���˿���

Given that there is probably a limited amount of money, decisions will have to be taken. Are the witnesses of the view that it is right for the Scottish Government to target things in the way that it is doing? Is it making the right decisions, or would you criticise its approach or say that the issue needs to be looked at again?

I think that Matthew Sweeney wants to come in.

When officials gave evidence, they said clearly that, currently, no 16 or 17-year-olds could legally be moved into secure units, because of the disposal of the court. However, it would be helpful to ask the Scottish Government for confirmation that that remains the case and for a commitment that it will continue to be the case that 16 and 17-year-olds will be held in secure units wherever possible. If, for whatever reason, that is not possible, the committee should be advised through the Government’s writing to alert us to the fact that there has been a change.

I have a further point, which is about data and women in custody. The committee has discussed such issues many times and has expressed concern on numerous occasions, both publicly and in our private sessions, about the lack of data that is available to us and the difficulty in carrying out our scrutiny work when we do not have an understanding of the profile and the nature of the people who are being incarcerated in this country.

The Scottish Government’s intention seems to be to reduce the number of women in custody, but, in reality, that number is increasing, and there seems to be concern that it will continue to increase. It would therefore be helpful to get more information from the Scottish Government about the profile of the women who are held in custody and the reasons why there might have been an increase. There might be a range of reasons for that. I do not want to speculate in this meeting as to what those might be, but we need an explanation from the Scottish Government.

It is far from clear whether the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill will make any difference to the number of women who are remanded. We were told yesterday that the current figure for women on remand in the prison estate is 37 per cent. That is high, and it is very unclear whether the bill will make any difference to that. It would be useful to find out whether the Scottish Government believes that the bill will make any difference to the number of women who are held on remand and why it remains the case that so many women are being held in the prison estate.

We know that the new custody units have, at maximum, been at only 53 per cent capacity, which tells us that, at other times, they have been less than half full. The committee should write to express concern about that. I fully understand that the issue has now been raised and that the Scottish Prison Service is considering it, but those custody units have been open since August.

Committee members were very impressed by what we saw when we visited the units—there has clearly been massive investment, financially and in other ways, in those facilities, so it is important that they are a success. We should express our concern in the strongest terms about the fact that they have not been used to their full capacity and call for urgent action in that regard.

We know that people are put in custody not just because of the legislative framework but because of the lack of alternatives to custody. In relation to the alternatives to remand reference group, we need a great deal more detail about what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that there are genuine and robust alternatives to custody. We know, for example, that people who are given community service orders are often not required to carry out the measures that are set out in their sentence.

We need a shift in resources into alternatives to custody if the Scottish Government is to be successful in enabling the courts to dispose of cases in other ways. When we look at the budgets, we see that the money for that is not being provided. The direction of travel is the wrong one: the amount of money that has been provided for alternatives to custody is going down instead of up. We should express in the strongest terms the need for the Scottish Government to shift resources now if it is to have any success with its stated strategy.

My points, which are about data, relate to the letter from the Scottish Prison Service dated 26 April. The terms of the letter are general but they relate to areas in which the SPS has data.

When Teresa Medhurst appeared before us, she said that the SPS could provide the committee with more data. We cannot wait for the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to get more data so that we can do the job that we have been tasked with. I suggest that we write to ask Teresa Medhurst if she could look at what data the SPS could share with the committee, because she made it clear that further data was available and, from talking to people in the system, my understanding is that there is a great deal more data that we have not seen that could easily be shared with us. We should write with that specific request.

Amendment 6 follows on neatly from our discussion last week about amendment 67, which Collette Stevenson lodged. [Interruption.] I apologise—I need to clear my throat.

Amendment 6 would add on a provision to allow a court to take into account compliance with bail conditions, including electronic monitoring and curfew arrangements. It would enable the court to take into account compliance with such conditions when sentencing, so that the sentence was either reduced or increased. I believe that courts already do that; the amendment would simplify codify a practice that already takes place, when the court takes into account all the circumstances in considering the appropriate sentence in the situation.

I was sympathetic to Collette Stevenson’s amendment 67, to remove section 5, which concerns consideration of the time that has been spent under electronic monitoring. I am very aware that electronic monitoring is imposed only when an accused poses a real risk. Electronic monitoring is used to avoid remand; it has never been considered to be a punishment or a sentence.

