���˿���

Sorry—just to press on—

I appreciate that negative instruments are usually waived through nice and quickly, so I apologise for taking up time. However, I want to refer to the policy note that accompanies the instrument. In essence, the instrument is about changes to electronic monitoring and bail conditions. Under the policy objective section, it says that the instrument makes

“a technical change to ensure that the policy intention of having electronically monitored bail includes specific reference to ... two further ways in which a person on bail can have conditions varied.”

What are those “two further ways”? What variations would the change induce?

The policy note says that there has been extensive consultation with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but neither the consultation nor the SCTS’s response is contained in the note. It also says:

“Extensive impact assessments were undertaken”,

and that the change will have

“limited ... impact on the wider ... use of electronic monitoring of bail.”

How will we know whether that will be the case? The note does not quantify or, indeed, define the change.

I do not know how much of an issue the change is, which is part of the problem. I would have preferred the Government to have explained what the variations are and the resulting potential changes to bail. Ministers could have done that in person, although I appreciate that doing so would be unusual for an instrument subject to the negative procedure. However, they could have at least done that in writing. As a committee, we are none the wiser as to what we would be agreeing to, so I am uncomfortable with agreeing to the instrument for that reason.

I appreciate that annulment is the only option that is available to us. However, I want to put on record that I do not think that it is suitable to simply provide a one-page policy note that does not explain what we are being asked to agree to. I am sorry, but that sets a bad precedent.

Good morning.

Given that the bill is not imminent and the Parliament has had a short debate on HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s comments about where people are sent to, I would find it helpful to understand the Government’s position on where people go and under what circumstances. There is a little bit of confusion as to whether, as a matter of principle, or as a blanket position, no one under 18 would ever be sent to HMP Polmont, for example, or whether there are circumstances when it would be an appropriate place for them to go to. If the Government is simply ruling that out, we need to know what its plan would be. It begs the question as to who goes to which institution under what circumstances and for how long.

I know that legislation is coming down the line, but, given that this is a live discussion, it would be helpful if the Government set out its current position, because people are sentenced frequently. If that identifies that there is a gap in, for example, secure care accommodation—that is why people are being sent to Polmont—the committee can press the Government to take action on the issue more quickly.

I do not think that it is appropriate to wait for the bill, as we are currently implying that we will do, to see what the Government is proposing. It would be helpful to understand where the Government sits in response to the comments that the wider public have made around the issue. We have pressed the issue in the chamber, but I feel that it is not quite clear exactly where the Government sits at the moment in terms of the suitability of certain places for certain crimes and people.

Great. My colleague Russell Findlay might disagree, because he has been passionate for a long time about the issue of the photocopying of prisoner mail, but my interest is in the three issues in the middle of page 8—recovery cafes, residential rehabilitation and throughcare—and the fact that we are not quite sure who is responsible for those. There is an indication that throughcare is

“an operational matter for SPS.”

Of course, the Government would say that, as it wants to maintain the independence of the operation of day-to-day activities.

However, if we take a step back, there is a much wider point, which is what the Government’s strategy is for people who go into prison with mental health and addiction issues, and what the link is between those issues and reoffending rates. The fact that we are asking for improvements to rehabilitation, funding and throughcare identifies that there is a problem. Again, it is not acceptable to be told “No information provided” and “To be decided”. We are being told “We don’t know” or “It’s not our responsibility.” It is not good enough for the Government to say, “Oh, that’s an operational matter for the police, the SPS, the Crown or the courts.” We are asking the Government and it should get the answer for us.

“Tackling drug use in prisons”, on page 9, is probably the next big issue, which leads to the point about photocopying mail. It is all very well marking as green the fact that there has been a practical change in one element of that process, but what is the wider strategy? Although that may be an operational matter for the SPS, I would see it more as a Government policy matter, given the scale of the issue and the fact that the prison service is diverse and run by different operators through different operational means and contracts. Tackling drug use in prison is a big issue that has been a running theme in this committee and others, but the table on page 9 just says:

“No information from the SPS currently provided”.

I know that this is our first session on the action plan, but those are the sorts of big issues that I would expect to see a lot more detail on.

My final point about page 9 is a personal expression of disappointment about HMP Greenock—I declare a local interest—and our specific ask around the five-year investment strategy. Large chunks of the prison estate are vastly out of date, and we know how long it takes to procure, rebuild, renovate and renew the estate. I do not think that we can wait another five years before the conversation on that even kicks off. However, that is an issue that individuals can press the Government on.

This might be more of a structural point. We have marked that issue as completed in the table: we asked for information and it was given, so it is completed. However, the question is whether we are content with the information and whether the objective of our recommendation has been achieved. Therefore, I would refrain from turning to green the “Progress against delivery” box in the table until the committee has discussed whether it agrees that the information is sufficient or whether the matter is still a work in progress.

There are two separate issues. The format in which the recommendations were provided is public, so the Government and officials can look at that. The first question is whether the Government agrees or disagrees with each recommendation. If it disagrees with a recommendation, that turns the “Progress against delivery” column red and that is a closed matter, because we cannot monitor progress on something that has not been agreed to, as a point of principle.

