Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014 [Draft]
Item 4 is consideration of an item of subordinate legislation: the draft Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014. We took evidence on the draft order from a number of interested parties on 2 December. Today, we will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials before the cabinet secretary moves a motion recommending the approval of the draft order.
The cabinet secretary is still with us. I welcome the Scottish Government officials: Andy Bruce, who was here before and is the deputy director of the community justice division; Kerry Morgan, who is from the community justice division; and Craig McGuffie, who is from the directorate of legal services.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement. I remind members that this is an evidence-taking session so they can ask questions of all the witnesses, but the next agenda item will be a debate and the officials cannot take part in that.
Thank you, convener. I understand that it has been a long journey to get to where we are today. The draft order that is under consideration has benefited greatly from public consultation and the views that the committee previously expressed.
The model that is before the committee provides a system of independent monitoring that relies on volunteers as representatives of civic society and is professional, accountable and, importantly, compliant with the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—OPCAT.
The new system will introduce consistency of practice and effective leadership and governance, and will allow for the better integration of inspection and monitoring. It will promote independent monitoring, raise its profile and ensure that all parts of every prison are monitored regularly. Our priority is to ensure that this reform of independent monitoring delivers the best outcomes for prisoners, safeguards their human rights and fulfils our obligations under OPCAT and the national preventive mechanism.
Previous witnesses raised concerns about the independence of the independent prison monitors. Are you satisfied that the revised draft order is fully compliant with the requirements of OPCAT?
Obviously, the independence of the independent prison monitors and the way in which that system of monitoring will operate has been important in deciding on the final model that is to be introduced. That is why the responsibility has been placed with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons for Scotland, which is independent of the Government and the Scottish Prison Service and is established under royal warrant. Placing the IPMs with the inspectorate ensures that their processes and work are independent. On that basis, we are of the view that the draft order is compliant with OPCAT.
Do you have any comments on the concerns that previous witnesses raised about the independence of the IPMs?
We are confident that they are independent. They will operate under HM prisons inspectorate for Scotland, which is independent of the Government.
There are three aspects to the role of the IPMs. The first is the inspections that they can undertake. The second is the programme of monitoring visits that they can undertake in agreement with governors and the programme that they can agree with the prison monitoring co-ordinators, who have an important role in ensuring that we examine all our establishments and all aspects of our establishments. The third is their discretion to decide to undertake monitoring visits themselves. That gives them the flexibility and the independence to undertake a role that will be an important part of the overall way in which we run our prison system.
Will you comment on the prison monitoring advisory group’s constitution and clarify the process for appointments to the group?
An important part of the advisory group’s role is ensuring that it has a level of oversight of how the monitoring system has operated. I understand that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons for Scotland’s view is that the chair should be independent and that the group should have a range of different stakeholders on it in order to support and inform its work. I think that there has been some indication of the range of individuals and organisations that could be represented. For example, I understand that the chief inspector of prisons would want the Scottish Human Rights Commission to be part of the independent advisory group.
This issue has been around for some time—it has had quite a thrashing about and has come back in various forms. I think you would agree that perception is terribly important here. Some of us know the individuals involved; for example, I know Mr Strang to be an individual of the highest integrity. However, do you understand that some people perceive that rota-ed visits, compared with those that are spontaneous, have an element of control to them that takes away what is understood to be one purpose of such visits—that of a spot check, for want of a better phrase?
As I mentioned, there are three ways in which the monitoring visits can take place. A rota-ed visit is not in any way different from any other independent visit that is taking place. It may be that there is less autonomy because it is rota-ed as part of the work programme. However, it is important that we ensure that all our establishments are properly monitored.
The prison monitoring co-ordinators have an important role to play in shaping the work programme to ensure not only that that happens, but that all aspects of the prison are considered. However, there is the option for independent prison monitors to undertake visits without notification. They can do that in addition to a planned visit.
We have a much more comprehensive way of looking at the issue, which I believe to be much more helpful. I understand that some people may argue that the prison monitoring co-ordinators’ independence is limited. That may in some way limit their autonomy, but it does not undermine the independence of the monitoring process. Indeed, it allows us to ensure that we have a much more comprehensive view of that process, so that all aspects of our establishments are being effectively monitored. That has not always been the case in the past, so it is important to have a system that is comprehensive, effective and independent.
That is very reassuring. To push you on that point, the perception of rotas and programmes suggests a measure of control that some might believe would be inhibitive. For the avoidance of any doubt, will you confirm that an authorised person can go to any prison at any time if they have concerns about an issue that is outwith the programme?
