Chamber and committees

We also need to be diverse. There has already been much discussion about how we can create structures in order to hear the voices that we do not always hear.

In closing, I offer my immense thanks to the Scottish Parliament’s participation and communities team for the incredible work that it does to get other voices into this building; that must be one of the aims that we take forward over the next parliamentary session.

Thank you for that answer. While you were speaking, I was wondering about connections. You said that the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland is really valuable. What are the interactions and relationships with not just further education but higher education? I am aware that quite a lot of university resource is going into innovation. Universities are bringing in partners from around the UK and, actually, around the world to focus on that. Are there structures or facilities that we could think about to ensure that we bring people together in an effective way?

Thank you. I ask Keith Ridgway the same questions about innovation, resilience and what we need to support the technologies that we are talking about.

That is helpful.

Good morning, witnesses. Thank you for being with us.

I have a couple of questions. Nick Shields was just talking about innovation and the need to change our technologies, and you have all touched on resilience issues around diversification and adaptation, such as being adaptable and flexible, as well as skills. Will you say a bit more about the level of innovation activities across your areas, particularly on developing processes and technologies that will help us to address supply chain issues? What is there at the moment? What do you think that we need? How do we incentivise innovations? I am particularly interested in innovations that lead directly to supply chain resilience and supporting industries that we can sustain through volatile circumstances and times. That question goes first to Nick Shields, then to Keith Ridgway then Iain Bomphray.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

The Scottish legal system takes great pride in its reputation—specifically in elements that mark it as being different, including the not proven verdict and the requirement for corroboration. Those are held up as iconic elements of an historic system, and are—according to some—worthy of protection. However, not everyone shares that view, and it is often those whom the system hears from least, but whom it should be designed to protect, who argue most ardently for reform.

That is exactly the case with the not proven verdict. That historical accident remains in our system as a legacy from when juries adjudicated specific facts rather than assessed guilt or innocence. Organisations that support the complainers—or victims and survivors of crime—as well as victims and survivors themselves have been telling us for years that the not proven verdict is deeply problematic.

The not proven verdict is reached disproportionately in rape and attempted rape cases. In 2019-2020, the overall incidence of not proven verdicts was 1 per cent. Among jury trials it was 5 per cent, but in rape or attempted rape trials it was 25 per cent. We know that it accounts for nearly double the amount of acquittals in rape and attempted rape cases compared with acquittals for all crimes and offences.

So, why does that matter? The not proven verdict has exactly the same impact as a not guilty verdict and can be as distressing—if not more so—for the complainer as a not guilty verdict. The not proven verdict has no legal consequences for the accused. It is reached disproportionately in serious sexual offence cases. Given the already woeful prosecution rates for such offences, that means that women tend to bear the brunt of such verdicts.

Clear evidence from independent jury research shows that jurors do not understand the not proven verdict and do not really know what it means. It is not defined in law or practice, nor is the difference between it and a not guilty verdict defined. Indeed, the appeal court of the High Court of Justiciary has instructed judges not to attempt to describe the difference and has called it “highly dangerous” to do so. That means not only that it is not well understood but that, because of poor understanding, it is reached inconsistently. Also, when it is reached, there is a clear mismatch between the messages that are sent by the jury in reaching the verdict, and those that are received by the public. No one knows what it means.

In 2019-20, 43 per cent of solemn sexual offence cases led to convictions, compared with 77 per cent of solemn prosecutions as a whole. That says much about society’s attitudes to victims and survivors of rape, and it is clearly bound up in patriarchal structures that victim blame and do not believe women.

However, whatever the reasons for it, the low conviction rate for rape indicates that there is unwillingness to convict. There is evidence to suggest that the not proven verdict is reached as a soft acquittal opinion. There are real worries that the existence of the verdict gives juries in rape trials “an easy out” and that it contributes to guilty people walking free.

The not proven verdict enables rape myths and the stigma that is attached to them to be propagated. Complainers in such cases say that it does nothing to encourage them or others who have suffered gender-based violence to have faith in the criminal justice system. None of that helps complainers, victims and survivors of sexual crimes, and none of it aids the work that we must do to ensure that our justice system is able to tackle the imbalances and inequalities of power in society.

I will close with the words of a survivor who has campaigned passionately for the abolition of the not proven verdict, who said:

“get rid of the not proven verdict as it’s degrading, heartbreaking and they all laugh in our face because in my eyes they got away with their disgusting acts of abuse and as always told me ‘no one will believe you if you tell’. That is exactly how it feels.”

