Chamber and committees

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?

The point is that the Scottish Government decided to opt out of the procurement legislation that went through Westminster because it wants to stick closely to European regulations. Obviously, the Parliament could regulate in relation to procurement. What might that look like? What would you like it to look like? Maybe you do not want to go down that path, but it is something that I am interested in.

My first question is probably best directed at Louisa Macdonnell. How best can the fair work agenda be moved forward in the current economic climate? What are your thoughts on that?

Thank you.

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 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?

Amendment 68 focuses on the resources that local authorities need to provide justice social work. It requires the Scottish Government to report on the operation of section 1 of the bill and the impact on local authorities, particularly on whether they have adequate resources to meet the requirements of the legislation, whether further resources are required and, if so, what action needs to be taken to address that.

Amendment 68 would require the Scottish Government, in the preparation of the report, to consult local authorities and any professional bodies that represent social workers. The background is that funding for justice social work has been flat for the past three years, which is a real-terms cut of £86.5 million. Social Work Scotland said that

“members report that waiting times for assessments, support and treatment are all increasing, and in some social work teams over 30% of posts are unfilled”.

Unison Scotland said that justice social workers are faced with some of the highest case loads and that many local authorities are scaling back social work services as a result of real-terms cuts in local government funding.

It is clear that the Scottish Government wishes to enhance the role of justice social work in the provision of information to the courts. Scottish Labour also wants that, but it is difficult to see how it can happen without additional resource. When I lodged the same amendment at stage 2, the cabinet secretary acknowledged the budgetary challenges and said that the introduction of the legislation would be phased. However, the financial memorandum does not recognise the serious cost and resource implications of the proposals. It is not possible to lodge amendments to require the funding that is needed for adequate resourcing, so amendment 68 has been lodged to ensure focus and scrutiny on the resourcing issues.