³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution.

I will not be pressing Collette Stevenson’s amendment to the vote, but if it is pressed to the vote, I will support it. I think that the proposal from the Scottish Government is too restrictive and too prohibitive, and it goes way beyond the general concept that there might be circumstances in which the court has the discretion to take into account periods spent on electronic monitoring. I will touch on that point in relation to the amendment that we will debate next week, which I lodged as an alternative. That would involve the deletion of section 5 and the insertion of an alternative, whereby periods on electronic bail could be taken into account by the court.

The fundamental point is that electronic monitoring is not a sentence; it is a bail restriction in circumstances in which there is a risk that the accused poses a public safety threat or a threat to the victim. In the same way that a curfew or a condition that the accused must not approach the complainer is used, electronic monitoring is used only in situations where there are genuine risks. We must be really clear about the fact that that is the way in which it is used.

However, if that restriction is so great, there is an argument that compliance with electronic monitoring, or failure to comply, might be something that the court would take into account in sentencing. I believe that the courts already take into account such considerations. Whether someone has adhered to a curfew, electronic monitoring or other bail conditions can be facts that the court has the discretion to take into account. The problem with the Government’s wording is the highly restrictive way in which the provision has been drafted. We will undoubtedly continue that discussion next week, but I support Collette Stevenson’s amendment 67.

My amendments in the group, which is on entitlement to bail, relate to three areas: the public safety test; the fear of flight; and, in amendments 35 and 36, alternative approaches to address issues that Victim Support Scotland raised on these provisions.

Amendment 55, which is a probing amendment, seeks to remove the new public safety test for bail so that the law reverts to the current public interest test. As I have indicated, Pauline McNeill and I have been involved in a number of meetings with defence agents and other practitioners—including, on occasion, sheriffs—in relation to the drafting of the bill, and the view of many whom we have met is that what I have proposed is the preferred approach due to uncertainty around how the new provisions will be interpreted by the court.

On a number of occasions, fear has been expressed that the lack of certainty in relation to the definition of the public safety test is likely to lead to appeals. Even if, at the end of the day, the outcomes are the same as they are under current bail law, such uncertainty is not in the interests of justice or of victims, and, indeed, the arguments that will have to be presented in the courts over interpretation of the legislation will come at a cost to the public purse.

My lead amendment would remove the public safety test. I am looking for the cabinet secretary to outline why the Government is proposing the change so that we can get an understanding of how it believes that it will impact on bail decisions in the courts, particularly given that Lord Carloway’s submission to the Scottish Government was that, although the measure would add bureaucracy and place more onerous requirements on the courts, outcomes would not be changed. I am looking for the cabinet secretary to give an explanation of the kinds of cases in which she expects that, if the bill were to be enforced, bail would be allowed where it would not be allowed at the moment and, similarly, situations in which individuals would be remanded under the measure when they are currently not.

Amendment 31 would enable the court to have discretion to take into account electronic monitoring or other specific conditions or requirements to which the accused was subject. That issue was discussed in the committee. The approach that the Scottish Government proposes is that, where an individual has been subjected to electronic monitoring, it will be compulsory for the court to take that into account, and every two days of electronic monitoring will be counted as one day in custody.

The approach that I outline in amendment 31 would enable the court to have discretion to take into account any period of electronic monitoring or, indeed, any other specific conditions and whether the accused has complied with the conditions to which they have been subject. That would mean that the court would have the discretion on occasion to reduce a sentence—for example, if there was evidence to suggest that the person had complied with the conditions of curfew or electronic monitoring—but it would not be obliged to do that. Similarly, it would enable the court to increase the sentence if an individual had not co-operated with the special conditions that were placed on them. It could be that they had not co-operated with electronic monitoring, a curfew or another condition that the court had presented—for example, if they had made attempts to contact or approach the complainer. The reason why I have lodged the amendment is to enable the court to have a far broader range of responses and to take account of specific facts that are presented.

Amendment 30, which is also in the group, is a probing amendment that came about as a result of discussions about the public safety test. As the committee has discussed and as lawyers have stated in their various representations, there is a view that it would be helpful to have a definition of the test. One of my concerns is that I have attempted to ask others to draft a public safety test or to give an indication of the factors that they believe should be on the face of the bill but they have been reluctant to do so. Amendment 30 therefore provides an indicative list of the types of factors that might be taken into account. As I said, it is a probing amendment and I do not plan to push it to a vote today, but I am looking for the Government to give an indication as to whether those are the kinds of factors that it expects the courts will take into account when considering what public safety will involve.

Amendment 63 would require consultation with victims groups about the drafting of the public safety test. It would require the Scottish Government to come back in writing with detailed proposals for how the courts will interpret the public safety test and to consult victims organisations and others on how the courts will be expected to deal with such matters.

I lodged amendment 32 to get a better understanding of the Government’s thinking. The current bail provisions are clear that the court is able to refuse bail if it believes that that will be in the interests of justice and that granting bail would be prejudicial to the interests of justice. One reason why granting someone bail could be prejudicial to the court process is that they would be given the opportunity to intimidate witnesses or complainers. If the bill were to be passed, it is unclear whether the Government would expect the courts to have a lower threshold when considering such issues. Amendment 32 would reintroduce the current law in relation to the intimidation of witnesses and complainers. It would make it clear in black-letter law that the court is entitled to remand someone if there is a legitimate fear that there could be intimidation.

One of my other amendments relates to the fear of flight. We have focused on that issue, but, when the committee discussed the bill, we did not consider to any great extent that the bill’s provisions change the current bail law in that the public safety test will very much focus on the risks to the public. Issues around the fear of flight and absconding relate primarily to the ability for the interests of justice to be served, with the court process being able to proceed to its conclusion because the accused is available to attend court.

It would be useful for the Government to indicate how many individuals are currently remanded because of issues relating to the fear of flight and individuals absconding. It would be useful to understand whether the Government believes that the bill as drafted will result in fewer individuals who fall into that category being remanded. What would the implications be for the justice system and the ability to obtain convictions if that were to happen?

Amendment 33 contains a similar provision. My understanding and the understanding of those from whom I have taken advice is that, under the bill’s drafting, the court would be obliged to consider the failure to appear in a particular case when considering whether to grant bail. Amendment 33 would enable the court to take into account a wider course of action. If an individual had a history of failing to appear or of absconding—there might be evidence from previous convictions, or other evidence could be provided to the court—such information could be taken into account.

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 am in no way doubting the cabinet secretary’s personal commitment, but does she accept that there just has not been the structural shift that we need with resources being moved towards rehabilitation?