Chamber and committees

Will those be annual costs?

Thank you.

I have not seen any such detail and do not know about it. We have not had a lot of detail, but there might be more detail that is not apparent. If we make getting a conviction more difficult, which must be the case if the proportion of jurors who are required to secure a conviction is increased, that must lead to fewer convictions, unless there is evidence to rebut that. Without looking at the question in huge detail, that must surely be our presumption.

Do you accept that increasing the proportion of the jury required to secure a conviction will make it more difficult to get convictions and that we would therefore expect to see fewer convictions?

That is very helpful.

Russell Findlay spoke about the demographics of the judges who sit in judgment. In relation to the selection criteria for the new sexual offences court, what thought has been given to how people will be selected to be judges and what the demographics are likely to be?

I am grateful for that.

I have spoken with the cabinet secretary previously about the independent legal representation of victims in other jurisdictions. Obviously, there is very specific and narrow provision in the bill in relation to the independent legal representation of rape victims. Is the Scottish Government willing to further explore a pilot or pilots in relation to the independent legal representation of victims—particularly rape victims—before the court process and during the court process? Might that be considered in the context of the bill or, indeed, as a separate discussion?

I have a clarification query for Kirsten Horsburgh. A lot of the drugs come from places such as Afghanistan and Colombia. What do you mean by regulation?

Do any other witnesses have concerns about the way in which the Lord Advocate’s statement has been drafted, or does it provide sufficient comfort to enable the plans to go ahead?

I am here on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. I think that the witnesses have very clearly made the case on some of the public health arguments for decriminalisation and other harm-reduction measures. I am interested in the points that Simon Rayner made in relation to the supply side. Could you tell us what the impact of some of the proposals, such as decriminalisation, would be on reducing problem drug use and on the organised drug trade? Perhaps Simon Rayner could answer that.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests relating to my involvement in the trade union movement.

I congratulate Keith Brown on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss the devolution of employment law powers. It might be that Keith Brown wishes to devolve employment law as a matter of principle. Whether devolution of employment law is likely to lead to stronger rights for workers will be, for many, a strategic issue. We know that many of the employment protections that were created in the UK, such as equal pay protections, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and discrimination law, were derived from European legislation, the social chapter and our membership of the European Union, which embedded and entrenched those rights in domestic law. I therefore welcome the mention in Keith Brown’s motion of how we “entrench and build on” rights in a Scottish context.

Daniel Johnson and Michael Marra spoke about Labour’s new deal for working people and the transformational potential that it has to strengthen rights at work and to make work pay.

As Michael Marra said, a UK Labour Government has committed to repealing the anti-trade union and anti-worker legislation, introducing legislation to ban zero-hours contracts, outlawing fire and rehire, strengthening sick pay and parental leave rights, creating unfair dismissal rights from day 1 of employment, and introducing a living wage as the national minimum wage within the first 100 days of government. All members who are in the chamber would agree that that would represent a fundamental shift in power to working people and positively impact on the lives of millions of people across the UK.

Scottish Labour has supported the devolution of employment rights and a UK-wide floor that cannot be removed. We support the UK new deal for working people and recognise that it is unlikely that the current UK Tory Government will devolve any aspect of employment law. Donald Cameron’s speech confirmed that.

There is a very important debate to be had about the devolution of employment law and what rights could make a difference. A discussion is already being had about sectoral collective bargaining in relation to the creation of the national care service, and that discussion could be extended to other services and sectors.

Keith Brown rightly pointed to the pardon for miners as a good example of how the Parliament can make a difference. I understand that, with effect from 1 July, the cabinet secretary made it a requirement that all organisations that seek public sector grants pay the living wage, and I believe that that is already having an impact. The Parliament needs to be kept updated on the impact of such measures.

We have to recognise that, despite the fact that the Scottish Government, in effect, banned zero-hours contracts five years ago, it was recently brought to light that zero-hours contracts are operating in the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I suspect that no politician was aware of that, but it shows that Parliament has a role in vigilance.

We know that employment law and equality law are highly technical. In some ways, I regret the political knockabout that is involved in this debate because we need to have a very important discussion in all the political parties. This is a debate about the devolution of employment law, not about independence. We need to find ways to get the strongest possible employment protections for workers in Scotland and, ideally, across the UK, and that we find mechanisms to embed those so that they cannot be taken away.