Chamber and committees

In December last year, the University of Glasgow published a report on the university’s staff and student procedures and support arrangements in relation to gender-based violence, which found that there had been a significant increase in reports of gender-based violence by undergraduates in the previous 18 months. Morag Ross KC, who led the review, highlighted serious problems in the university’s processes for handling incidents. One survivor said that when she went to the student newspaper, the Glasgow Guardian, she was threatened that if she took her case to the press she would be removed from her degree course. I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees that, if that is true, it is wrong, but does the Scottish Government agree that Scottish universities need to make their sexual misconduct processes open and transparent to ensure that students have full confidence when reporting gender-based violence?

Why was the destination of the convicted rapist who was referred to in the statement changed from Barlinnie prison to Cornton Vale prison in the first place, and why has the Government repeatedly defended the SPS risk assessment as “robust”, given that, clearly, it was not robust, because, as previously mentioned, those risk assessment rules allowed a paedophile to go to Cornton Vale—which ministers knew, because I raised it directly with them? If any lessons are to be learned, does the cabinet secretary agree that the Government, too, should learn some lessons, one of which is to include the safety of women when it looks at prison policy?

I thank Siobhian Brown for an excellent speech. It is the speech that I wanted to hear, because I did not disagree with a single word of it or any of the excellent speeches thereafter.

Concern for children is my concern too. Like Brian Whittle, I have been worried about the risk of vaping among children and young teenagers for some time, not because I know a great deal about it but because anecdotal evidence has suggested to me that it is much wider spread than we thought, and I have lodged a few questions to demonstrate my interest. I am therefore delighted to be joining the debate this evening.

It has taken decades of public health campaigns, which I know that Kenneth Gibson has had a key part in over the years, to reduce the number of young people in Scotland smoking. Just as improved behaviours were becoming established, vapes have come along and seem to be capturing a new generation of users. The World Health Organization suggests that children and adolescents who start vaping are three times more likely to take up smoking. There is limited data. I think that Siobhian Brown has already mentioned ASH Scotland’s research showing that 17 per cent of 13-years-olds and 35 per cent of 15-year-olds have used a vape at some point, but I agree with Paul Sweeney, Brian Whittle and others that it is much wider than that.

Current evidence suggests that vaping is less harmful to a person’s health than smoking, but recent studies indicate these are still health-harming products that damage the heart and lungs as well as causing gum disease, tooth decay and headaches.

Stephanie Callaghan makes the point very well—and it is my point too—that vaping is an important route to stop smoking, but the focus of this debate is first of all the safety of children. Increasing the likelihood of users going on to become smokers is why we are all very concerned. As we have heard, some of these products contain nicotine, which is addictive. Research has shown that nicotine can have a detrimental impact on brain development and increase a young person’s risk of future substance abuse.

A survey of 1,000 adults that was commissioned by Asthma + Lung UK Scotland and conducted by Opinion Matters revealed that more than three quarters of people in Scotland are concerned about the use of vapes in schools, so it is a real issue. Earlier this month, the Daily Record launched a new campaign to ban disposable devices amid fears that they have turned our streets into a plastic dumping ground, which was also mentioned by other members. There seems to be a consensus here that we need to look at banning them for environmental reasons too.

I was involved in the ban on smoking in public places during the early sessions of Parliament, and we have seen the impact that that has had. What was the point of that world-leading legislation if coming behind it is a product that is aimed at young people with one thing in mind, which is to create a market of people who will then go on to smoke after they have given up vapes? I am surmising that, but I think that we all think that it is the case. That is why we must do all that we can, notwithstanding the point that Paul Sweeney also makes well, which is that we must think about what approach we take with young people. I guess that the minister will address this. If we say that it is banned, young people might want to rebel against that, so we need to think carefully how we do this. We need to explain to young people, “I know that all your friends are doing it and it seems to be a thing to do at school, but really it is in your long-term health interests not to do so.”

I recall the surreal moment in the Donald Dewar library when, along with other members, after handing over my mobile phone, I was given 15 minutes to read the highly confidential first assessment of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. I remember that the assessment was utterly jaw-dropping.

It was the UK Government that led us to this point. It is a result of David Cameron’s recklessness and a poor campaign that did not seem to understand that ordinary people felt remote from Europe’s decisions and could not see the good that it also did.

