Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 67 was lodged last summer. Since then, the cabinet secretary has appeared before the committee, and I understand that there has been progress in starting work to bring in GPS electronic monitoring in a very narrow set of circumstances. I welcome that.

However, Scotland is well behind most other countries, including England, in the use of electronic monitoring generally, and specifically in relation to the use of GPS technology. The Scottish Government agrees that such monitoring would be suitable in many types of cases. Large numbers of people are in prison in Scotland and we know that many victims legitimately fear offenders, some of whom are a significant risk. However, some risks could potentially be more effectively managed and addressed by forms of electronic monitoring. Given the slow progress on the issue in Scotland, giving it more parliamentary scrutiny and attention could help it to become a Government priority. I hope that ministers in the justice portfolio find that helpful.

Amendment 67 calls for a report on the

“effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

to be published

“no later than 1 year after Royal Assent”

and laid before the Parliament. In particular, the report would set out

“whether the Scottish Ministers consider that the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology would improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

and perhaps the range of circumstances in which that would be appropriate.

GPS-based electronic monitoring is a technology that is used successfully in many countries worldwide and offers the potential to enhance victim safety through proactive and real-time safeguards. GPS technology’s beneficial aspects include: the geofencing feature, which sets up virtual boundaries and allows for quick responses if offenders enter or leave designated areas; continuous surveillance; and more precise location flagging. Those features provide greater peace of mind for victims, particularly in domestic violence or stalking cases, and, depending on how the technology is used, could potentially reduce and prevent crime.

I know that the cabinet secretary has given thought to the issue and is working on it already. I hope that an amendment of this nature will be helpful in driving the use of technology in Scotland’s justice system and I look forward to her response.

I move amendment 67.

Although it might not be appropriate for a victim to be notified on every occasion—such as when an offender was attending a funeral, as they would usually be escorted—does Jamie Greene agree that, if an offender was starting to be let out on day release, it would be appropriate for the victim to know that they might see them? Pre-warning would enable the victim to plan and to deal with that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this group. Amendment 60 would require that a review of trauma-informed practice in the justice system be undertaken by Scottish ministers within five years of royal assent. We know that our justice system has, unfortunately, often been a hostile environment for victims and survivors who have experienced traumatic events. I welcome the bill’s commitment to trauma-informed practice and standards, but there might be a risk that that becomes a slogan that does not materialise into substantive changes to practices in our justice system. The term “trauma-informed practice” may be used but the practice might not change—or might not change significantly.

My amendment would require a review of how a trauma-informed approach through the bill had changed practices in all parts of our justice system. That would include

“the functions and standards of service”

in the courts, in the parole system, in the police and in other parts of the justice system in so far as it relates to victims and witnesses. That could also include examining what changes we have seen in how our courts work, in the rules of court, in the guidance that is issued by the courts, and in the way that court staff, the Crown, the defence and other parts of the justice system, including prisons, have changed their behaviour as a result of the drive that we hope would take place as a result of the bill becoming an act.

The amendment would require the Scottish ministers, as soon as reasonably practical after completing the review, to prepare a report that included recommendations to ensure the continued

“effective implementation of trauma-informed practice”.

That report would be published and laid before the Scottish Parliament.

I move amendment 60.

I look forward to discussing those matters further with the minister. As I have said, I do not plan to press either amendment 89 or amendment 90 to a vote today, but I just want to say to the minister that there is a great deal of frustration about the delays in extending freedom of information requirements within the care sector—in particular, following experiences during Covid. However, I will discuss the issue further with the minister before stage 3.

In relation to tax and ownership, given the nature of the changes that have taken place in the care sector, we need information about ownership structures and tax status, because we do not want more residents being evicted as a result of care homes with complex and non-transparent ownership arrangements going bust. We should learn the lessons of history in order to ensure that we are not put in that position again.

As I have said, though, I do not plan to press amendments 89 and 90 to a vote.

Amendment 89, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 41—Reserving right to participate in procurement by type of organisation

Amendment 89 would require that regulations be brought forward on reporting of the tax and ownership status of publicly owned care services, and amendment 90 seeks to extend freedom of information rights to publicly owned care services. The minister and her officials were kind enough to meet me yesterday and offered to have further discussions before stage 3.

I indicated to the minister that I was not planning on pressing either amendment to a vote today and am very open to discussions about their drafting. There are specific issues relating to the definition of care. I advise that the definition that I seek to rely on is the one that is in the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002. I would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter.

The background is that we have moved away from having a care sector that was dominated by publicly owned and run organisations providing publicly paid-for care. Of the 42,489 registered care home places in March 2022, 77 per cent were in privately run care homes and 80 per cent of the staff of care homes are in the private sector. There is significant market concentration in much of Scotland, with the 10 largest for-profit care home providers accounting for more than a third of registered places.

A significant number of organisations are registered outside the UK and involve private equity and real-estate investment trusts and US-based hedge funds. Across the UK, the five largest chains amount for nearly 20 per cent of beds, according to work from 2016.

