Chamber and committees

I will get to John Mason in a minute. He does not seem to think that any people on low incomes own cars, which is deeply disturbing. If Susan Aitken and Anna Richardson are going to consult about such a scheme in Glasgow, I ask the Glasgow MSPs whether they will support it—let us be clear about that.

The policy is designed to stop people using their cars; that is its purpose. The Government is hiding behind the notion that it is up to cash-strapped local authorities to make the decisions, but it knows full well that, even in Glasgow, public transport is not up to the mark.

Let us look at who will be affected: women with childcare responsibilities, for example. In the city that I represent, there are people who work shifts in factories, and they will simply not be able to get to their work without a car. The Government is going to tax them up to £500. If businesses had been asked whether they had some issues with that, perhaps the Government would have got some deserved feedback.

According to the Government’s figures, in households in which total combined income—that means that it is not just one person’s income—is between £20,000 and £25,000, 59 per cent of people travel by car to work. Does the Government know that? Whatever the merits of the workplace parking levy, is now the time to introduce it? I suggest that it is not.

In its motion and its rhetoric, the Government talks about public transport, but there has been no serious investment in transport in 14 years in the west of Scotland. As I have mentioned in the chamber, the mythical Clyde metro is a nice dream and one that I support, but it does not seem to exist. The Government will not even invest in an air link to take traffic off the M8. I am sorry, but I cannot take the Government’s climate change notions seriously, because in 14 years the SNP has done absolutely nothing to take traffic off the M8. We may see the Clyde metro in 30 years—the Evening Times has reported on that—but the SNP has not even blinked over this policy.

Energy prices are rising by 50 per cent, petrol and diesel prices are up and we have the highest food prices on record, all of which disproportionately affect poor people. If it had wanted to, the SNP could have legislated to say that this tax should be borne by the owners and employers, but it did not—we would at least have had something in common had it done so.

The levy will not raise the levels of public money that are needed for investment. Nottingham raised £2 million. That sum will not even touch the sides of a rail link to Glasgow airport.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You may have me recorded as voting yes. I tried to change it to no within the time limit, but I lost connection. I would have voted no.

The Government is not serious about the scheme and it should rethink it. The SNP will pay the price when ordinary working people see that it has imposed a tax on car drivers.

As one of the co-conveners, with Rona Mackay, of the cross-party group on medicinal cannabis, I ask the cabinet secretary whether the Government is opposed to any kind of scheme if it is not in favour of Cancard? The Cancard scheme was designed with the help of doctors and senior representatives of the Police Federation of England and Wales—admittedly, that is for the United Kingdom. We have had a very helpful response from Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie on the issue. Would the cabinet secretary be prepared to meet with us and discuss something similar, so that a similar incident to that in Shetland does not happen again?

It is astonishing that, at a time when the Bank of England is predicting that inflation will go up to 7.25 per cent in April, the SNP still refuses to recognise the consequences for ordinary people of implementing a car tax. The SNP says that it is a levy on the parking provider, but we all know from the legislation that Nottingham City Council used that the cost was passed on to workers. As we have heard from all the SNP back benchers, that is the policy’s primary purpose. It is a devolved policy when it suits the Government but not when it comes to freezing council tax. The Government needs to be consistent about when it thinks that local authorities should be trusted to carry out their own policies. It is total hypocrisy.

No amount of reasoning with SNP ministers in trying to cushion the blow led to exemptions for low-paid workers, single parents and people in our public services who work shifts, including night shifts, such as those in the police and the ambulance service. The SNP gave exemptions for some people but, for some reason, it chose not to exempt anybody else. SNP back benchers voted down every one of my amendments. It could still be a local policy if there was a floor to protect ordinary working people. Even though there is a statutory obligation on the Government to poverty-proof single parents in the anti-poverty plan, the SNP voted down my attempt to exempt single parents from the tax.

The SNP has washed its hands of the consequences of the legislation—one of the most damaging policies in 14 years—on low-income drivers.