As Martin Whitfield said, the current arrangement is not working for Scotland or the UK, and, in fact, it is not working for Europe either. It is certainly not working for workers or ordinary people. People took many things for granted, such as freedom of movement, easy access to Europe and low-cost mobile tariffs, and we are beginning to realise the benefits of being in Europe. Since the vote to leave the European Union, UK and Scottish Labour have insisted that workers’ rights should be maintained and enhanced.

As previous speakers—including Willie Rennie in an excellent speech—have said, three years on, we are still arguing about the Northern Ireland protocol. The situation threatens long-term peace, and civil servants have spent tens of thousands of hours on the task of trying to solve the real economic and political problem of goods travelling from Britain to Northern Ireland, which has affected many businesses and patterns of trade.

I have to say that I probably agreed with Willie Rennie’s entire speech, and I also agreed with Alasdair Allan’s very considered speech. Willie Rennie talked about the UK Government being

“incapable of negotiating ... with trade unions”

when that should be entirely possible. He exposed the fallacy of the trade agreements that we were promised but that we now find do not really exist. We have the agreements with Australia and New Zealand, but we are yet to see whether they will make any difference.

As many members have said, this morning, we heard that the International Monetary Fund is forecasting that the UK economy will perform worse than that of any other major advanced nation. In other words, Scottish workers will count the cost of Brexit. The IMF says that Britain faces

“the bleakest two years of any major industrial nation”.

Many core workplace protections such as holiday pay, maternity pay and equal pay for women and men, which Maggie Chapman mentioned, come from the European Union. For decades, European Union laws have ensured decent working standards in the UK, shielding workers from exploitation and discrimination. Trade unions have been crucial in advocating policies on sick pay, maternity and paternity pay, bereavement, health and safety and many other aspects of working life.

Right now, workers do not understand what the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and the proposed anti-trade union laws mean for them. However, if that bill is passed, it will be yet another slap in the face. As the minister said in his opening speech, unions have described the bill as a “bonfire of workers’ rights”. It sets a time bomb beneath the vital working regulations and other EU-derived laws. Why did we need to get to this point? We have left Europe—I know that many members on the Tory benches voted to stay in the EU—but does it really have to be this bad? Without the shield of EU law, I wonder what workers will be exposed to every day in the UK.

Disabled people, minority ethnic communities, refugees and asylum seekers and women tend to be at higher-than-average risk of poverty and insecure employment or unemployment, which suggests that they are more reliant on public services and anti-discrimination law. The bill poses particular risks to protections for women in the workplace. As Unison has said, some family-friendly policies and even equal pay law might be questioned by the framework of UK legislation.

During the pandemic, young women, particularly young black and minority ethnic women as well as those on low incomes, were less likely to be furloughed and more likely to be surviving without a furloughed salary, so they were most at risk.

If we want to live in a better country, the UK Government really has to step up to the mark.

Recent analysis has shown that the impact of Brexit is acute. Clare Adamson made the point that we can see that the pandemic has caused problems for the economy—of course it has—and now we have the cost of living crisis and inflation, which have had a massive impact on households, but Brexit has made that far more acute.

Scottish Labour calls for the UK and Scottish Governments to work together to solve some of the problems there are, following Brexit. In the previous session of Parliament, I found myself agreeing with Mike Russell on some points on many occasions. Who would have thought it? Not me. However, I was at one with him when he said, as minister, that we have more in common than we have disagreement on what we need to do to make sure that we do not have the worst possible Brexit.

The history of the UK does not matter. What matters is now—and, by the way, I say to Jamie Halcro Johnston that I will be proud, as will other Labour MSPs, to support solidarity for the trade unions tomorrow. Sarah Boyack said that it did not have to be like this. The public did not expect or need the most harmful, hardest Brexit, an irrational immigration framework and the handling of the Northern Ireland protocol destroying our relations with European institutions. Let us get on with it and see the UK Government step up to the mark.

The west of Scotland is our country’s industrial heartland, with a heavy concentration in the Glasgow city region, which has 57 per cent of the worst 15 per cent of areas on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, yet an excellent freeport bid—the Clyde green freeport bid—was not supported by the Government, even though it fully met the criteria in tackling deprivation and boosting manufacturing.

It is important to note that eight local authorities supported the bid. That was a central requirement for submission, and it was not easy to pull together. However, the successful bids were in the east, with none being in the west.

