Chamber and committees

We are living in difficult times, and they are particularly difficult for working people, given the pressures of food and fuel inflation. Andrea Bradley, it is quite clear that, in some sectors, and in the private sector in particular, trade unions have got some very good deals, particularly after industrial action, and that might be associated with labour shortages. How can a tight labour market lead to improvements in family-friendly working? I appreciate that you are more involved in the public sector, but perhaps you can speak in the round about both the public and private sectors.

Yes, and they obviously lose pay when they do that.

I will bring in Karen Hedge on the care issue. We hear regularly about people leaving the care sector, perhaps to go into other sectors such as retail because they will earn more there. What scope is there for increasing flexible working for front-line workers, particularly in the care sector?

I want to pick up on some of the issues that have been raised about contract compliance, conditionality and procurement. There was specific mention of non-domestic rates. Of course, there has been quite a lot of discussion in some places about the possibility of using speculation-based land taxes—it is sometimes called an “Amazon tax”, but it would not be just on Amazon—as a way to raise funds. That could be linked to some of the issues that have been raised.

New procurement laws have been passed in England and Wales that have moved away from the European model. Our understanding is that that will mean that councils can put conditions in contracts, for example to buy local. They could also include conditions in relation to some of the employment issues that have been raised. Have you had a chance to look at that? My understanding from speaking with tax and accountancy experts is that some countries use fines to raise funds, whether those are environmental fines or others that relate to some of these issues. Have you had an opportunity to look at those issues? Are you giving any consideration to how we incentivise companies in Scotland to carry out the public policy requirements that we have with regard to terms and conditions of employment?

Thank you.

I would like to ask the question from a different angle: are there any Scottish Government policies that you can point to that are pulling in the wrong or opposite direction?

I think that we will be moving on to issues around procurement and contract compliance later. In terms of the labour market, in some sectors, such as retail manufacturing, we see quite high pay increases, as a percentage. The situation in the public sector is a bit different, but for the employee, of course, it is the whole package that matters, including pay and all the other terms and conditions such as flexible working. To what extent is flexible working part of those negotiations at the moment, and could more be done there?

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We wish to see a reduction in the use of remand in Scotland, a greater role for alternatives to custody, more justice social work involvement and better throughcare. However, we do not believe that the significant concerns about the bill that have been raised with the Scottish Government by the judiciary and victims organisations have been addressed, or that the bill will achieve its policy aims.

We accept the view of many legal practitioners that the lack of a definition of the new public safety test in the bill will lead to more uncertainty and appeals. We note the strong opposition to the bill from Scottish Women’s Aid, ASSIST and Victim Support Scotland and their concerns about the implications of removing section 23D of the 1995 act.

Although we have heard conflicting evidence on the wisdom of removing that section, we do not understand why the Scottish Government is lowering the threshold in those most serious cases where the accused has analogous previous convictions, as those are the cases where remand is most likely to be appropriate. Indeed, it was as a result of bail being granted in such a case that those provisions were originally enacted, when the accused who had been granted bail then committed offences of abduction, rape and murder.

We have repeatedly asked the Scottish Government for examples of what kind of accused who are currently remanded would be granted bail if the bill passes, but that detail has not been forthcoming.

We believe that there continues to be a lack of robust alternatives to remand available to the courts, and we support the development of more forms of supervised bail. Electronic monitoring has been less used in recent years in Scotland compared with other jurisdictions, and we believe that there is great scope for greater use of electronic monitoring as a bail condition to avoid remand. However, having spoken with Victim Support Scotland, we share its concerns about the current lack of tracking and monitoring that is associated with electronic monitoring, and we support the need for GPRS systems, so that there can be tracking.

We also share the concerns of legal practitioners with whom we have spoken about the lack of a definition of the public safety test in the bill. At stage 2, I lodged some probing amendments with potential alternative wordings and called on the Scottish Government to provide a definition. However, we have accepted the advice of those in the legal profession who believe that it is safer to retain the current bail test, which is settled law, and which, of course, provides a presumption in favour of bail in most cases.

We remain unconvinced that this bill will achieve its aims with regard to reducing the remand population, and we believe that many of the concerns that have been raised are legitimate. Although there is much that we agree with in part 2 of the bill, most of those provisions do not require legislation and could be delivered now by the Scottish Government within the current legislative framework. For those reasons, we will not support the bill in the final vote.

My understanding is that the bill is a positive piece of legislation but that there has been much criticism that it could be stronger. Either today or perhaps in writing to the committee, can the Scottish Government outline what further changes it thinks need to be made to the bill at Westminster to provide a stronger statutory framework?

Amendments 76, 77 and 80 would require the Scottish Government to give more information about women on remand.

We know that Scotland has high numbers of women on remand and that that is not because women in Scotland are more violent than women in countries that do not have as many women in custody. There has been concern over many years about the number of women in Scotland who are sent to prison for non-violent offences.

We also know that women prisoners are a significantly different demographic from male prisoners. A recent study shows that almost 80 per cent of the former had suffered head injuries as a result of domestic abuse. We know, too, that many women have caring responsibilities. Legislators need as much information as possible about women who are refused bail to better scrutinise the justice system.

Amendments 76, 77 and 80 are modified versions of amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I thank the Scottish Government for working with me on the wording of the amendments to ensure that the data that is asked for is available.

Amendments 78 and 81 are also similar to amendments that I lodged at stage 2. They ask the Scottish Government to report to Parliament

“Within 3 years of Royal Assent”

on the health issues, including drug addiction issues, of women who are being held on remand. Again, that is a less onerous requirement than those that were sought in the amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I hope that the Scottish Government will be able to agree to my amendments on this occasion.

Amendment 82 also involves a reporting requirement. It focuses on the alternatives to custody that are available to the courts in Scotland when they are considering bail applications. For Scotland to reduce the number of prisoners who are held on remand, we need to develop more robust alternatives to custody, including a range of supervised bail options. I should say that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supports amendment 82.

The amendment asks the Scottish Government to consult local authorities and others and to report to Parliament

“Within 3 years of Royal Assent”

on the work that is being done to develop further alternatives to remand so that accused persons, whenever possible, can be kept in the community, pending trial. That would include information on the resources that are being devoted to ensuring adequate resourcing of the services that are needed to ensure that bail conditions are complied with. We know that there is currently considerable criticism by victims organisations of the implementation of the tracking of electronic monitoring, for example.

The report would focus on the resourcing of non-custodial alternatives to remand. In many other countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, there is far greater use of alternatives to custody, such as GPRS electronic monitoring and supervised bail. We believe that there is considerable scope for those alternatives to be expanded in Scotland.

I move amendment 68, which has the support of organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The provision of justice social work and the cuts to justice social work budgets need greater scrutiny, and I therefore urge members to support the amendment.