���˿���

I will try to rattle through the letters. On the SPS letter that we have just discussed, I have the same question as Russell Findlay on in-cell telephony.

My second point is about purposeful activity. There seems to be a bit of confusion around what the reality of that is versus what the law says. The letter gives the impression that purposeful activity is available to all prisoners. That point was reiterated during last week’s scrutiny of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, when the cabinet secretary said—I am just checking the Official Report:

“Prison rules do not exclude remand prisoners from work or purposeful activity, and the Prison Service will, where possible, offer access to work and educational opportunities to those on remand.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 May 2023; c 57.]

I wonder what the reality is on the ground versus what it says in the letter and what we were told. If nothing else, there seems to be a perception that remand prisoners participate in much less purposeful activity, including education, counselling, training and work. I appreciate that, when it comes to forcing someone to work, there is a difference between someone who has been sentenced and someone who is on remand, but we need more clarity around that because the situation is a bit unclear. The perception and the reality seem to be two different worlds.

We cannot look at the correspondence without noting the letter from COSLA, in conjunction with community justice partners. It is quite detailed and a lot of work and time have obviously gone into it. The letter is quite stark and makes clear something that we already know through budget analysis, which is that almost every aspect of the justice sector received more money in the 2023-24 budget than in the 2022-23 one, with the exception of criminal justice social work, which had a flat cash settlement despite pre-budget scrutiny that warned of the consequences of that.

The letter goes into great detail, which I will not go into, about what the consequences might be. In effect, we are talking about a substantial real-terms cut, year on year, in the criminal justice social work budget. The letter makes it clear that that cut makes it incredibly difficult for COSLA and its council partners to deliver the Scottish Government’s national strategy for community justice and that it widens

“the existing ‘implementation gap’ between national policies/legislation and local delivery”.

I know that that sounds like technical jargon, but it is a really important point. It is all very well having a national ambition, but if the people on the ground who are tasked with implementing that are saying that they cannot do it with what they have been given, there is an issue. I would like the Government to respond in detail to this specific letter from COSLA and local criminal justice social work. It is the kind of letter that the Government ought to reply to, and its response should also come to us. The conversation is not just about money: the letter goes into workload and the issue of people retiring.

My last point is about the letter from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which was short and sweet. I note that the deputy assistant chief officer writes that

“50 per cent of all operational staff ... have voluntarily completed the training”

on overdose awareness. It is not quite clear from the letter how many operational staff actually participate in the scheme or carry pouches of naloxone to administer. There must be some difference between the number who have done the training and the number who actively hold the product. The letter just says that

“there has been limited progress”,

but 50 per cent does not sound like limited progress. There is clearly a difference between the number doing the training and the number carrying the product, and it would have been helpful if the fire service had been more explicit about that.

I feel slightly nervous about language that says that a delivery plan will be in place once

“broader agreement to deploy is confirmed”.

Agreement with whom? I presume that that means front-line workers or their union representatives, but it is a bit unclear and I can only read between the lines. It would be very helpful if the fire service could keep us up to date.

I am sure that that will become clear when I get to visit. Thank you for that.

I apologise for being unable to make the visit. I wonder whether the SPS would be willing to host members of the committee who were unable to make that visit. It would be very interesting to get a proper tour of the prison, perhaps once it is operational. I know that that would make it slightly more difficult, but there is certainly a willingness among members to go back or to attend for the first time.

Obviously, the SSI is a legal instrument, which means that the site can be used only for a prison building. Has the Government indicated what its plans are for the old building or the wider site? That question might have been answered yesterday—it probably was, as I imagine that someone will have asked it.

If it is no longer being used as a prison, what will happen? Will it just be demolished and remain Government property?

Does the report reflect that there is clearly positive dialogue between the two Governments, which is helpful in this scenario, given the subject matter? Clearly, there is some mopping up to do, which I do not have any particular view on; it is for the Governments to decide on that. It is clear that there has been some movement already, and some amendments have been proposed by the Scottish Government, which I think is fair and due process.

