Chamber and committees

I welcome the report and its recommendations on hybrid working and remote voting, which enable MSPs to better balance their responsibilities in the Parliament and in their constituencies and which support family-friendly practices. I agree with Rhoda Grant that fixed times for decision making help those who have caring responsibilities and help with meeting other commitments.

We should support the proposed pilot of proxy voting, particularly for members who are suffering from long-term illness, having an operation or taking maternity leave. I agree with Stephen Kerr that the member themselves should choose their proxy.

It is fair to say that the Parliament’s operation of remote voting during the pandemic maximised members’ participation in voting, which was not always the case in other Parliaments. The use of points of order when the technology failed was a feature that this Parliament used and other Parliaments did not always use. We need to incorporate scepticism and cynicism about the reliability of technology in our working patterns, because we are reliant on the technology that is available to us. I look forward to the day when we have the technology to make interventions possible in hybrid situations, which will make a considerable difference when a person who is participating virtually wants to intervene on someone who is contributing in the chamber.

Any move towards hybrid working must be made in a way that allows for effective scrutiny, so ministers and key witnesses should continue to need to be present in person to be scrutinised. It is worth noting that, although the proposals came out of consensus, many of the changes that the Parliament needs might not necessarily be fully agreed on and might not be the subject of consensus in the Parliament now. We need to debate how we ensure that this Parliament operates in a more effective way and we must listen to some of the criticisms that have been made, which have already been referred to today.

Wider changes are needed. We need to look at how we scrutinise legislation and at the quality of some of the legislation that the Parliament is asked to consider. We also need to look at why some people are calling for a second chamber to provide that scrutiny function. We need to take on board some of the criticisms that are made about the lack of spontaneity and about the increasing stage management and choreography. That is partly a result of the way we organise ourselves.

We are right to be positive about what is successful in this Parliament. Much of this culture is a massive step forward, but we also have to look at the criticisms. Therefore, I hope that we will look at the founding principles of this Parliament and at how we can, for example, improve freedom of information legislation, so that there is a presumption in favour of publication. I hope that we look at the rights of individual MSPs, at how this place operates, at how speakers are chosen and at how committees can be more effective.

I hope that the committee will look at those issues, that we have a transparent view of the Parliament’s processes and that these debates continue to happen.

It is a pleasure to congratulate Ruth Maguire on securing the debate and to congratulate and thank Jack Dickson, who I understand is a good comrade, for the research that has been involved in what is a chronicling of working-class history, for bringing the story to the Parliament and documenting the exploitative working conditions that existed in the plant and, unfortunately, in many workplaces throughout Ayrshire and Scotland where there was brutal and grinding poverty. The health and safety concerns that existed then are, thankfully, more serious than those that exist today but, as members have said, health and safety remains a significant problem in many workplaces.

As Jamie Greene said, it was very much a case of guilty until proved innocent. I imagine that the work that has been done through the play has been welcomed by families and local communities, and I am pleased that some family members have been able to come to the Parliament today. It is important that we remember the tragic story of the deaths of these girls and women.

We must understand the important role that the Ardeer factory had in the North Ayrshire community. As has been said, it was reputed to be the largest explosives factory in the world and, at its height, 13,000 people were employed there. Many people in North Ayrshire either are former employees or know people who were. It is very much something that is still spoken about.

There has been an impact on the community, not just in the three towns but all over North Ayrshire, where works buses travelled in, bringing workers to the site. There are now only a few hundred workers at the Chemring site, which still produces ammunition, and there is no doubt that the loss of the workplace is still being felt in the three towns and beyond. Indeed, the closure of other large employers such as the Glengarnock steel plant, and the closure of the mines in the 1980s are still being felt throughout Ayrshire.

Working-class communities have a mixed story to tell. Massive employers that brought much wealth—not necessarily to the individual workers, but to Scotland as a whole—have gone, and that has created massive challenges. It is important that we remember and understand the brutal conditions in which people worked. The conditions at Ardeer and in many places of employment in the 1880s were appalling. It was only through the struggle of working-class communities and the creation of the trade union movement that that began to change.

The story is one of individuals involved in struggle and having to face exploitation. The story of the explosion, which killed 10 women, one of whom was only 14, would not have been heard if it was not for those who did the research, documented the evidence, listened to the oral stories that still exist, and put together the piece of work that we are discussing.

