Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote was not recorded. I would have voted no.

I believe that those are fundamental issues that members in the chamber today should be concerned about.

I understand that the Scottish Government provides more than £1 billion to universities every year. Does Kaukab Stewart not think that that gives it a locus to intervene on the issue?

I am a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, so I will focus on that aspect of the legislation. Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the committee, has already spoken to our report. The issues that I will raise relate largely to process rather than fundamental principle—other than in relation to the extension of time limits, which I will deal with later.

A number of the provisions in the bill will result in significant changes to the criminal justice system, some of which are complex. However, the committee was unable to scrutinise many of those measures in detail, due to the time constraints resulting from the truncated nature of the process. It would have been more appropriate for some of those provisions to be brought forward in standalone legislation, with a timetable to enable the full scrutiny process, particularly given that even some of the temporary measures could be in place until 2025.

I will focus on specific aspects of the bill. The first relates to remote custody appearances, which the Scottish Government has indicated it wishes to become a normal part of the justice system. Our understanding is that there is considerable concern in the legal profession and the wider justice system about remote custody appearances, which were enabled by the emergency Covid legislation and are therefore operating currently.

For example, in the Glasgow custody court last Monday, the court ran until half past 9 at night due to a range of technical problems. I know that because my colleague Pauline McNeill attended the court and witnessed what happened. We understand that that is far from being an unusual occurrence: in their evidence to the committee, both the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association and the Law Society of Scotland said that those appearances are often subject to technical problems.

Concerns have also been raised about the greater difficulty that lawyers have in obtaining instructions from an accused person, and the Scottish Association of Social Work expressed its concern about access arrangements. These are significant changes to how the legal system operates in Scotland, and I believe that they are matters that the Criminal Justice Committee and the wider Parliament should have had the opportunity to find out a great deal more about.

Another aspect that I will focus on is virtual trials. As the committee’s report states, there is very little evidence that full virtual trials have taken place. Therefore, there is very little evidence on how they are working. What is clear is that aspects of trials have been virtual, such as people giving evidence virtually via a link, or remote jury trials taking place in cinemas. I am concerned about some of the undertakings from ministers, and I ask that an attempt be made to ensure that those trials go ahead only when everyone agrees, and that there is proper scrutiny of how they operate.

The provisions of the bill that give me greatest concern in relation to justice and human rights are those relating to the extension of time limits, which is already in place as a result of the emergency Covid legislation. The bill proposes that, on a temporary basis—which could mean until 2025—the extended statutory time limits are continued. There are some minor changes to the provisions, but, in general, they are very similar to the provisions under the emergency Covid legislation. That means that it could take far longer for a case to come to court.

Perhaps of even more concern is that the length of time for which a person can be held on remand is also being extended. For example, a person could be held on remand for nine months before they are served with the indictment, which contains the full charges that they face. Scotland has the largest remand and prison populations in western Europe, along with poor conditions and overcrowding in many parts of the prison estate. Between 2014 and 2017, 57.18 per cent of prisoners who were later convicted in summary cases, and 28.9 per cent of prisoners who were later convicted in solemn cases, did not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the proceedings. There are considerable human rights concerns about that aspect of the process. There would never be a situation in which a person who should be in prison was not, because there has always been provision in Scots law to have time limits extended on cause shown.

I congratulate Maggie Chapman on securing this important debate and on her opening contribution, which set the issues out very clearly. There is no question but that colleges and universities in this country are in crisis, and I speak today in support of the UCU and, indeed, the EIS-Further Education Lecturers Association college lecturers, who are also on strike in the face of a real-terms pay cut and have been demonstrating outside the Parliament.

As I said earlier, the Scottish Government provides over £1 billion a year to universities, so it cannot wash its hands of these issues and simply expect the institutions to behave autonomously and in a fair and benevolent way. The Scottish Government has the ability and the responsibility to intervene. There must be a clear expectation that universities in receipt of public money—taxpayers’ money—will treat their staff fairly and act as good employer. As it stands, that is not happening.

