³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It might well be that the Government’s amendment 7 deals with the issues that I have attempted to address in amendments 35 and 36. As I have said, amendment 35 was drafted after work with Victim Support Scotland, and it is also supported by Scottish Women’s Aid, ASSIST, Rape Crisis Scotland and other organisations. It would be helpful to put on the record the reasoning behind that amendment and, indeed, amendment 36, which was drafted following discussions with defence agents. I would want to go back and have discussions with those organisations before the next stage of proceedings.

On amendment 35, as we know, the bill places a duty on the court, when bail is refused, to state the grounds on which it has determined that it has good reasons for doing so. Those reasons are to be entered into the record of proceedings. In that respect, I heard what the cabinet secretary said in relation to amendment 7.

However, the concern raised by Victim Support Scotland relates to issues of equality and rights to information for victims. Although it accepts that the bill as drafted will contribute to transparency of judicial decision making around bail and will, for that reason, be of benefit to victims of crime, it believes that the provisions need to go further by ensuring that written reasons for the granting of bail are provided, too. That will enable victims to have an understanding of the court’s thinking.

Victim Support Scotland has said that, in consultation sessions that it held with Scottish Women’s Aid, women and workers for local women’s aid groups highlighted that the lack of information available to women explaining the court’s reasoning was a common and repeated issue and a source of frustration and concern to them. The organisation has therefore argued that, to ensure consistency and transparency of decision making and proceedings for participants and to assist in the enforcement of bail conditions and safety planning for victims, the reasons for refusal must also be communicated in writing to the victim, particularly women experiencing domestic abuse. I think that we will look at electronic monitoring later, and Victim Support Scotland feels that similar provisions are required in that respect, too. Moreover, the organisation has pointed out the precedent in the 1995 act for the court to give reasons for making decisions on specific aspects of bail that would have an impact on a complainer, referring to section 24(2B) in particular.

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment, but I want to reflect further on the points that are being made by Victim Support Scotland and other organisations with regard to equality and the availability of similar information, whether bail is granted or refused.

The alternative position that I have put forward in amendment 36 came out of discussions with solicitor practitioners and, as I said, some practising sheriffs. They felt that the onerous nature of the provision and the added bureaucracy would involve more time but would lead to the same outcomes. Amendment 36 was lodged to remove the provision completely for the reasons that the legal profession has set out on a number of occasions and that are referred to in Lord Carloway’s submission to the Scottish Government.

I will reflect on what the cabinet secretary said about the provision simply being a formal requirement. However, I want to look at issues around equality and whether the proposal meets the needs of victims. Therefore, I do not intend to push either of my amendments to a vote.

Given what has been said, I will not press amendment 37, which I now withdraw. I also warmly welcome amendment 8, as lodged by the Scottish Government.

Amendment 37, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 5—Time spent on electronically monitored bail

Theme 3 is about new policies. Quite a number of new policies were suggested under themes 1 and 2. I was going to read them out, but there are far too many of them, so I will not do that. As the deputy convener said, many of the policy levers lie at Westminster but, at the same time, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have substantial powers not only over areas that are their responsibility but over the ability to mitigate.

To develop some of the themes that have already been raised, what new policies do we need to prioritise to tackle the specific issues that have been identified in relation to lone parents? Are there any that would probably not cost significant amounts of money and might be easier to prioritise in the current situation? What permanent changes do we need to make, particularly given the fact that the Scottish Parliament has extensive responsibility for social security? We have to develop our social security system in Scotland differently. How would you develop some of the themes that have been raised?

I will go to Kirsty McKechnie first, if she is comfortable with that.

That could be developed in many ways, although it would take some time. That is very interesting. I think that Martin Canavan wants to come in.

I, too, congratulate the minister on her appointment.

I want to ask about the timetable. I will support the instruments today. Labour supported the 2022 act and the creation of the various new criminal offences, despite the fact that we had concerns about the operation of the licensing scheme. You mentioned that, before June, we will look at a piece of delegated legislation in relation to control zones. Is it possible to share with the committee, prior to June, any information on the definition of control zones, which was a live issue as the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament? You will know that, when the committee gets statutory instruments to look at, the turnaround time can be quite tight, so, the earlier that we get that information, the more we will be able to actively consider and scrutinise it. It would be helpful to have early sight of that.

It would also be helpful to get information on the licensing scheme earlier, although I appreciate that work on that is at a far earlier stage. Genuine concerns were raised about that scheme. Of course, that will depend partly on the practicalities and the detail of how the Government takes forward the legislation. It would be useful for committee members, who have looked at the legislation in detail, to have an opportunity to consider that.

I have no relevant interests to declare.

My first question arises from the evidence that you have given so far. I want to be absolutely clear about why we need the bill and why there are currently six young people in Polmont. Is there a legal barrier at present that prevents those young people from being transferred into secure care?

I think that you are saying that the nature of the court disposal means that it is not possible for the Scottish Government to transfer those children from Polmont into secure care, which is why the bill is required. That is really helpful. It has clarified things for me.

I have a couple more questions. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary wishes the widest range of disposals to be available. I fully support what the Government is trying to do here. Yesterday, I was at the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Dundee, where there was a debate about the cuts to justice social work and the cuts in relation to children’s services more widely. The cabinet secretary has spoken about the need for resources, and we know that secure care is very expensive. To what extent are alternatives available that might be less expensive but still involve some of the rehabilitation and support that both the cabinet secretary and the minister have referred to?

Earlier this morning, we spoke to two young women who experienced prison and secure care settings when they were 16 and 17 years old. Although we do not know everything about those individuals, one of them in particular definitely should not have been in prison. She was a care leaver; she had basically been thrown out of care when she was 16, which we know has happened to many young people.

To what extent is the justice system being asked to step in due to failures in relation to responsibilities that are not those of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, such as the failure, collectively, to properly fund youth services and social work and to provide the support that the state should be providing to young people in care when they are over the age of 16 and are leaving care? I do not know whether the minister is better placed to answer that.

I appreciate the points that you make, but we know that there have been real-terms cuts in community justice. It costs roughly £40,000 a year to keep a person in prison—it depends on which prison they are in, but that is the broad-brush figure that we have been given. We were also told that it costs four times more to keep someone in secure care. I therefore wonder why we have not seen more significant shifts in budgets to put money into social work and community justice.

I appreciate that both the cabinet secretary and the minister have just taken up their posts, so I am not holding them personally responsible, but there seems to be a disconnect between policy and where we are putting our money.

I have not worked as a solicitor for many years—