I will give an example that members might be aware of, or might have been involved in as constituency representatives—namely, the collapse in 2011 of Southern Cross Healthcare, which was owned by Blackstone Group. The consequences of that affected 31,000 care home residents, including in the constituency that I represented at the time. Many of those Southern Cross care homes were sold to Four Seasons Health Care, which is owned by Jersey-based private equity firm, Terra Firma. In April 2017, 220 care homes and 17,000 residents were affected when that organisation, too, became bankrupt.

Four Seasons, like many private equity operations, consisted of complex corporate structures. The Financial Times reported that it consisted of 200 companies, arranged in 12 layers, in at least five jurisdictions, including several offshore territories. Tax avoidance and profit shifting were central to the operations.

Both my amendments are based on the principles of transparency, following the public pound and that, where publicly funded care is provided by organisations other than public authorities, there should be freedom of information rights and transparency in relation to tax and ownership. As the committee will be aware, freedom of information rights do not exist outside public authorities. That was particularly evident during Covid, when information that relatives were able to obtain using rights that they had with local authority providers was not available from other providers.

Jackie Baillie has spoken this morning about the experience of families during Covid. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which the Scottish Parliament passed in 2002, was designed to be flexible and to enable, under section 5, the addition of named providers or categories. In reality, that power has rarely been used by ministers. Since Covid, families of care home residents and freedom of information campaigners have been frustrated by the lack of progress.

Members of Parliament expressed their frustration in 2013, when updating of designations under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 resulted in an amendment that required reports from ministers every two years, on use of the section 5 power. Despite that, the power has basically been used to report that no action has been taken. There was a Scottish Government consultation in 2019 on use of the section 5 powers, and care was one of the examples that was focused on. That could have resulted in the extension to care services of designations under the act, but the Scottish Government decided not to progress with that.

In May 2022, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee of this Parliament reported, in its inquiry on the operation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, that public sector bodies that deliver public sector services should be subject to freedom of information rights. The Scottish Information Commissioner has consistently called for the designation of providers of health and social care services as subject to the 2002 act, especially following the Covid pandemic. Repeated polling by the commissioner has shown public support for that principle, and the consultation that I held for my proposed member’s bill on freedom of information reform in 2022 showed overwhelming support for the principle.

Sandesh Gulhane has raised two points. I will attempt to respond to both. His first point relates to both the cost and quality of care that is provided in the private sector. It is, of course, the case that most private care companies and organisations in Scotland provide good-quality care, but the principle must be that, if the public sector is paying for a service, we should have access to a basic level of information about that service. That was the intention behind the 2002 act, but steps have not been taken to extend freedom of information requirements to that sector. As I indicated, a percentage of the sector has been financialised, with Southern Cross Healthcare being just one example. When things go wrong, that can be serious for individuals and for their families. We must have robust models and when we, as taxpayers, are funding care we must ensure that we are satisfied that we are providing some level of service and security for residents.

The second point concerns a live issue that my proposed member’s bill grapples with. To be clear, the bill would require the aspects of a service that are funded by the taxpayer, and the parts of an organisation that deliver publicly paid-for services, to comply with FOI rights. The bill would not affect any parts of an organisation that are funded in other ways. That is the principle for how freedom of information would operate for organisations that provide both public and private sector services.

My amendments are narrowly drafted. Amendment 89 would require ministers, by way of regulations, to

“specify requirements for bodies providing publicly funded care services”

in relation to “transparency of ownership” and “tax status” and would require a higher degree of transparency from bodies that are not publicly owned, but which provide care that is funded by the taxpayer. I think that that addresses Sandesh Gulhane’s point.

Amendment 90 would require the extension of freedom of information regulations to care providers, for the reasons that I have already outlined. I understand from my discussions with the minister yesterday that she is likely to say that a further consultation will take place. I submit that Parliament should communicate a very clear message that we expect transparency when the public pound is being used to pay for care, and that we expect to have freedom of information rights regarding tax and ownership. I look forward to discussing those matters more, as the bill proceeds.

I move amendment 89.

From what you are saying, then, you have come to the conclusion that, if there were to be a change in conviction rates—particularly in rape cases, given, as you have said, the concern about those rates being low—it would be an increase rather than a reduction. I appreciate that that is not necessarily the intent, but it is quite understandable that people will be worried about the risk of the conviction rate being lowered. Are you satisfied that the risk is low in that respect?

Thank you.

I have a question about part 2 of the bill, if that is acceptable, convener.

Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of a concern that the concept of trauma-informed practice might be seen as simply a slogan and words that are used, rather than practice that is embedded in the system. I am sure that you are concerned about that. Can you outline the work that is being done—or that you are thinking would be done if the legislation were passed—to ensure that trauma-informed practice is embedded in the procedures and rules of court? How do you envisage that work being taken forward?

Miscarriage of justice is a different concept to conviction rates. I am particularly focused on conviction rates in rape cases. Clearly, you have spent a huge amount of time considering those issues, so have you concluded that you do not believe that there will be a risk of lower conviction rates in rape cases if part 4 proceeds as you are proposing?