Chamber and committees

I think that we should support the position put forward by the cabinet secretary that we should not give consent. However, at the previous meeting, I got the impression that Conservative MSPs were going away to, if you like, use their connections to see whether some of the concerns could be addressed. Therefore, I will listen carefully to what is said. However, on the basis of what was said in the previous meeting, I would have thought that that should be where we are, given the gravity of the concerns that were raised.

The general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has written to the First Minister to seek urgent talks about the future of postal services, as part of a bid to end the on-going dispute with Royal Mail. Will the First Minister meet the Communication Workers Union and give consideration to what steps she can take to defend postal services?

It is a pleasure to congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing the debate and to thank her for all the work that she does on the issue. It is also a pleasure to speak in the debate as a member and former employee of Unison. I worked as a lawyer for Unison for several years and therefore I am very aware of the work that Unison does to promote and fight for the improvement of the rights of its disabled members. Unison is quite an unusual union in that it was created in the 1990s, which means that equalities have always been at the heart of its work and are seen as a core part of the culture of the union.

I congratulate Unison on making 2022 the year of disabled workers and on using the year to highlight the experience of its 200,000 disabled members. As Emma Roddick said, one of the aims of the year of disabled workers is to raise awareness of the social model of disability and for that model to be used rather than the traditional medical model of disability. Another aim is to raise the importance of the changes that are necessary in workplace and working practices to enable disabled people to work. We know that it is more difficult for disabled people to get employment and that, as the motion says, there is a considerable disability pay gap, with disabled people earning less than others. As Paul O’Kane said, the situation is worse in Scotland. As a Parliament, we need to focus on that.

Paul O’Kane also spoke about barriers that disabled people face in getting access to education. It is more difficult for them to obtain good employment if they do not have the right qualifications and skills. There remains a considerable amount of discrimination against disabled people in our society, particularly in the workplace. More support is needed to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made.

In yesterday’s debate on free rail travel for blind and partially sighted people and companions, members highlighted the importance of public transport in enabling people to get to work and accessing employment and other social connections. That debate was specifically about the 180,000 people living with sight loss in Scotland, but the accessibility of public transport for many disabled people is a key factor in the ability to get to work.

We need to listen to what disabled people—those who have been able to obtain work and those who have not—say about their experiences, so that we can ensure that we take every action necessary to support and enable as many disabled people as possible. We need to include the trade unions in that work on our policy and practice. Organisations such as Unison represent in the region of 200,000 disabled workers, and the other unions also work with their disabled members.

We have heard clearly that Scotland has much to do to rise to the challenge. I look forward to hearing from the minister about the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that the situation improves.

I put it to you that, in recent years, the major barrier to social workers being present in court to perform a professional role that they have performed for many decades now has been a lack of resource and cuts.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to briefly ask whether the witnesses have looked at the bill’s provisions in relation to the public safety test, which seems to be very poorly defined. Two of the witnesses have said that they want legislative change, because they feel that the threshold is too high and that, at the moment, people are being remanded when they should be getting bail. The issue, though, is whether this is the right legislative change. The concern is that things have been poorly defined in the drafting of the legislation, with a concept being used that has not previously been used in Scottish criminal law, and that there will be a lack of clarity about what that means. Will it mean that more or fewer people will get bail? Which kinds of individuals are more likely to get bail and which are not?

If you do not have a view on that question, you do not need to respond. Perhaps I could ask Keith Gardner, first of all, and then the other two witnesses whether they have looked at and have a view on that issue.

That is fine. There is no mention of risk assessment in the bill, but I hear very clearly what you have said.

Suzanne, do you wish to make any points on the drafting of the legislation or whether this is, in fact, the change that is needed? Have you looked at that properly, or is it something that you would not necessarily have a view on? Is it the overriding policy implications that you are interested in?

Thank you. That was helpful.

Many of the points that you make are incredibly interesting, including that of how we properly cost those issues and the idea of funding following the individual, which is used in other scenarios. We would be happy to receive evidence in writing of any costings that you are able to put together.

I wonder whether Sandra Cheyne would like to make any additional points about the implications for resources and funding and who provides the service.

Gillian Booth’s comments in relation to virtual custodies and the difficulties with catching an individual’s situation were really interesting. That was quite similar to some of the evidence that we have received from defence agents, who are in a similar position.

My question is primarily about resources and funding, and about who provides the service. It has come through clearly from the evidence that we have taken this morning that there are significant resource issues and a gap between the kind of service that the witnesses have described—the service that they believe should be provided—and what actually exists now. The main barrier to providing that service is not to do with legislation at all; it is to do with resources and funding.

How do you think that statutory minimum standards of throughcare support will impact on that? I know that there is a desire for central Government to provide that funding. Has any work been done on what it would cost your local authority to provide the kind of service that is being described? Linking in to the debate about the national care service, do you think that those standards will make the outsourcing and tendering of services easier? Do you think that that is part of what the proposals are about? Rhoda, will you come in on that first?

Thank you. We will take evidence on that later.

Social workers have been in attendance in many courts as a matter of routine for many decades now; they talk to the police about who is in the cells, who is coming in and whether they have arrived yet. If the police feel that an individual is vulnerable, they will proactively get in touch with the social worker, and if the sheriff feels that there are vulnerable individuals, they will proactively ask for social work involvement.

You can talk about cuts, but, in the past, a social worker has often been there to fulfil that role; that has been part of the way in which the criminal justice system has worked for many decades. I fully accept that the scale of the cuts in recent years might have led to an erosion of that service, but is it not the case that there have been many occasions in the past when the type of involvement that you are talking about has happened successfully?