Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary will be aware that there has been a significant rise in the use of remand in Scotland, with the number of prisoners on remand almost doubling between April 2020 and April of this year. By the end of that period, close to one in four prisoners was on remand. Worryingly, 40 per cent of those on remand were aged between 16 and 20.

There is some evidence to suggest that requests for supervised bail orders are at a historically low level, with possible explanations being a lack of awareness of the programmes that are available and the scarcity of short-term funding.

Given that the consultation on bail and release from custody has just begun, and given that we need an answer to the problem in the short to medium term, will the cabinet secretary say whether the Government will make the judiciary more aware of supervised bail orders as an immediate or medium-term step, so that we can start to reduce the high number of prisoners on remand in Scotland sooner rather than later?

That is what I will go on to talk about. In principle, the young persons guarantee is the right response. However, as Michael Marra—I think—pointed out earlier, the issue is the approach that we take and its scale. I will address that in some detail, because I am trying to be constructive. I went through the website in some detail, as if I was a young person looking at it and I found it to be a very clunky website. I hope that, since the minister asked the question, he will take on board some of my points about it.

I want to acknowledge the work of Sandy Begbie and Grahame Smith. If I was in the minister’s shoes, I would, given that we agree on the background to it, give those people leadership of the scheme because we do not have a lot of time to get it back on track. There are about 600,000 young adults in Scotland, which is a significant section of the working population. I welcome the principle of the scheme, but it lacks any serious attempt to directly engage with young people, as my example showed.

At the time when young people were shielding, I specifically called on the minister—the current minister—to directly engage with them, because they were struggling to use the website, as many of them still are. It is not good enough. When we click on “search for a job”, we are presented with a keyword search that puts in some keywords, but it should suggest areas of employment. The way it works relies on the young person getting knowledge from somewhere else. It should flag up the sectors where there is growth. Where are those jobs and where should young people be looking? They do not know; they are 16, 17 and 18 years old.

The website also includes volunteering roles. Although I accept that volunteering is beneficial for young people, it is not a paid career and it is not necessarily a start on the career ladder. In addition, the vast majority of young people cannot afford to volunteer, so I find volunteering’s inclusion strange, in the scheme of things.

I would also like to hear the minister guarantee that the young persons guarantee scheme will not deliver zero-hours contract positions and that there is an expectation that we will raise young people’s living standards when they apply for jobs.

Last year, the report of the advisory group on economic recovery stated:

“The scheme should offer secure employment, for a period of at least two years, to 16-25 year olds, paid at the Living Wage, with access to training, apprenticeships and the possibility of progression.”

However, despite the scheme’s having been launched in November 2020, the Scottish Government has confirmed that it has still not set targets or key performance indicators, which means that there is no way to measure the success or impact of the scheme. It promised 130,000 green jobs by 2020, but we are significantly behind that number, with only 21,000 jobs having been confirmed.

The green jobs workforce academy was announced in August, but it is not clear how many jobs will be offered under that scheme. The link that is provided on the academy’s web pages comes up with around 900 jobs, as I saw for myself this afternoon. It is about the scale of the response. I pretended to be a young person in Glasgow and only about 500 jobs were thrown up by the scheme, which is significantly below where we need it to be. I hope that we can make significant improvements to the scheme and that the minister has listened to what I have said.

The pandemic has caused a shock to the ambitions of young people—a shock that we must urgently mitigate if we do not want to leave behind an entire generation.

The unemployment rate for young people is one in 10, which is more than double the rate for the rest the population. Almost two thirds of people who lost their jobs due to the pandemic were under 25. Young people have shouldered the burden of the pandemic disproportionately, when it comes to employment.

As I have mentioned previously, tens of thousands of young people shielded. They gave up opportunities in order to protect themselves and the rest of the country, but they were not singled out for any attention. That still disappoints me deeply.

As the Scottish Government’s former adviser, Naomi Eisenstadt, pointed out a few years ago in her review “The life chances of young people in Scotland: report to the First Minister” on the life chances of young people aged 16 to 24,

“choices of career, further training, employment, and housing can be particularly problematic for young adults. Decisions at this stage can set the course for adulthood.”

I have always believed that to be right.

I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also commend her for the tone that she is taking in approaching the debate. It is important to say that it does not really matter what our view on abortion is—the issue is about the fact that women making difficult decisions should not be intimidated or prevented from accessing healthcare.

I also put on record that I respect the tone and contribution of John Mason, who holds a different view. However, I ask him to consider this point. If women are looking for a sign when making a difficult decision, I hope that we can agree that that sign can never be someone screaming in a woman’s face and that it can never be a woman feeling intimated in any way. I hope that we can agree on that point.

The decision to have an abortion is not one that any woman takes lightly. There are many reasons why women want to choose that route, but that is not what the debate is about. At such a difficult time, women do not need to hear the judgment of people who do not know or understand their personal circumstances.

The Back Off Scotland campaign says that it accepts, as I do, campaigners’ right to speak out against abortion, but that those campaigners should not be allowed to target and force their views on women attending appointments. The co-founder and director of the campaign, Lucy Grieve, has said:

“We support freedom of speech and the freedom to protest. While we are all pro-choice”

in the campaign,

“we understand people have different views. But go to parliament, don’t stand outside clinics.”