Secondly, if a recommendation has been agreed to, or partially agreed to, which may be the case in some instances, it is for the committee to decide, based on the evidence provided directly by Government or indirectly via an agency, whether we are confident that the recommendation is being delivered as agreed by the Government. It is for us to then fill in the “Progress against delivery” column appropriately.

Although it is helpful to be pointed in the general direction of the wider policy document, because it probably contains a lot of detail that might help us, I have to say that that is a one-off document, not a working document, whereas the document that we are discussing is a working document—in other words, a live document. The only things that we would have to agree by mutual consent with the Government are the parameters by which we will monitor progress and whether that will happen every few months, every six months or whatever, but the Government needs to know that, as we carry out our formal work as a committee, we will regularly revisit this list and agree—or disagree, as is our prerogative—on whether we think that it and its agencies are meeting the objectives.

As Mr Findlay has pointed out, we cannot yet decide on those issues that are marked “To be decided”, because we do not have the evidence and have not had a response from the Government. I will give it the benefit of the doubt and another chance to come back at our next meeting, but I do not want to leave it too long before we have another such review. That might give the Government—and the officials who will probably write much of the response—some time to take the more thematic approach that we have created to what were recommendations, which I think is easier for the wider public to understand. I, as I think we all do, simply want people out there to be able to look at this document and say, “Good—I am glad to see that progress is being made,” or “I am disappointed that progress is not being made.”

I will not oppose the SSI—who am I to stand in the way of someone’s retirement? However, we could request that the Government and Police Scotland outline their strategy on recruitment and provide some data, including on the time lags involved. We could ask about increases in intake at the Scottish Police College and when those people could become operational, so that we can look ahead to ensure that there will not be a lag in resource at Police Scotland. We need to keep our eye on any potential for that.

Once you start us, we do not stop, convener. I apologise. However, there is a lot in the paper and it is our first day back. I appreciate your forbearance.

The letter from the Crown Agent goes through our recommendations in great detail. It would probably merit a little bit of written analysis in due course. Some of the points that the committee made are broadly accepted and some very comprehensive responses are given; for others, that is perhaps less the case.

Two issues stuck out for me. One was our question about the role of the Crown Office in the victim notification scheme and its relative success. The response seems to imply that that is not really its responsibility but that it will keep an eye on what the Government says in terms of its proposals. That is fine, but the committee thought that the Crown Office had an important or substantive role in the VNS and it seems to think otherwise. We would not have asked the question in the first place if we did not think that the Crown Office had a role to play, so the next question that I would ask is, if it is not responsible, who is?

At paragraph 307 of our report, the committee asked the Crown Office for

“details of how outcomes, such as reducing re-offending rates, are to be captured.”

Again, there is a very short and polite response, which is that

“The application of sentencing guidelines ... is for the judiciary only.”

I would therefore ask which bit of the judiciary is responsible, as sentencing guidelines are a relatively new feature of the justice system in that respect.

Finally, to pick up on Pauline McNeill’s point, we would not really be doing justice to the evidence that we received from the survivor if we did not refer to it in today’s meeting. I read it last night. There may be elements of it that individual members or the Government would disagree with in terms of some of the policy proposals, but it was quite sharp and pointed and I do not think that it can go ignored.

I will just quote briefly from it. The survivor says:

“I truly believe that everyone here thinks that they want to help end violence against women—but your inaction is violence against us.”

If that is how someone feels, it is true to them and perhaps to others, too.

On the third page of the submission, there is a long bullet list of recommendations that the survivor, who has broad experience of the justice sector, would like us and the Government to consider. I know that many of those have already been looked at in Lady Dorrian’s review and that the Government will respond in due course, but I think that the committee needs to put those recommendations, along with other comments that are made in the submission, front and centre in our work.

It is fair to say that, for many years, we and others have been going around in circles on this, and that is a point that was made, quite valiantly, in the submission. The survivor states:

“This is an emergency and urgent and drastic reform is required.”

That sums up where we are at, and I hope that the committee will make swift progress.

For the benefit of people who are watching and are not sure what we are staring at on our desks, the table is publicly available.

The table says:

“No information from the SPS currently provided”.

That is the answer to the question whether the Scottish Government agreed to the recommendation. That is the first point. Are we waiting for the Scottish Government to respond or for the Scottish Government to ask the SPS to respond to it or to us, or is the SPS responding to us directly?

I would prefer quite a detailed plan from the SPS. I think that the SPS should provide a Covid recovery plan to the committee that addresses each of the points, because there are more than half a dozen specific asks of the SPS. I am not fussed whether that comes through the Government or directly from the SPS. However, as an organisation, the SPS has a direct and quite important responsibility to come to the committee directly and say, “We hear what you’re saying.” We published the document months ago, and the SPS has had plenty time to look at it. We are now in the coming-out-of-Covid phase—we can see that from the arrangements in the room today—and I am really surprised that we have not had even a relatively short document from the SPS that responds to each of the points.

I think that we should press the SPS through the means that are available to us, and even perhaps set out a timetable for when we would expect such a document. That we should be sitting here with a table that says, “To be decided”, or saying that we do not know or have not heard is not a good place to be at this stage, and it will not provide any comfort to anyone who reads the paper.