Is the First Minister satisfied with that? How would she justify those positions? Can she outline what the plan is to compensate Glasgow, the wider city region and the Clyde communities that were involved in the bid?

I do not know why the bid was rejected. However, in the interests of full transparency, I think that we need to see the reasons why there was no designation of a freeport in the west of Scotland. I do not know the full implications of a freeport designation but, as a member for Glasgow, I am concerned about the fact that there is no freeport in the west of Scotland.

Will that show that a high percentage of prisoners who are on remand are involved in solemn proceedings, or is that too general a statement?

Thank you, that is really helpful. I have one other question, which I put to last week’s panel. We attended a custody court—I thank the SCTS again for letting us in on that because it was really helpful—and the evidence that we heard there was that, these days, fiscals do not seem to have the discretion to take a different view from what is marked up on a case. Procurators fiscal who served previously whom I have met said that they would have had more discretion.

I asked last week whether that was because centralisation of marking in the Crown Office has led to a more rigid approach. I am really keen for you to comment on that because it seems to me—correct me if I am wrong—that a procurator fiscal, as a highly trained lawyer, has an individual commission to make decisions on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Why should a procurator fiscal not be able to use their discretion, if they hear, in court, reasons to change how a case is marked?

That is really helpful. The committee would find it helpful to pore over the profile. I note what you said about the upward trend from 2016. It is important for us to know who you have in the prison estate so that we can see what is going on as well as how the proposed legislation would apply. Can we get that data?

Good morning. As much as I have read the bill, the policy memorandum and all the evidence, I am still trying—given that we are not practitioners—to get my head around legislation that is quite technical, and around amending the 1995 act, which is quite technical in itself.

To follow on from Katy Clark’s line of questioning, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s submission raises issues around whether we should define public safety tests. I do not take a view on that—I simply want to put an alternative view to you, and you can comment as you wish. I now feel that I would like to ask more people this question, so that I can sort it out in my head.

Others have said that it is incorrect to say that public safety in terms of proposed section 23B(1A)(b)(i) will serve as a sole gatekeeper, which is the matter in question, and the provision in summary procedure to which proposed section 23C(1)(a) would apply.

Some have said that it is more correct to state that, in such cases, the section—namely section 23B(1A)(b)(i) and (ii)—would serve as a separate and distinct ground for refusing bail.

Some witnesses are of the view that it may not be necessary, therefore, to define what is meant by “public safety”.

I am really asking whether there is another way to read it. As previous witnesses have said, it is for politicians and the Government to frame the policy, and the policy is to give sheriffs more discretion not to remand. You can agree or disagree with that, but that is what the policy is designed to do.

The committee has been asked to consider a number of substantial matters, including whether “public safety” requires to be defined; whether it should be left to the courts to define it; or whether Parliament should say, “We want to give the courts more guidance on that.” There is always a balance to be struck.

I am not asking for a really technical answer on that, but is there another reading of that, or could we amend the bill?

What I understand about all of that is that, if public safety is the sole gatekeeper—if it is the only requirement—there could be another provision in the bill. Of the cases that Mr Donnelly has raised, housebreaking and kinds of dishonesty are the obvious ones. They are easy to understand. Housebreakers are not violent criminals, so where is the harm? However, communities might say, “Well, it would be nice if we had some respite from a housebreaker for some time.” Under the current framing of the bill, could sheriffs say, “Okay, we will take a wider view of what the test is.”?

Anything that you want to say on that would be helpful to me.

My first question is for Mark McSherry. The committee has heard a lot about the provisions that would allow sheriffs to remand fewer people, and various views have been expressed about whether we need a definition of public safety. I would like to give you a chance to talk about that, given that the body that you represent is, I presume, the expert on risk management of offenders.

I will put it more succinctly. We know that public safety is already a factor that is considered by the courts when they are deciding who should be released on bail and who should be remanded. Will the bill give the consideration of public safety a more central role in those decisions?

Is there a need to define what public safety is more clearly? Some sheriffs are saying that they already make decisions that are in the public interest and consider harm to communities. For example, a housebreaker may not cause physical harm, but there could be harm to the community as a result of their actions. On the other hand, some of the judiciary are saying that they want the Government to define what it means by public safety, because otherwise they will not know what the Parliament intends.

It would be helpful if you could speak to those issues.