���˿���

On Mr Ewing’s point, the important thing to focus on is TFL’s submission, which discusses a technological solution that would deliver on the petitioner’s request. The question then is why ScotRail is reticent to adopt such technology, when it is clearly deliverable in other jurisdictions in the UK and internationally. I am not convinced by its response.

I thank our guests for their insights so far. I note the points that have been raised by the task force, particularly those that relate to Friday releases from custody. Page 10 of the “Changing Lives” report says:

“Prison releases on a Friday or the day before a public holiday should be banned to give people a better chance to access support.”

Has the Scottish Prison Service or Police Scotland given you any indication that it would be willing to adopt that policy?

Mr Strang raised a really important point about availability of support in the community, particularly on Fridays, in the critical risk period following liberation, and Dr Hunter raised a point about community pharmacy availability and utilising that network more readily to support people. We have mentioned naloxone. It is clear that there is an effort from the Scottish Government and the health and social care partnership in Glasgow, in particular, to launch an official overdose prevention pilot in Glasgow. Do you have a view about how such a facility might assist people who have been liberated from prison and do not necessarily have a safe place to go? It could be a key interface for people who are in the justice system and being liberated. Could that add value?

Yes.

Dr Hunter, do you have any comments?

I believe that Dr Neal has drafted the relevant amendment, so it is a question of offering it for the Government to adopt. I note, too, that Mr Tidy mentioned that

“amending the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for judges might be a more immediate goal”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 9 November 2022; c 16.]

That is worth noting as a potential action that we can recommend.

Yes, I think that that would be helpful.

The panel has given very compelling evidence so far on the need for this change, particularly on the issue of fair labelling; an extremely compelling point was made on that issue. I note that Dr Neal mentioned that she had drafted a clause in 2017. In trying to reach a set of firm proposals about how to take this forward, what remedy would be satisfactory to witnesses? I know that there has been discussion about having a statutory aggravator that could be coupled with a more general offence; would that be a satisfactory remedy?

In relation to a specific offence, is there an opportunity to consider the Scottish Law Commission’s current projects? It is doing projects on homicide and aspects of family law that come close to the topic in the petition, but neither covers the issue raised. Could those projects be adjusted in scope to incorporate the issue? A members’ bill could be introduced, if there was support for its drafting. Do any witnesses have thoughts about potential options to take the matter forward in a practical sense?

That is a helpful contribution, as we need to hone in on what practical measures would be most effective.

Dr Neal, your points about the Scottish Law Commission and the idea of a members’ bill are helpful, too, and I agree with your reasoning in that regard. If we already have a pre-built solution, how best do you think it could be taken forward? Would the Government have to be persuaded to adopt the measure and use its time to steer it through? Is that the clear action that we need to focus on to effect that?

I am mindful of the points that colleagues have made, but I do not think that it is necessarily helpful to have the sort of ruminating and backwards-looking inquiry that is often quite expensive and tends not to improve operational performance. The petitioners have highlighted a broader strategic issue, which is that in Scotland—and perhaps across the UK—we are incredibly inefficient at delivering major infrastructure programmes. This is yet another dog of a project that has gone on for far too long, and the huge administrative costs associated with the constant procrastination over it are completely unacceptable.

I would contrast that with the approach to the emerging structural problems that were identified on the M8 in central Glasgow at the Woodside viaduct. In the past year, Transport Scotland has introduced an emergency structural repair programme that has ridden roughshod over local public opinion in delivering the maintenance of the trunk road network, which is not necessarily what people in Glasgow want. In contrast, the A83, which is a vital artery and critical for access to the west Highlands at any time, has been stagnating on the back burner for a long time.

There is a broader issue. We need to use the petition as a device to keep pressure on the Government and Transport Scotland to ensure that the project is delivered in a timeous fashion. Although the Government has indicated that there is a timeline that runs into next year, which, on the face of it, sounds satisfactory, the petition may be a useful way of keeping a check on that and allowing the petitioners to continue to ensure that the project moves forward at a satisfactory pace.