Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank my colleague for his comments. Amendment 35, in Katy Clark’s name, is well drafted and important. There is a suggestion that it would increase the workload of the courts, and we are all a bit nervous about that. These are fast-moving hearings. However, there is a gap here, because victims are left in the dark as to why certain decisions are made. If we are going to make changes, which the bill does—whatever our views are on those changes—let us make changes that improve the information that is given to victims.

If bail is granted, it is entirely reasonable and rational for the appropriate reasons to be given. The court should set out the specifics of why it believes that the accused does not pose a risk to public safety—that is the new test, and it includes the safety of the complainer, which is important—and why it thinks, if relevant, that the accused can be appropriately managed through the imposition of bail conditions. We are looking at a scenario in which the courts say, “We have a new enhanced bail test but, on balance, we believe that the risk can be managed through, for example, enhanced bail conditions, and here are the reasons why we do not believe that this individual poses an immediate risk to the complainer and can therefore be released back into the community.”

At the moment, the only recourse available would be for the complainer to make representations to the Crown and ask for an appeal. There is no mechanism for the complainer to request that a reason be given for a decision, other than what has been said verbally in the court on the day, and to hear that, you would have to be there, which, for many complainers, would not be entirely appropriate. We all know the problems with getting records and transcripts of what has been said in court—it is a prolonged and expensive process.

Unless the Crown has been proactive in providing information to the complainer about why it thinks bail was granted, there is no real mechanism for getting that information. I do not want to add to the workload of the court clerks or to make the decision-making process more difficult for judges and sheriffs. However, if we are going to enhance the process by which reasons must be given for remanding someone, we should do the same for the contrary situation—we must give complainants more and better information when bail is granted. Accepting amendment 35 is one way of doing that, and things could be tidied up by the Government ahead of stage 3.

Equally, it would be a good outcome if the cabinet secretary said that she will take the matter away and work with members to see what can be done, but we need that commitment. Otherwise, if Katy Clark does not push this issue, someone else will.

We have been trying to decipher the effect that amendment 33 might have. Is its purpose that the court must take into account not only the diet that is relevant to the specific remand hearing but any and all outstanding hearings? For example, if an accused was in front of a remand court but was also the subject of a number of other live cases that were going through the system, and, if the accused had a history of absconding in relation to those cases, would that be taken into account in relation to the other case? It sounds as though quite a lot of work would be involved. Who would present or deliver that information to the judge or the Crown?

I am sympathetic to the idea, because one of the problems with the bill—I will come on to this in talking about my amendments in the group—is that it might remove the safeguard of being able to use remand for repeat absconders. However, will Katy Clark clarify the effect that amendment 33 would have?

I thank Pauline McNeill for lodging amendment 65. As she said, the amendment was one of a number of proposals from victims organisations, and I think that the rationale has been quite well explained. Those organisations have some nervousness about the matter.

When we took evidence on the proposal, there were two schools of thought, which were expressed publicly and in private. It seems that the legal profession is keen to see the removal of section 23D of the 1995 act, which it feels is problematic. I wonder whether the Government had discussions with the Crown, solicitors and the judiciary on the issue, as such discussions might underlie the rationale for removing section 23D. Equally, the perception of a number of organisations was that its potential removal is worrying—they feel that section 23D is a valid safety net, particularly for those who are at risk of domestic abuse and sexual crime.

Victim Support Scotland got in touch with a number of members, seeking to remove section 3, which will abolish section 23D. It is important that I put that organisation’s claims on the record because I would like the cabinet secretary to address them. Victim Support Scotland’s perception might be an error, but I want to give the cabinet secretary at least the opportunity to alleviate its concerns. Its interpretation is that the proposal to remove section 23D would

“allow bail to be granted to convicted repeat and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and sexual offending against women and who present a particular danger to women’s safety.”

It went on:

“Given women’s experiences of abusers being given bail, including the lived experience of survivors given in evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, women need as much protection as the law can afford them. The safety of victims should be at the heart of any decision to release a person on bail, so the removal of this restriction and reliance on the new all-encompassing bail test does little to show victims of these types of crime that their safety is being protected under the law”.

Those are Victim Support Scotland’s words, not mine. I do not want to put words into anyone’s mouth or even take a personal view on the issue, but there is a case to be answered around the removal of section 23D, and amendment 65 gives us the opportunity to have that debate.

I support it, so I will move it.

Amendment 52 moved—[Jamie Greene.]

It is quite a strong deterrent for a person—knowing that they might end up in a prison cell.

Is it the plan that, using intelligence, the police will stop and search prior to entry to the stadium? If fireworks, pyrotechnics, flares or other devices are found on persons, will they be denied entry and the items removed, or will the items be removed but the persons still be allowed entry to the football game? I ask in order to be clear.

Would they actually be charged at that time?

I am sure that we will all support that.

In the policy briefings that came with the SSIs, the sections on the financial effects for each instrument state:

“The Minister for Community Safety confirms that ... the instrument has no financial effects on the Scottish Government, local government or on business.”

I have two questions on that. First, multiple ministers have claimed that the financial effects of the legislation were the cause of the delay. That seems to contradict what we are asked to do today. Clearly, there is a financial effect, so I refer to the passing of the act in 2022. What did the financial memorandum claim as the forecasted cost of the legislation? Has it crept up since then? If so, will you provide some numbers? If you do not have that information to hand, I will be happy for you to write to the committee.

Given how difficult it is to bring charges and achieve convictions and successful prosecutions, and that we already have a wide-ranging set of laws prohibiting misuse of such devices, would the Government support a lengthy or lifetime ban from entering a football stadium anywhere in Scotland as a deterrent or incentive not to bring devices into sporting stadiums? Will the Government actively discuss that with clubs?

Just to be clear, the financial memorandum also states that there will be no effect on business. I know that we are drip feeding the instruments to commence the legislation and that the restriction on the sale and purchase will not be until, I presume, 2025 or thereafter. There will be no compensation scheme in place until then. Is that correct?