Russell Findlay made an important point. It was quite a meaty report that only appeared in our papers this week, it was followed up very late in the day yesterday with the DPLR Committee report and it is complex and technical in nature. I would request that we ask the Government to give us notice of complex LCMs, as far in advance as possible, to give members time to read what turned into “War and Peace” committee papers this week. That would be helpful and it might mean that we would spend less time in session discussing it.

I have completely forgotten what I was going to ask, but I will try to pick up the pieces and move on. I will have a second question that is linked to the one that Pauline McNeill has just asked.

My first question is on petitions to wind up limited partnerships. If I heard the minister correctly, I think that he said that the secretary of state can apply to a Scottish court with the consent or support of the Scottish ministers—I think that that was the language used—or that the Scottish ministers could raise a petition themselves. It therefore sounds as though there might be two avenues to petition the Scottish courts. What scenario planning has there been for any dispute resolution mechanism should the secretary of state intend to raise a petition but ministers disagree, or vice versa? I know that that is a minor technical point, and such a scenario might never happen, but I wonder what the process for dealing with it would be.

Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the first amendment in the group. As I said in a previous intervention, we are unsure as to the technical outcome of repealing section 3AA(7) of the 1993 act. I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s points. Either I do not fully understand the scenario or I am not convinced by it—I am not sure which at the moment.

My understanding—this is a by-product of how we legislate—is that we refer to the Scottish ministers making decisions. However, the cabinet secretary talked a lot about the SPS, as opposed to the Scottish ministers, making decisions. There is a big difference.

There is a lot of discussion about section 7 and the powers that ministers might or might not have in relation to interventions. We need to be quite clear with people that a decision that is made by a minister might be made for very different reasons from one that is made by the SPS. In addition, we do not know who in the SPS would make such a decision. Is there a committee in the SPS that would decide on such a matter? Would it be up to individual prison governors, who are employed by the SPS? If the latter is the case, you could argue that the amendment gives governors more autonomy in what happens to their prison cohort, acknowledging their understanding of the prisoners who are in their institution. You could argue that that sounds like an eminently sensible thing to do. Equally, however, some prisons are not operated by the SPS but might fall under its wider remit. There are questions to answer in relation to that, too.

There is a big difference between giving ministers the power to override, overrule or pre-empt decisions that are made by independent bodies such as the Parole Board and other decisions that governors might want to make. I am not convinced that the case has been made that the Government needs that power.

If we end up in a scenario in which a Government minister directs the release of someone but there is unhappiness with that decision in the prison or the SPS, or the Parole Board has reservations about it, it is unclear whether the release would go ahead or whether there is the ability to stop or appeal that decision. That is not covered, because the amendment has a blanket approach to that scenario. I do not think that the committee went into that fully, which is unfortunate, because there might be some merit in what the cabinet secretary is trying to say on why the power might be helpful in some scenarios.

Although 75 to 200 prisoners does not sound like a lot, it would be a lot if they went out and committed further offences or if they were people who the Parole Board said might not be suitable for release but ministers wanted to do it anyway. I am unsure as to why ministers would ever want to do that. Again, if we had had some evidence on this and we had talked about it at stage 1, we might have been more convinced. For that reason, I am inclined not to support amendment 9.

My amendments fall into two groups: amendments 75 and 80 seek to strengthen the consideration of victims throughout the process; amendment 89 is more of a blanket amendment.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments. I will not go into great detail selling amendment 75 to the committee, but it is an amendment that Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and the advocacy, support, safety, information and services together—ASSIST—project strongly support. Members will note the paper that they sent to us yesterday, listing the amendments that they do not support, support or strongly support, and I am pleased that they strongly support amendment 75.

It is often the case that members draft amendments in a certain way and then the Government is happy to look at those draft amendments. I very much welcome that, and I would be happy to work with the cabinet secretary to look at whether the existing statutory protections could go beyond

“protecting the public at large”,

as the bill is drafted, and be strengthened to include victims.