Since 2009, staff pay in the university sector has fallen by an astonishing 25.5 per cent in real terms, and employers continue to offer insulting real-terms pay cuts to staff. Around a third of all university staff in Scotland and across the United Kingdom are on precarious fixed-term contracts. I have been told that staff in some institutions in Scotland have been on such contracts for decades; indeed, I have been advised that, for some, it has been more than 30 years. The average working week in higher education is now more than 50 hours, with 29 per cent of academics averaging more than 55 hours, and in a UCU Scotland survey in July 2021, 76 per cent of respondents reported an increased workload during the pandemic.

There are several issues that the Government has a responsibility to address. The level of casualisation in the sector is alarming. It is not good enough simply to say that Governments cannot intervene. The Scottish Government needs to ensure that the Scottish Funding Council sets out guidance stating that temporary or fixed-term contracts should not be used. It needs to intervene in the current dispute, to bring the parties together and set out very clearly what the Government expects to happen. The Scottish Government needs to be at the forefront of demanding and pushing for change in the sector. That means that fair work should be the minimum standard for universities accessing Scottish Funding Council funding. The minister needs to intervene to make sure that that happens.

The Scottish Government needs to ensure that all staff in the sector are part of national collective agreements and bargaining with trade unions. Those are vital steps that the Scottish Government needs to take in a leadership capacity to ensure that we have dignity, that the workers are treated fairly and that our money is appropriately spent.

Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being present at the beginning of portfolio question time. I was late returning from a committee visit.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve the effectiveness of fatal accident inquiries into deaths in custody. (S6O-01060)

The public inquiry into the death of Sheku Bayoh has commenced, more than seven years after his death in custody. An inquiry would probably not have happened if his family had not fought for it.

Research suggests that only 31 per cent of families are represented at fatal accident inquiries. Will the Scottish Government review the rules, particularly the legal aid rules, to do with representation of families where there has been a death in custody?

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

I would like to address openness and transparency, particularly with regard to how they affect the issues that were raised in the Audit Scotland report. The Scottish Government has the power to lift non-disclosure agreements. It has been reported that at least one figure was keen to pass on evidence to the Auditor General but was held back from doing so. Will the Scottish Government today confirm that current and former employees—and any other person who is covered by a non-disclosure agreement into which the Scottish Government entered—should not be prevented from speaking out on the issue?

It is clear that the management of the project to build hulls 801 and 802 has been shambolic, with bad and politicised decision making, poor appointments and a culture of secrecy. Islanders and the workforce were not involved in decision making, and representations that were made for smaller vessels to be built were ignored. It is vital for all of us, and for the taxpayer, that we learn the lessons of the procurement process. Openness and transparency are issues of principle and it will be impossible for lessons to be learned from the fiasco unless the public and the Parliament have access to the facts.

Six years ago, the First Minister attended the launch. Since then, the cost has reached two and a half times the original budget. Senior managers have been paid eye-watering sums—we repeatedly hear about the £2 million that we understand was paid to Tim Hair.

It is clear that Scotland needs proper explanations and access to information and documents, to enable proper scrutiny to take place. That is what this debate should be about. That is why Labour lodged an amendment that asks us to focus on that issue in today’s debate.

Labour is committed to Ferguson Marine. We are committed to the workforce. We are committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. We are committed to investment, to rebuild the sector.

None of what has happened in this fiasco is the fault of the workforce. It is the fault of poor management and poor political decision making. None of what has happened is the fault of the islanders, who rely on lifeline services and are paying the price for the mistakes that have been made.

We need the Scottish Government to waive the non-disclosure requirements in the contracts and to come up with a long-term plan that includes procurement of ferries in Scotland, with an industrial strategy to rebuild our shipbuilding industry as part of a wider green agenda.

Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been spent, and misspent. We need transparency and an undertaking from the Scottish Government today that it will waive the requirements of the non-disclosure agreements, so that this Parliament can discover the truth.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

It is clear that any crime of violence is unacceptable and that the levels of violent crime in Scotland are completely and utterly unacceptable. However, we also recognise the connection between poverty and violent crime, and the role of male violence in particular. As Daniel Johnson pointed out, these issues are not simple and are not binary.

As of January this year, there were approximately 13,400 sheriff court trials outstanding. We know that offences involving serious sexual violence make up about 80 to 85 per cent of crimes that proceed to trial in the High Court. Because of that, we also know that the backlog has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Clearly, the situation has been impacted by Covid, but we had significant problems in the criminal justice system before that.

