Seòmar agus comataidhean

No bother.

I support the position of my colleague Pauline McNeill, but, on balance, I am unable to support the bill.

I think we can all agree that giving greater focus to reintegrating people into society when they are released from prison is a worthwhile and essential cause. Reforming how we utilise remand is key to that, and I am supportive of all efforts to do so, provided that they effectively achieve that aim.

Sadly, on balance, I do not believe that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill achieves that aim. I say that because, at times, it has been difficult to ascertain what the Government is seeking to do with the bill. My colleague Pauline McNeill articulated how clouded some of the Government’s explanations have been during the bill’s progress through Parliament.

In particular, Scottish Labour would like to see more evidence that the Scottish Government is committed to, and is able to financially resource, the shift towards alternatives to custody. The Government seems to miss the point that much of what we all hope to achieve needs the resources to achieve best practice, rather than additional layers of bureaucracy.

We really cannot say with any clarity what the intended purpose of the bill is, what effects it might have or how it will be delivered. To put it simply, the bill does not seem ready. There is important work to do and I do not doubt the good intentions. I say that genuinely. The cabinet secretary was clearly engaged yesterday. She was very considered and took individuals’ responses seriously. I was impressed by how much she engaged with parliamentarians from across the chamber during our stage 3 discussions, and I thank her for that.

I was not involved in the committee stages of the bill process, but the papers that I have read suggest that we require far more research detailing why Scotland has so many people on remand and what the specific causes of that are. Some of that may be due to the case backlog caused by Covid, but the number of people on remand was stubbornly high even before then. The Criminal Justice Committee has sought to shed light on those issues, but it appears that the Government has decided to push ahead with the bill regardless. It is clear that the committee wished for a better understanding of how the provisions in the bill will bring about change.

We do know, as others have said, that Scotland has the highest remand rates in Europe, which cannot be allowed to continue. Will the bill decrease the number of people on remand? Unfortunately, we do not know. I believe that the only way that we could have said that with any clarity would have been if the data suggested by the Criminal Justice Committee had been pursued by the Scottish Government, but the Government did not seem to support efforts to do that.

We know from the testimony given to the committee that organisations representing victims, victims’ families and victims themselves do not have confidence in the bill, nor do many judges and criminal justice organisations. In fact, I have rarely seen a bill reach this stage following so much criticism from expert groups. I urge the Government to think far more carefully about victims’ experiences and concerns and to consider how the bill, in its final form, can be sustained in the long term if it passes into law. Those voices must be heard.

Judges will be required to register their reasons for refusing bail. It would be useful to have that data, but it is unclear why that cannot be done without the legislation. My colleague Pauline McNeill explained that much better than I can, because I am not heavily involved in that particular field, but the legal profession seems to be saying that there is much that can be done without having to put legislation in place. That is my understanding.

I thank my comrade Mercedes Villalba for bringing this debate to the chamber. I know that it is an area of keen interest for the member, and I think that, in her opening remarks, she made an excellent case for change, as others have done. I hope that the Scottish Government will support her efforts.

For me, the final part of the motion is the simplest to understand, as perhaps the member sitting opposite will agree. It is also one of the most important parts. After all,

“Scotland’s land”

should

“be owned by ... managed for the benefit of”

and belong to

“Scotland’s communities.”

The deconcentration of land ownership and redistribution of it to our communities will put people, not profit, at the centre of land ownership.

As has been mentioned and as we know only too well, 98 per cent of Scotland’s land mass is rural, and it is a matter of concern that community land ownership accounts for only around 3 per cent of the total land area. In my South Scotland region, there are vast rural areas, and it is important that, in our efforts to deconcentrate ownership, we deliver for people and our communities. In a country where young people are not inclined to move to urban areas by default, they should be able to start a career locally, in traditional or different sectors, and make their mark in their own home town without feeling that they have to move away. This is about more than land ownership; it is about equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. It is about equality and fairness, and it is something that we in this Parliament ought to recognise.

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the figures that are outlined in today’s motion and which have been quoted by others. In 2013, 50 per cent of all Scotland’s privately owned rural land was owned by just 432 landowners. We cannot accept that the outcome from such a situation will benefit our communities—it is not acceptable or sustainable. I therefore hope that the minister will be supportive of the proposal in the motion; indeed, I note that some of the comments from the Government so far have indicated that it would support moves in this direction.

I note with interest that, in its own community wealth building consultation paper, the Scottish Government has made improved community access to and ownership of land and property one of the five pillars in its efforts to make community wealth building in Scotland a success. I, of course, agree with that, and in that respect, I look to the strong Labour councils in Preston and North Ayrshire, where community wealth building has been a success. At every turn, I see investment and trust being placed in our communities and the skills that we know that we have on our doorstep, and I see action being taken that matches the population’s own ambitions. That is why it is important for land to be owned by its people and communities.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s co-operation thus far, but we are far from the finish line. Communities need more investment, and the requirement for legislation that deconcentrates land ownership to the benefit of our population has never been greater, so we need some urgency around that.