I hope that the Scottish Government will support the Labour Party’s amendment, because we are being constructive in backing significant reforms to the criminal justice system in this parliamentary session, although we have specific views to offer.

I will begin with an overview of our prison system, which is far from modern—and the pandemic has set us back in many ways. I agree with Jamie Greene that it is deeply concerning that Scotland as a nation has such a large remand population. As the Scottish Government says in its vision for justice, that is a problem for population management. Overcrowding is a major problem in our prisons; reports have noted that Barlinnie has been operating at more than 40 per cent over capacity for the past couple of years, although I think that that has happened for a lot longer.

The vision notes that

“international evidence suggests that remand is associated with negative effects that may hinder longer-term desistance from crime including an increased risk of suicide and mental distress, disintegration of social supports and family ties and disruption to employment that increase the likelihood of reoffending upon release.”

No one should need any convincing that one of the Parliament’s jobs must be to reduce the remand population. We need to tackle the issue urgently. I look forward to hearing proposals from the Scottish Government on how it plans to reform bail legislation and to hearing whether electronic tagging will be used as an alternative to custody, when appropriate.

Our ageing prison estate accentuates the difficulties that are borne by staff and management. Prison staff have written to me—I have had several letters—to raise concerns about staffing levels putting pressure on prison officers, who are doing their job. I have asked twice to meet the Scottish Prison Service, and I will use this opportunity to say that I would like a response to my letter.

If we want to have minimum standards, we desperately need to modernise the estate. The work has still not started on the new Barlinnie prison and it is set to miss the deadline of 2025.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that prison is appropriate for many offenders and will remain so, but, for some, punishment is better conducted outwith prison and through community sentences. Community sentences can be more effective than prison sentences in preventing reoffending, but judges will use community sentencing more only if they are confident that such sentences are robust.

The number of deaths in custody remains too high—the figure was 54 in 2021, and the number has more than doubled since 2015. It is also taking far too long to complete fatal accident inquiries. In 2021, the average time that an FAI had taken was almost three years, which is unacceptable for families who are waiting to find out what an FAI has concluded. I await with interest the Government’s response to the independent review on deaths in custody, which said that, when such deaths happen, there should be unfettered access to establish the cause of death.

Given that we have heard the testimony of women victims who said that they felt like criminals, will the Government give any thought to what reforms of the system could address that issue? I am not convinced that the victims commissioner is the answer. Will the Government give some thought to how we deal with that point?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I can guarantee that the Labour Party will give the proposed bill serious consideration when we see the actual formulation. We are clear that sheriffs and judges need to be given scope within the legislation to make different decisions.

I think that we all agree that there has never, in recent times, been a moment as critical as this when it comes to tackling the widespread problem of violence against women. Previous debates have highlighted that, and it is why Scottish Labour wants the equally safe programme to be rolled out across Scotland as soon as possible. The sad testimony that we have heard from women who have been victims of sexual violence illustrates why we need to make progress on cross-cutting work, which I note is mentioned in the vision that was published today. We need the justice, equalities and education portfolios to work together if we are going to make any serious progress.

Women are now having to seek justice for rape through the civil courts. A running thread is the testimony of women who say that, as victims, they feel that they are treated like criminals. That is why Scottish Labour wants to look at how we balance support for victims in the process. There should be one point of contact in the court system and the police for victims who want to know what is happening with their case. In addition, we need to broaden the scope of the circumstances in which a victim of a sexual offence can be given free legal advice.

The Criminal Justice Committee heard from Miss M that she had to constantly chase the procurator fiscal, as no one would tell her what was going on. Last week, on a BBC Scotland radio programme, another victim expressed exactly the same complaint. I believe that that is a recurring theme, and we need to make the process easier for victims—I agree with Jamie Greene on that point.

As the cabinet secretary said, 43 per cent of trials for rape and attempted rape result in a conviction, in comparison with 80 per cent overall for other crimes. That indicates that the balance that one would expect in a criminal justice system does not exist with regard to sexual offences.