I congratulate all involved in the production. Those stories need to be heard. We need to learn the lessons of the past, recognise what we have been through, and understand what that means for us today in respect of the values of our society and what kind of society we want to live in. We must recognise the changes that have been made, which mean, I hope, that disasters on such a scale will not happen again, and we must recognise that the only way in which we will ensure that that happens is through understanding our history and fighting to ensure that we listen to the lessons and value the lives of all in society. For that reason, I am pleased to have contributed to the debate and to congratulate all those who have brought the issue before us.

I welcome the pilots and I think that the minister is correct to identify that funding arrangements can affect how work is done and cases are prepared.

Once the pilots have concluded, it would be helpful if a full and detailed report could be provided to committee members so that we can understand what has happened and the potential implications. Perhaps the minister could take that away for consideration.

I was going to ask whether you have consulted the Law Society or representatives of criminal defence agents on the regulations. You have clearly already had a certain level of engagement, although there has not been a great deal of feedback. Given all the concerns that have been raised about the problems in the funding of criminal defence work, and given the cuts to legal aid over a considerable period of time, will you ensure that you obtain and capture detailed feedback from that side of the profession as the pilots proceed and as the provisions of the regulations are rolled out?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a statement on the policing and arrests at events connected to the death of the Queen and the proclamation of the new monarch. (S6T-00871)

I recognise that it was a huge policing operation, but media reports suggest that there was heavy-handed policing, with four arrests for breach of the peace, a number of other people detained and then released without charge, and a woman who was demonstrating about free speech being followed by police officers. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with Police Scotland about those incidents?

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the incidents create a worrying precedent and that freedom of speech is a fundamental right? I am grateful that he is going to discuss the issues with Police Scotland tomorrow, but will he ensure that MSPs have the opportunity to discuss the issues and our approach to policy on them?

Did Emma Harper agree with or find interesting the points that Rhoda Grant made about the ScotWind contracts and ensuring that we get transparency on the companies that have been awarded options to lease? Does she agree that we need to look at companies such as Amazon that the Scottish Government contracts with? We should surely expect higher standards from them or not award contracts to them if they do not meet standards.

At the committee’s away day events, we discussed consistency in the Crown Office’s position on bail. We presumed that that would not be dealt with in the centralisation process, because people would have to appear from custody at short notice and that simply would not be practical. However, it would be quite helpful to get clarification on how the Crown Office attempts to ensure consistency across Scotland in relation to its position on bail and bail applications, which I suspect are dealt with in a slightly different way from what is outlined in the letter.

There might well be a process for trying to ensure consistency, even in retrospect—I do not know. However, it would be interesting to have that information in time for our scrutiny of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill.

I echo everything that has been said. It seems to me that the Government keeps saying that the rates have been agreed; indeed, the committee has previously heard evidence on that. However, I do not think that that is particularly fair. The profession says that it had no choice, that that was what was on the table and that if it did not take the offer, there would be no increase.

We have some information in the committee papers, particularly on hourly rates. I do not think that we need a huge amount of financial knowledge in order to understand the information on page 10, for example. Obviously, there has been an increase in the use of fixed-fee arrangements, but the hourly rates have not kept up with the rate of inflation or with any other indicator that we might expect.

It is quite apparent that there have been massive cuts in legal aid, and that solicitors in particular are now being paid a lot less, in real terms, than they would have been 25 years ago. It might be that the Scottish Government can provide some justification for that, but I do not think that we need a huge amount of further evidence to be able to see that that is clearly the case.

It is clear that there is a huge amount of anger, as there is in England, where there are similar problems and where barristers are now on strike. We have already had some strikes by the legal profession in Scotland, including the decision not to carry out certain types of work. The situation is clearly very heated, but I do not think that we, as a committee, can be mediators. We cannot perform that function.

In addition, we are going into a period of austerity. We were told that the cuts to the budgets in the justice sector were going to be approximately 20 per cent, and that was when inflation was lower. That backdrop means that the problem is going to get a great deal more serious, because the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans and the relevant ministers presumably have very little financial flexibility at their disposal.

The situation is highly concerning. It is clear that there have been massive cuts. I am not exactly sure what role the committee can play, as we are not mediators, but I think that we have to accept that there have been massive cuts in the legal aid budgets. As a consequence, some of the most vulnerable will not be getting the support that we would like them to have. That is the message that the committee should be sending: that we recognise that there have been significant cuts and that that will have an impact.