³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

My question is for Stephen Imrie—sorry, Stephen, it is almost like you are part of the panel.

You said that we could agree but wait. If we do that, would that mean that we were in effect consenting to what has been put before us today—which is where I would probably want to be—or would it mean that we were consenting to it with reservations?

I am not inclined to support amendment 70. Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay are asking the Government to bring forward legislation that is based on evidence—I feel that the bill is based on evidence—but they present us with amendments, such as amendment 70, on which we have not taken any evidence. Such a change would be really significant and it could result in a massive increase in the prison population. It would also have massive resource implications for the Parole Board and for how the system would work in practice—it would be necessary to go back to the drawing board.

I acknowledge the report and its recommendations. My point is that what you are proposing would be a big change and would require a big piece of work, so I am not sure whether the bill is the right place for it. I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s response, but there are quite a lot of questions here. Even if we think that something should be done in principle—there is obviously a very emotive background story, which Mr Lumsden outlined—it would need to be done right. We would not want to create a situation that made things worse. Where would the person have to have been detained, under what legislation and with what mental health conditions? If all that is not ironed out properly, it could be worse for people in the long run.

I just wanted to put those concerns on record, although, as I said, I note the principle behind Mr Lumsden’s plea to the committee.

I thank Jamie Greene for that intervention. I did not say what he has suggested; I said that the Parole Board was one aspect to consider.

The change that amendment 70 proposes would be an absolutely massive and sweeping change and we have not taken evidence on it or had a chance to consider its implications. Given that we are talking about a policy that has been in place in Scotland and, I believe, across the whole of the United Kingdom for a significant time, a lot more work and a lot more scrutiny would have to be done before we could consider making such a change.

I will not support amendment 70.

I welcome Douglas Lumsden to the committee and thank him for the way in which he put forward his constituent’s case. It was very powerful.

I am quite sympathetic to where Mr Lumsden wants to go with this in a general sense, but I would not be inclined to vote for amendment 100 at this stage, because there are quite a number of questions that I—and, I think, the committee as a whole and the Government—would have about it. Would it apply if a person had been detained under mental health legislation? How long ago would that detention have had to take place? What supports would the amendment put in place for people?

Similar to an amendment that I spoke to earlier, I see the principle behind it, about which Mr Lumsden spoke very passionately—no one can deny that, and I would not seek to do so—but I have questions about the effect of the amendment in practice.

Thanks for that update. I know from the presence that you have in North Lanarkshire, where my constituency is, that that is something that you have been working on for a period of time.

I am sorry if my line of questioning is a bit disjointed and does not join up exactly, but please bear with me. This is probably for Caroline O’Connor and John Taylor. What are your thoughts on the issue of interpreters, which has come up in the various committee sessions that we have had on this subject? What is the service provision like around interpreters? A lot of people have told us that there are real concerns in that area. Are there difficulties with it, and how might those be overcome?

John Taylor, do you have anything to add to that? How does your team access interpreters? Is there any difficulty with that or do you feel that you have that provision?

It will be small, and it might already have been answered. Given what the convener has said, panel, if that is the case, please say so.

This is probably for John Taylor, although Caroline O’Connor might be able to respond, too. A question that has come to mind during these evidence sessions is how you actually manage a situation in which asylum seekers are coming from different countries or different regions. Is Mears, or are other organisations, aware of any difficulties in that respect, and how are they managed? I realise that that is a very general question.

Do you have anything to add, Caroline?

Good morning. First, I offer my apologies for attending most of the meeting remotely, via an online connection. The reason for that was significant delays on the Airdrie-Bathgate train line today, which I am sure will be reported on, given the extent of them.

I have a few questions, convener. I hope that you will have some sympathy with my travel woes and allow me to ask them. Will that be all right?