One thing that is missing from the Government’s motion is any reference to access to civil justice. We do not currently have enough lawyers providing legal aid, and it is important that the question of civil justice is addressed in the vision.

I wish that we could have had a longer debate—as Jamie Greene said—in order to talk about how we can support our police force and thank them for what they did in the pandemic. There are many issues to be discussed in that regard. There should be full scrutiny of the Crown’s role in the case against Rangers Football Club. We do not want to see striking lawyers in the months ahead, so let us resolve the matter. We have a system of which we can be proud, but we need to make more progress. I am sure that we can do that in the coming years.

I move amendment S6M-03098.1, to insert at end:

“; understands that Scotland’s prisons have been characterised by overcrowding; notes that 27% of the Scottish prison population are remand prisoners, and that this highlights the need for reform; believes that conditions in prisons must be improved for both prisoners and staff; considers that offering robust and credible alternatives to custody will be a key part of the solution; regrets that women and children continue to be disproportionately impacted by court delays, and considers that clearing the court backlog, which currently stands at over 40,000 cases, and improving support for victims should be among the Scottish Government’s highest priorities for the justice system.”

I congratulate Jenny Gilruth on her appointment—I hope that she brings fresh eyes to this crucial debate—and I declare an interest as a member of the RMT parliamentary group.

At last, we have public ownership of our rail services in sight—it will happen in the very near future. We should grasp the opportunity to reverse poor services and high fares, to modernise our ticketing system and to renew the relationships with the workforce. It would be a real test for any Government, but it is a particular test for the current Scottish Government to show that it has the energy and the ambition to bring about a better rail service.

In no way is Labour looking back. We are highlighting the realities of the present situation. We must have a confident and satisfied workforce on which we can rely, and we must address the present realities and talk about the future.

Why does it matter who runs our railway? I believe that it matters because public ownership is the best way to ensure the strongest accountability and to have a train service that is run in the interests of ordinary travellers who need the reliable and affordable service that many members have talked about. After all, it is a public service.

To address John Mason’s question about why there are empty seats on trains, which he seems to raise at every opportunity, maybe that is because some people cannot afford to get on a train in the first place. There are many people with whom I have common cause when it comes to the affordability of train travel. It is a central issue for a publicly run service that ordinary workers should be able to afford to get on the train in the first place. Why is the importance of that to a thriving economy not understood?

Glasgow, which John Mason and I represent, has the largest urban rail network outwith London, which was created to serve commuters going to work. However, it is now time for Glasgow, as the driver of the west of Scotland economy, to have more investment.

I must put on record my disappointment with the proposal for the Clyde metro, which appears to be extremely vague. It is up to 35 years away, and there is not even a commitment to the first phase of it: the airport link, which would form a vital component of the commuter link to Paisley. It is disappointing for Glaswegians that there are no concrete plans on the table. I say to the minister that the people of Glasgow will not be fooled by the pretence that the Clyde metro is something real. If the metro really exists, I want to see the Government put its money where its mouth is.

I agree with Stephen Kerr that it is not enough to say that services should be run under public control; we must show that we can run a better service. I have discussed that with ASLEF. I support the union’s view that staff should be paid for working unsociable hours. Many trips are made by car on Sundays. That is because people often do not have the choice of using a rail service on Sundays. If we are serious about getting people out of cars, we must think about improving the service.

Since 2009, the cost of a ticket has risen faster than wages. The cost of a UK train journey is now so high that we pay five times more, as a proportion of our salaries, than our European neighbours. I had a look today at the ScotRail website and found that a day ticket from Glasgow to Edinburgh costs £31.50. For someone on the living wage, that represents half of their daily wage. That is totally unacceptable. Jim Fairlie said that Scotland has cheaper fares than the rest of the UK. That may be true for some comparisons, but not for the biggest service. That is an absolute outrage. A part-time worker who wants to work in Edinburgh has absolutely no chance of survival, because they would not be able to afford those fares.

We need a publicly run service that is invested in with public money. We need to get the public behind that and we need to deliver it in the lifetime of this Parliament.