We might, however, have some disagreement on amendment 80, which is another short amendment that is strongly supported by Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and the ASSIST project—I think for good reason. I understand the argument made about that is about listing offences, but this section, ultimately, is about ministers releasing people. In fact, it says at line 15 exactly what section 7 does:

“The Scottish Ministers may release on licence ... a long-term prisoner whose release ... has not been recommended by the Parole Board.”

That is the wider issue. We cannot forget that the section is about conferring an additional power that currently does not exist. Members might have a wider view on whether or not the Government should have this power, but if the Government must have this power—and that is clearly the direction of travel—all that we can do is add in some safeguards. Amendment 80 would do exactly that by introducing a prohibition against the release of someone who, for example, is on the sex offenders register, but specifically where the Parole Board has not directed the release of that prisoner.

The cabinet secretary spoke about risk assessment. I believe that the Parole Board goes through that process robustly. Not everyone always agrees with the outcome of that, and there is then a process for that, but surely the best place for risk assessment is in the independent, arm’s-length situation of the Parole Board.

It is hard to see how there can be true risk assessment if the Parole Board is not involved, specifically for cases in which someone has been convicted of a specific sex offence, when there may be greater risk to a victim on the release of the individual, and I do not believe that the Government should hold the power to release that individual. Therefore, I would like to reintroduce the existing prohibition that is being removed by the bill. I believe that that is why the amendment is supported by victims’ organisations.

I will leave my comments at that—thank you.

I am struggling with this. I do not want to get into a tripartite debate, but if it is an emergency power that is based on risk to life, why are there exemptions? For example, there are exemptions relating to people who have been convicted of terrorist offences, those who are subject to an extradition order and those who are serving a sentence under section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Are we saying that some prisoners would be released but that others would not be released in a life-threatening situation? I know that the cabinet secretary cannot intervene on an intervention, but that does not make sense.

I want to add two further points. It is clear that if a judge deems that someone merits a two-year sentence—in other words, two years in custody—they will direct that they receive a four-year sentence, in the knowledge that automatic release will allow them to leave custody after two years. The same would be true in relation to someone whom a judge thinks merits a three-year sentence—they would give them a six-year sentence, knowing that, as the law stands, they would be out after three years anyway.

Consideration needs to be given to the practicality of the law as it is at the moment. It is unclear why there is not parity between short-term and long-term sentences. We would have found it very helpful to get an analysis of the data on reoffending relative to sentencing, which is a subject that I have always been intrigued by. I presume that there is some form of parabola or gradient—we have certainly heard about this anecdotally—around the ability to rehabilitate someone in custody.

Regardless of what your views on such sentences are, the Government has declared that very short sentences are in some ways useless and do not provide the best outcome from a rehabilitation point of view. There is academic evidence that shows that time is needed in order to rehabilitate people, and very short sentences have just as poor outcomes.

It would have been helpful to understand why the cut-off has been set in the way that it has and why the promise that was previously made to analyse and change that, if required, has not come to pass. I hope that that has nothing to do with the size of the prison population, because emptying prisons through automatic early release is not the way to address that issue. There are serious questions to be asked about how much rehabilitation can take place in a very short period—14 months, say—in custody.

In my view, the approach should be evidence and data led. Unfortunately, the committee has struggled to get data on the issue. If the statistics show us that there is a cohort of people who are released after between 12 and 24 or 36 months in custody who have a higher reoffending rate than prisoners who cross over the line of 50 per cent automatic early release, surely the Government needs to be mindful of that. Once again, though, we have struggled to get any meaningful data on that.

Given that the bill is all about changes to bail and release, it provides the Government with a good opportunity to justify the status quo, or at least to make a commitment to change it, as it has done hitherto.

There is a massive difference between automatic release and eligibility for release, and I feel that these decisions lie best with the Parole Board. The premise of the amendment is that people could still be released after serving 50 per cent of their sentence. That is not up for argument, whatever your views are on the policy—