She thinks that doing so is “inappropriate”, saying:

“You can’t politicise someone’s body when they are going for a legal medical procedure.”

Research by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has found that, in the past five years, there has been an anti-abortion presence at 42 clinics in England and Wales, and that 100,000 pregnant women were subjected to anti-choice harassment in 2019 alone. Moreover, as other members have said, seven hospitals and clinics in Scotland—Aberdeen maternity hospital, Chalmers sexual health centre in Edinburgh, Ninewells hospital in Dundee, Glasgow royal infirmary, Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert, Queen Elizabeth university hospital and the Edinburgh royal infirmary—have been targeted repeatedly since the beginning of 2017 by anti-choice groups standing outside clinic and hospital entrances and displaying signs with graphic images.

I have seen many of those graphic images. Although I have never been in this particular situation myself, I have been subjected to what I thought was totally inappropriate treatment when an anti-abortion group leafleted my entire street and neighbours with such images. I was never asked to explain my position on this matter—indeed, I think that this is the first time that I have spoken on it. I want to emphasise that I have always been concerned about the tactics of some groups that go too far. We can disagree on things, but some lines have to be drawn.

Many women have talked about feeling targeted and alone and finding the experience deeply intimidating. Gillian Mackay’s proposal for a member’s bill on buffer zones is, I think, the right approach, and I am likely to support it. It is time to recognise that it is not acceptable to harass women into making a different decision. People have the right to protest and, like everyone else here, I will stand up and enthusiastically defend that right with regard to what is a very sensitive issue. However, no one has the right to bully, harass or scream in women’s faces, and for that reason we might need to take action to protect the women who make those very difficult choices.

Every year, in the run-up to bonfire night, the fire brigade responds to hundreds of calls about the uncontrolled bonfires and misuse of fireworks that terrorise communities at this time of year. We thank the Fire and Rescue Service for protecting our communities.

As part of my casework in Glasgow, I have been sent videos of fireworks being launched horizontally down streets, causing damage to property and even trapping residents in their homes until either the police arrive or those who are responsible move on. I whole-heartedly welcome the new regulations and the work that the minister, Ash Regan, has done on the issue. If we see the same patterns in our communities this year, with residents being terrorised by the misuse of fireworks, how tough is the First Minister prepared to be to protect our communities from that misuse?

I will not rehearse all the issues that you have already discussed with other members about drugs in prisons.

Some police officers in Police Scotland have been trained to administer Naloxone. Has any such provision been made in your staffing, and do you think it would be useful for your staff to be trained in administering Naloxone?

I will continue Rona Mackay’s line of questioning. Like her, I commend the strong words that you gave to the committee. I agree that there is a moral imperative for all of Government to consider carefully the disproportionate nature of gender-based violence against women. As you and the Crown Agent described, the unavoidable delays will have a serious impact.

You are also right to say that it is a political matter and, therefore, a matter for us to consider. However, I am interested in your opinion as to the length of the period in which there would be judge-led trials as an interim measure, if that were to be legislated for. Should it be one year or two years? Do you have any time in mind? I know that it is hard to judge how long the backlog will take to clear, but it would be helpful if you could tell the committee how long you think we would need those arrangements for before we reassess the situation.

Thank you for that. I will not pin you down on anything specific, but what is your general sense of what is needed? Is it additional staffing or additional space? As you say, the gym is not suitable for everyone. During the pandemic, some of us preferred walking, or had to walk. Perhaps more people do that now. Getting out in the fresh air just to be in the fresh air or to get exercise is vital, particularly for prisoners. Is this a staffing issue, a shift issue or an estate issue? Where could we make changes?

That is helpful. I note that, in virtually all the cases in which Naloxone has been administered, it has saved lives, so I welcome your answer.

Good morning. My question is a follow-up from Jamie Greene’s question about pay and staffing. First, though, I say that I fully acknowledge that Crown Office staff having parity with Government lawyers is long overdue. I go back a wee bit on this issue, so I am fully aware of how long that has taken, and I am delighted that it has happened.

My question relates to that issue. The Crown Agent has said that the challenge of outstanding trials is huge. However, I would have thought that, if all the parts of the system are not functioning as they should, we have got a bigger problem. You will be aware of the boycott of court due to the dispute on legal aid fees. Yesterday, I spoke to the presidents of the Glasgow Bar Association and the Edinburgh Bar Association and I heard that those lawyers are working 26 days consecutively over the period of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—including the three weekends. As the Lord Advocate said, if you work out the hourly rate for a lawyer working in those circumstances, you will see that it is pretty low, and the committee has already heard evidence that the conditions are not exactly family friendly.

It is clear that one part of the system is not working. We are losing good lawyers because of the dispute on the issue of legal aid, the end of which is long overdue. Is there a danger that a shortfall in the availability of suitably experienced defence lawyers might undermine efforts to improve criminal justice and meet the challenges that are before you, as you outlined to the committee?