Amendment 6 takes a better approach than amendment 67 proposed, because it would give the court more discretion. In reality, the court already takes account of such issues—for example, if an accused person had not complied with curfew arrangements, had attempted to approach the complainer or had not complied with electronic monitoring requirements, the court would take that into account when considering what the appropriate sentence for the individual was. When an individual has complied with requirements from the court, the court often bears that in mind when considering sentencing. Amendment 6 would give the court more discretion to take into account all the circumstances.

I move amendment 6.

Amendment 42 is a probing amendment. The proposed new section 34B sets out that

“Scottish Ministers must ... publish standards applicable to throughcare ... in Scotland”

and that

“In preparing, reviewing, and revising the standards”,

various bodies should be consulted. My amendment stipulates that the consultation should be “public”.

Establishing new statutory minimum standards for throughcare support is a key change that affects individuals’ successful integration into the community and offers assistance around accommodation, healthcare, education, employability and other services. Input from wider communities can only be useful, therefore, and I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary what the Government’s thinking is on my proposal.

Amendment 43 is another amendment that has been informed by discussions with Victim Support Scotland. The argument is that the support that is provided must be safely and appropriately designed and must address the needs of victims, but section 10 makes no specific reference to engagement with victims of crime or their support organisations. Amendment 43 is similar to many of the amendments that we have discussed in previous groups in that it would ensure that the input of victims organisations is explicitly required.

Amendment 3 relates to resource issues, which we have debated on a number of occasions. In debating previous amendments on reporting, it has been recognised that, without greater funding and resource, there is a fear that many of the organisations that will have obligations put on them by the bill will simply not be able to deliver those obligations adequately because of a lack of resource. Amendment 3 is designed to highlight the fact that organisations will be overburdened with responsibilities unless adequate funding and resource are provided. Amendment 3 would support greater parliamentary scrutiny of the issue by ensuring that the bodies that are required to comply with the throughcare support standards have the capacity to do so. It would enable the Parliament to actively scrutinise whether resources are provided to ensure that the legislation is meaningful.

Amendment 44 relates to the provision of access to education, training and work opportunities to prisoners on remand. There is currently no statutory basis for enabling that to happen, although I understand that some prison establishments attempt to provide such opportunities to remand prisoners even though they are not legally required to do so.

As we have discussed previously on many occasions, we have a high number of untried prisoners in the prison system, who are often held in prison for extended periods. The period for which individuals are held on remand has grown considerably for a number of reasons, including the extension of time limits and legislation that the Parliament has passed, and the situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

A range of types of accused people are held on remand. Although many will be on remand for non-violent offences, a significant number will face charges of a significant nature. Amendment 44 would enable untried prisoners to have greater access to services that are available to convicted prisoners. It is tied to section 10, on throughcare support, and it would ensure that such obligations are guaranteed and could be met immediately, as soon as a period in custody starts.

Operational considerations and other considerations would need to be taken into account. Certain types of training and opportunities might be more appropriate for someone who might be in prison for less than a week, whereas, if it is known that an individual will be on remand for an extended period of time, a range of other opportunities and training might be more appropriate. Amendment 44 seeks to open up that debate. If there are specific problems with the wording, I would be happy to discuss that with the Scottish Government.

The principle is that some of the services and access to education, training and work opportunities that are available to convicted prisoners should be available to remand prisoners and that that would significantly improve the quality of the time that those individuals spend in custody. We should remember that those people have not been convicted of anything. Such a measure might also be of significant benefit to the SPS. As I said, I understand that, on occasion, such opportunities are offered to prisoners on remand, although I am not convinced that there is a statutory basis for that.

I move amendment 42.

Amendment 11A was lodged as a consequential amendment to an amendment that was discussed in the previous group. However, given the cabinet secretary’s amendment 11, I intend to withdraw amendment 11A.

I move amendment 11A.

Can the cabinet secretary give some examples of situations in which she would envisage such legislation being necessary?

The cabinet secretary has asked about delivery. Perhaps an example of how victim support organisations might be involved in the delivery of such services would be to do with housing allocation and whether it is appropriate for someone who has been convicted of a violent offence to be, say, relocated in the same part of a town as the complainer. Might that be an example of something in which victim support organisations could appropriately get involved?

I do not intend to press amendment 45—I wish to withdraw it. In brief, I hope that the Government will look at the issues before the next stage of the bill. As Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene have said, victims organisations are highly critical of the provisions in section 11. My amendments 46 and 48 are a perhaps more extreme response to that than the approach that is suggested in Russell Findlay’s amendments, but they very much express the view of the victims organisations that I have met during discussion of the bill. I do not plan to push the amendments to a vote on this occasion, but I hope that we will come back to the subject at a later stage.

Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 102 moved—[Russell Findlay].