Chamber and committees

Uprating of benefits and changes to the levels of fines are defined and narrow issues for the Parliament to consider, and they often relate to increases in the cost of living and people’s wages. However, it would have been possible to put a great deal more detail in the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022, for example, and in some criminal justice legislation, but the Scottish Government chose not to go down that path. That approach can make it difficult for the Criminal Justice Committee to ascertain exactly what the Government is proposing, so we have to consult and scrutinise on the basis of what we think the Government is likely to do.

Often, the Government does what we guess it will do and what we think is most likely. However, do you agree that the whole point of scrutiny is to scrutinise specific proposals and that currently, in many situations, such detail is not in primary legislation? In those situations, should there be scope for an enhanced scrutiny process for secondary legislation?

You are open to looking at that. That is great.

As we all know, people tend to work to deadlines. When we ask for specific regulations or a specific document, the Parliament is often given the explanation that that information is not ready yet. That is a cultural issue in relation to how we organise ourselves. Would it be possible, in some situations, to have stricter requirements on draft regulations being available at an earlier stage?

One reason that you have given in justification of the current approach is about the capacity of the Parliament. As you know, committees often spend substantial time scrutinising primary legislation, but there is often a great deal of frustration at the lack of clarity and detail in a bill and at what the Government’s intentions are. Committees often spend a great deal of time speculating on what they think that the Government will do when it comes to the secondary legislation, to the extent that that is, I would argue, hindering the scrutiny process.

One suggestion that has been put to the committee is to enable framework bills to contain duties to consult stakeholders and report on their views to Parliament when it is considering secondary legislation. What is your view on the suggestion that we enhance the scrutiny process for secondary legislation?

A number of witnesses have suggested that draft regulations should be published alongside framework legislation. What is your view on that? Would that be possible in some situations?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I also welcome the increased investment in Scotland’s public services that has been made possible by a Labour Government delivering record investment for Scotland, with an additional £5.2 billion being added to the Scottish budget to spend on public services. I pay tribute to all who work so hard in our public sector.

However, the NHS is still on its knees and the social care sector is stretched to breaking point. Council services are still being cut and the justice system is in meltdown. For example, since 2010, North Ayrshire Council has had its budget cut by more than £100 million. In the forthcoming financial year, North Ayrshire Council will still be required to make almost £6 million of cuts to services.

After years of cuts to the share of the cake for local government, with councils disproportionately facing real-terms cuts in funding since 2010 compared with other public services, next year’s proposed settlement is far from a fair settlement for local government. In North Ayrshire, cuts such as the removal of all school crossing patrollers and the closure of island services such as the Arran outdoor centre are still on the table. Many of the services that are closest to people’s lives, and which they rely on the most, are once again on the chopping block due to budget decisions.

Many councils are planning for council tax rises, not least because they anticipate another unilateral council tax freeze next year. The SNP has consistently broken its pledge to deliver an alternative to the council tax—we need to have a fair, locally collected property tax as soon as possible.

Those issues have been raised repeatedly by me and my colleagues; I have raised them on numerous occasions in the chamber and in writing. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government kindly agreed to meet me earlier this month to enable me to make those representations in more detail, and to explain the cuts that councils across the west of Scotland will be facing this year on the basis of this budget.

The Scottish Government says that health and social care is the priority, but there has been a monumental loss of time and money in dealing with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill as a result of the Government’s political decisions, and the social care system remains in crisis. Money continues to be extracted for private profit; voluntary organisations are still underfunded; and care workers still do not get £15 an hour or decent terms and conditions.

We have record waiting times in our accident and emergency departments, and record numbers of Scots are on waiting lists. Only 43 per cent of NHS staff say that they are able to meet all their demands at work, and they say that that leads to feelings of burnout and further reduces staff retention, which fuels the NHS’s reliance on agency workers. That is a very poor use of our taxes, and of money that could be spent on investing in the NHS workforce of the future.

That problem of staff burnout and stress has resulted in the loss of 600,000 days of nursing and midwifery staff time as a result of mental health issues since 2020. NHS Scotland has spent £500 million on agency nurses since 2019. Some of those shifts are advertised at wages at 400 per cent of the level of pay for an NHS-employed staff nurse. I ask members to imagine how demoralising it must be for NHS staff who work beside someone who is on the same shift doing the same job and is being paid four times more than they are. That is no way to run our national health service.

We all agree that it is only by addressing social care that there is any prospect of turning the NHS around. Summits last week and speeches this week do nothing to change the daily experience of overworked NHS staff. We need longer-term solutions that have the trust and the confidence of the workforce. We have an unsustainable model of health and social care in this country, and if we do not change course soon, we will see more staff leaving our service due to burnout, and waiting times continuing to go through the roof.

With this budget, the SNP has failed to take the opportunity to reform public services and make them fit for the future. It is time for a new direction, and I hope that today’s debate will lead to some of the actions that are necessary to make that a reality.

Postal workers, many hospitality workers and other private sector workers were told that they had to take unpaid leave on Friday. The public sector seems to have adopted a very different approach. Will the Scottish Government be looking at its fair work agenda to see whether more can be done to protect workers in emergency situations where there is a risk to life?

Thank you.

The evidence that you have just given on time limits is highly concerning. The committee would very much appreciate it if you wished to provide more information on that. As you say, it would be interesting to get the Crown’s perspective on those issues.

On the bill that we have before us today, you have given very clear evidence that you can see many scenarios in which national jurisdiction might be helpful and appropriate, but you also expressed considerable concern. The provision would apply to a range of different types of cases. It would apply to solemn and summary cases, and to cases that are at different stages, perhaps where there has already been a lengthy trial, where someone is appearing from custody or where a particular sheriff or judge has a great deal of knowledge of a case or an accused.

Could there be more detail in the bill on the kind of criteria that would need to be used in relation to national jurisdiction, or should there be a requirement for more detail in, for example, a practice note or in the rules of court? Is that something that you have given any consideration to or that you could assist the committee with? If we agree to the principle of national jurisdiction, do the criteria, safeguards and protections need to be fleshed out more?

Thank you.

I will ask a question on part 2 of the bill, which sets out a framework for a system of domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Have you looked at those provisions? Do you have any views that you would be able to share with the committee?