I thank my colleague Mark Ruskell for securing this important and timely debate. I am speaking this evening on behalf of Ariane Burgess, who, like other members, has been the victim of tech failures this evening.

I thank bus drivers who have worked throughout the pandemic, getting other key workers to their jobs and continuing to provide a low-carbon form of transport on which many of us depend.

Bus services are under threat throughout Scotland. Almost 700 routes were cancelled in the past couple of years. In Ariane’s community in Forres, people have been fighting hard to save the number 31 route, but it has still been progressively reduced, leaving certain neighbourhoods without a local connection to the public transport system. In the Banff and Buchan area of the region that I represent, which has no rail service, 15 bus services have had their financial support cut or withdrawn, which is affecting most severely the people who were already struggling.

Covid and Brexit have exacerbated such service reductions and cancellations. Just last Friday, in Inverness, Stagecoach withdrew a host of services for the second time in two months due to staff needing to self-isolate. Stagecoach had already lost many drivers to the HGV sector, which is now offering better pay in order to address its own Brexit-induced driver shortage.

Brexit and Covid are not the only forces behind service cuts. A report by the United Nations special rapporteur Philip Alston that was published in July found that privatisation and decades of deregulation have resulted in services that are “expensive, unreliable, and dysfunctional”. Bus fares have soared while passenger numbers have slumped. In Scotland, ridership has declined by 43 per cent since deregulation, in 1986. Fewer passengers means less revenue for operators, making services unviable and leading to reductions or cuts, which, in turn, push people to choose other forms of transport, continuing the circle of decline.

The problem is most acute in rural areas, where cancellations are more likely to lead to isolation. Not everyone has a car, so buses should enable everyone to get to work or the job centre, access healthcare and education, and connect with family and friends. To take that option away is unjust. Transport Scotland has recognised the key role that bus services play in helping people to realise their human rights.

Buses will also play an increasingly important role in Scotland’s journey to net zero. However, the current system is not working for passengers, taxpayers or the climate. Commercial bus networks are subsidised to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds each year, yet private operators pay out generous shareholder dividends instead of reinvesting in services and driver pay.

Instead, we should support local authorities to establish locally owned bus companies. Transport for Edinburgh and Transport for London are two examples that show that municipally owned companies or regulated franchises can provide less expensive and more reliable services. We look forward to working with our co-operation agreement partners in the Government to introduce a community bus fund to help local authorities to make use of options that are set out in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.

To make bus travel more attractive to more people, we must make buses accessible. That is particularly pressing in rural areas, where the average time to walk or wheel to access key services is 22 minutes, as opposed to 12 minutes in urban areas. We must make buses well ventilated and Covid safe to address public concerns and enable more people to get back on their local buses. We must make it easier to take bikes and buggies on buses by requiring all new buses to carry both. We must support demand-responsive and community transport to address particular local needs to combat isolation and enable easy access of other services and facilities. We must ensure that the Government meets its commitment to make the majority of buses fossil fuel free by 2023.

We can transform our bus sector so that it delivers cost-effective services, meets the needs of communities and aligns with our climate goals. Let us get moving.

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. We know that steel has been an important part of Scotland’s industrial landscape through providing jobs and materials that are much needed in our economy. I echo the minister’s remarks about the resilience of the workforce.

Given the issues surrounding GFG Alliance, which other members have mentioned, and the high-carbon nature of the steel industry, can the minister outline what role he expects the steel industry to play in Scotland’s future and how we can ensure that we retain the skills and expertise of the workforce in Scotland’s industrial future?

I want to pick up a couple of points that have been made about the coercion and control that some lone mums will experience. Pam Gosal, who sends her apologies today, was interested in exploring some of the high levels of domestic abuse and violence that we know have occurred during the pandemic, not only in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and ethnic minority groups but more generally. What are the witnesses’ thoughts on current service provisions and whether our policies are adequate? Do we have the right support mechanisms in place to support people who are in abusive and violent situations, and what can we do better? I appreciate that, particularly for carers in paid and unpaid work, there will be additional vulnerabilities around domestic abuse and domestic violence, so I am keen to hear different people’s views on that. Those questions are for Satwat Rehman first and then for anybody else who wants to pick those up. I am sure that Margaret Lance will want to.

Thank you, Patrycja—that is a clear outline of some of the barriers and issues around digital replacements for face-to-face meeting spaces. We need to think a bit more creatively and imaginatively about that.

I turn to Margaret Lance. I am aware that ethnic minority women face additional exclusions around not only digital poverty but safe spaces to meet, and there may be cultural issues that we need to understand a bit more clearly. What would you like to say in response?