen hub. I hope that the report that we are debating today will offer an important opportunity to ensure that future work is secure, deliverable and successful.

Throughout this week, we have acknowledged international women’s day with debates, events and discussions, which is testament to our commitment to make life better for women and girls in Scotland and, indeed, across the globe.

In the debate on safety on public transport, colleagues articulated their experiences of travelling on public transport and going about their daily lives while all the time making adjustments and self-safeguarding, with some being confronted by men who felt validated in displaying inappropriate, disinhibited behaviour.

Today’s motion focuses on misogynistic behaviour and the proposal to establish a new misogyny and criminal justice act that would create an aggravation of misogyny and three offences relating to stirring up hatred against women and girls, public misogynistic harassment and issuing threats of, or invoking, rape or sexual assault or disfigurement of women and girls online or offline. That proposal emanates from the work of the independent working group on misogyny, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy, and it is set out in its report, “Misogyny—A Human Rights Issue”. Like other members, I would very much like to thank Baroness Kennedy and other working group members for producing a really comprehensive report.

In the report’s introduction, Baroness Kennedy acknowledges that debates about the failure of the system to deliver justice for women have now moved to centre stage in a climate of increasing polarisation and divisiveness where vicious conduct seems to have exploded, turbocharged by online disinhibition and social media invasiveness. Things must change.

What is misogyny? How do we know when behaviour has crossed the line from something well meaning to something else? The working group describes misogyny as

“a way of thinking that upholds the primary status of men and a sense of male entitlement, while subordinating women and limiting their power and freedom. Conduct based on this thinking can include a range of abusive and controlling behaviours including rape, sexual offences, harassment and bullying, and domestic abuse.”

In its briefing, Scottish Women’s Aid goes further, adding that misogyny can be conscious or unconscious and that men and women can be socialised to accept it.

In its report, the working group sets out examples of the testimony that it heard about how misogyny is perpetrated, including pervasive sexualised abuse and online and offline threats of harm, including rape, sexual assault and disfigurement, and the emerging threat that is posed by a growing incel culture. The working group also sets out that being on the receiving end of those behaviours is routine for women and girls in Scotland and places them at greater risk of poverty, ill health, isolation, exclusion and other forms of inequality.

It is important to recognise the positive work that is under way in Scotland to tackle misogyny. Indeed, the motion acknowledges that creating new law will not in and of itself

“eradicate the centuries-old cultural attitudes that drive”

misogyny.

I thank my colleague Paul McLennan for hosting an event in the Parliament yesterday evening on behalf of the make public sexual harassment illegal campaign. I know that he will talk about that further, so I will not steal his thunder. However, I want to refer specifically to the contribution by Graham Goulden of the world-renowned Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. He encouraged all of us to become active bystanders and moral rebels, tapping into our own values and creating a positive culture in Scotland.

Last year, Baroness Kennedy gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee on the work of the working group and the rationale for creating a statutory aggravation of misogyny and other new offences. Members probed the need for new law when, it could be argued, there is already a legislative provision in Scotland. In her response, Baroness Kennedy spoke about the need to address

“the normalising of behaviours”

towards women and girls

“that lead to the more grievous kinds of behaviour”

that are

“the seedbed of ... worse stuff.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 27 April 2022; c 16-17.]

She said that, taking into account all the evidence that was heard, the working group concluded that new legislation was required.