I once again thank my colleague Mercedes Villalba for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank other members who have spoken in support. It is a consultation, and my friend has been so open in asking for all contributions, so I ask members to please contribute to the consultation process so that we can get this right for our populations and our communities.

We know the challenges faced by our rural communities around fuel poverty, transport links and young people’s understanding of where they see themselves. There are opportunities here for rural areas in particular, so I ask members to support the members’ bill or at least participate in the consultation. I thank members for coming to the chamber.

I am interested in the response times that you were talking about and the confidence that the public should have in the newer model that you have. Have you undertaken any evaluation of how those response times are working for patients and their families?

As I am sure that you well know, the public hugely values the service, but there are definite problems in the system, particularly around ambulances being available for people. What key things do you recommend that the committee could ask for or speak to the Scottish Government about with regard to the delays that people have, particularly in life-threatening situations?

Thanks very much.

Good morning. I have quite a specific question about the route through the mental health hub, which constituents have raised with us. When someone who is already known to mental health services phones NHS 24 and is looking to be directed onwards, is that a smooth flow through, or do people have to go through a number of assessments before being linked into the service where they are already known?

Scottish councils have been informed at short notice via the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that the same level of funding provided for tackling holiday hunger programmes will not be offered this summer by this Scottish National Party Government. That simply confirms that it is willing to stretch local government budgets further and further.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to matching last year’s funding, to ensure that tackling child poverty and hunger programmes that local councils across Scotland had already planned can go ahead?

I will not take an intervention, thank you. Members need to listen to this. They need to live with the decisions that they make in that regard.

Like others, I was shocked and saddened to hear that more than 18,000 people had died on NHS waiting lists last year. If the trend continues, the figure will be more than 20,000 this year. That is tragic.

If that does anything, it should tell the cabinet secretary and the Government that more of the same simply will not do. We need a plan for reducing waiting lists that supports NHS staff by improving recruitment and retention; by opening up national treatment centres urgently, supported by a highly skilled workforce; and by delivering for patients through action, rather than making promises and failing to follow through. It has become clearer to people every day that this Government, while it is no stranger to a strategy, has a poor relationship with delivery. That must change.

The challenges that we face with waiting lists are 16 years in the making, and they have undoubtedly been worsened in recent years by existing problems. Despite that, however, the NHS workforce is lacking a funded and targeted investment plan. This Government is falling short on reducing waiting lists; it is time that it stepped up and provided a service to our NHS staff and patients.

I appreciate that the SNP has other things to be worried about this week, but Scottish Labour remains firmly focused on the priorities of Scottish people. That is why we are debating the issue of increasing waiting lists, which is impacting so many across the country. Labour was required to bring this important debate to the chamber, as the current Government tries to hide from the necessary business of the day. The Government needs to listen, and to act.

One in seven Scots find themselves on waiting lists today. Many of them have been waiting for months, if not years. Many, like the countless constituents who have been contacting me, are waiting with insufferable pain. Tragically, many have died while waiting.

The Scottish Government can point to the pandemic as a global factor that caused unavoidable challenges; predictably, the cabinet secretary did so. Indeed, we do not disagree—we know that the pandemic exacerbated issues with waiting lists. However, the reality is that it is disingenuous and plainly incorrect to suggest that it was not an issue before, and it is disingenuous and plainly wrong to say today that we are making good progress. I had been told to expect better from this cabinet secretary.

Long waiting lists predate the pandemic. They are a result of Governments avoiding difficult decisions; in Scotland, that is in plain sight. They are a result of a Government that is tired, after 16 years, and that has failed services, staff and patients. Why? To push its own agenda. Let me be clear that our NHS workforce is incredible. The service that they continue to strive to provide daily is of the highest standard, but they are being badly let down and they deserve a lot better.

In relation to debates such as this, we all look at the correspondence that we receive from constituents, who feel helpless. They are in pain, they are suffering and they cannot live the lives that they want to live with their children, friends and families. They feel guilty for being unable to do the things that they used to be able to do, because they are sitting on waiting lists and they have no indication of when their time will come. That is the unfortunate reality of SNP Scotland.

The SNP members at the back of the chamber will not like to hear this, but they know as well as we do that it is a reality; they receive correspondence from constituents, too. Do they scrutinise, or do they accept the excuses? Do they push those on the SNP front benches to do something, or do they clap to drown out the reality?