Although Scottish Labour broadly supports the Scottish Government’s approach, and we recognise that there will probably always be a need for custody and prison, we are also concerned that, over a period of time, the resources for alternatives to custody have not been put in place.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary met the Wise Group this morning. As Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, has advised, members of the committee also met the Wise Group and people who use its services this morning. We very much welcome the emphasis that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary are putting on a trauma-informed, person-centred approach and on recognising that the system as it is at the moment fails victims.

We also support the emphasis on addressing the issues affecting women and girls, particularly the plans to introduce a misogyny law and to implement Lady Dorrian’s recommendations. As Pauline McNeill said, we also think that the current experiences of victims of rape, attempted rape and serious sexual assault cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, we are asking the Scottish Government to consider the proposals that we are making to provide non-means-tested advice and representation to such victims from the initial stages of cases. We recognise that there are a range of ways in which that could be done. Legal aid is one of them, but there are other ways, and we would like the opportunity to discuss those issues with the Scottish Government. That is something that Rape Crisis Scotland is calling for—the proposal comes from the victims themselves.

Liam McArthur was correct to say that alternatives to custody need to be properly resourced. We were told this morning that prison costs £40,000 per individual. However, it is absolutely clear that we are going to need significant changes in resourcing if the Scottish Government’s policy—which, as I say, we broadly support—is to become a reality.

We welcome much that the Scottish Government has said, but we recognise that the £0.5 billion cut in legal aid between 2007 and 2019 represents a real challenge that must be faced.

We look forward to hearing what the Government says in response to the debate, as we are broadly sympathetic to its approach but, as we have indicated, we have a number of concerns that I hope that the cabinet secretary will address.

Scottish Labour is at one with the Scottish Government in wanting action to be taken on the antisocial misuse of fireworks and on the need for a cultural shift. However, as Pauline McNeill outlined, we have serious concerns about some of the detail—and, indeed, the lack of detail—in the bill, which has been rushed through on a truncated timescale. Many of our concerns are outlined in the Criminal Justice Committee’s report, which Audrey Nicoll has spoken about in detail.

The licensing scheme is to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our concern is that there is a real risk that there will not be proper scrutiny at that stage, given that it will not be possible to amend regulations. I would be grateful if the minister could speak not just on the engagement with stakeholders in the consultation on the regulations, but on the involvement of politicians in the chamber, whose role is to ensure that the detail of legislation is correct and that we do not introduce bad law.

Most people who use fireworks do so responsibly, and they will want to comply with the legislation. However, as has been pointed out by more than one member, they could inadvertently fall foul of the legislation. That said, the main problem, as we see it, is the use of fireworks by people who probably will not comply with the licensing system and probably do not comply with the criminal law. The focus needs to be on how the legislation will impact on that group.

We know that there are health and safety concerns about the use of fireworks, even when they are used responsibly, and we know that the misuse of fireworks has a dangerous impact on local communities and specific groups. Many members have spoken about that. Stuart McMillan and Siobhian Brown spoke about the impact on veterans and refugees, in particular, and others spoke about the impact on people with autism. Collette Stevenson spoke about the impact on emergency workers, and others spoke about the impact on the people who discharge the fireworks themselves. We know that there is a real human health cost in the use of fireworks—indeed, one national health service board put the cost of dealing with firework injuries at £40,000 a year. Members have also spoken about pets, wildlife and farm animals being adversely affected by fireworks.

Scottish Labour supports many aspects of the bill—in particular, the creation of new offences such as that of proxy purchase—which is why we support its general principles. However, we have major concerns that the bill will not necessarily make the situation better, particularly given the lack of enforcement of the legislation that is already in place. A number of members have spoken about that.

Earlier this month, we finally received the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service data on that, and we found out that there were no convictions last year, despite the fact that many hundreds of firework-related incidents are reported each year. There have been very few convictions—a number of members have spoken about that. That must be because Police Scotland and the Crown Office are not giving the enforcement of the existing fireworks legislation the priority that I believe the Parliament would want them to give it. Before the bill was introduced, we should have had far more detailed information on the context of that disparity and on how existing legislation is used. As they stand, the proposals are complex and bureaucratic, and they will confuse the public—in particular, the law-abiding public.

The licensing scheme will require people to take a course, but we do not need a licensing scheme to require that.