If the independent prison monitor wants to undertake an additional visit outwith the rota programme, they can do so. A visit can be part of the rota that has been agreed with governors; it can be part of the work programme that has been agreed with the prison monitoring co-ordinators; and it can be something that they choose to do on their own for whatever reason they feel that it would be appropriate for them to do so.
That is very reassuring. On 2 December, we heard evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission—it has contributed throughout the process—and it would be fair to say that, while it is not against the proposal, its endorsement is less than compelling; at least that is my summary of its position. Would you welcome the SHRC’s continued involvement in the process? I assume that, if agreed, the operation of the new system will be evaluated.
I very much welcome the SHRC’s continued involvement. The SHRC has an important part to play in taking forward the new prison monitoring programme. That is why I understand that Mr Strang is keen for the SHRC to be a member of the advisory group and for the group to have an independent chair.
You touched on an important aspect, which is that we must evaluate how the new monitoring system is going, at an appropriate point. I have no doubt that the advisory group will flag up things that need to be improved or are not working effectively, so that those matters can be addressed. If there are issues for the Government to take forward, I will be more than happy to explore them with the group, when there has been a full assessment of the work that it has been undertaking.
Thank you; that is welcome.
Still on the Scottish Human Rights Commission, in evidence to the committee Mr Adamson expressed concern that resources might be taken away from unannounced visits to support rota visits and additional visits. What reassurance can you give that that will not be the case?
There is a danger of my compromising the independence of the approach if I start to prescribe what will happen. I am keen for a balance to be struck between the ad hoc monitoring visits, the work programme that is agreed with the prison monitoring co-ordinators and the programme that is agreed with individual prisons. I am sure that that will happen.
I am keen to ensure that all establishments are effectively monitored, on an annual basis, on all aspects, and that reports can inform us about changes or improvements that are needed and about good practice that can be shared with the other establishments. I do not want to get into a situation in which I am in danger of prescribing how much of one thing or the other there should be. I have no doubt that it will be in the interests of the chief inspector of prisons and the advisory group to ensure that a balance is struck between unannounced visits, visits that are part of the programmed work and visits that are part of the agreed programme with prison governors.
I think that I am right in saying that even work that is agreed with prison monitoring co-ordinators can be unannounced. Some of the programme will be agreed with governors, but there are other aspects of it. Prison monitoring co-ordinators must ensure that all our prisons are covered and that as many aspects as possible are considered, and visits in that work programme can be unannounced.
Pete White, from Positive Prison? Positive Futures, told us:
“I think that the conduct of the independent monitors will determine how they are viewed by prisoners. They will have to develop a way of working that builds trust, but it sometimes takes a personality, rather than an order, to make that happen.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 December 2014; c 6.]
Do you agree?
We must consider where a prisoner might be in terms of their level of trust in an individual and willingness to disclose information to them. It is extremely important that independent monitors can reassure prisoners that they are trustworthy and can provide the support and guidance that they require, so personal relationships are key.
Part of that will be about ensuring that monitors are trained effectively and have the necessary skills and attributes to be able to build relationships. In a prison, trust can be at a premium at times, so it is extremely important that the individuals who undertake monitoring and engage with prisoners are able to offer the reassurance and support that are required if a prisoner is to disclose information that they think it appropriate to disclose.
I will ask about our next steps today. As John Finnie said, we have been talking about the matter for a long time. Professor Coyle told the committee that he was not sure that we should sign off the order, whereas Dr McManus said, “Let’s get this going.” One implication of our recommending approval of the order is that we will be OPCAT compliant. What would be the implications for prison visiting in Scotland of the order not being recommended for approval today?
If the motion is not passed today, the status quo will apply. If the motion was not passed, we would not change the system to the model that is outlined in the order. In effect, we would have the status quo.
11:30
Apart from the fact that we will not be OPCAT compliant—
The existing model is not OPCAT compliant, but the new model is OPCAT compliant.
Thank you.
Is that it? Excellent.
No.
Do you have another question? I did not mean “Is that it?” for all members—just for Christian Allard. Do not panic, Margaret. We will have Elaine Murray, followed by Margaret Mitchell.
A recent addition to the monitoring duties has been the requirement to oversee the temporary release of prisoners. Will you explain more about what that means?
Kerry Morgan is best placed to give you more detail on that addition. In part, it reflects the feedback that we had from the consultation process; we have had several consultations over the year. Some aspects have been a result of the feedback that we received during the consultations.
The addition was made to the order in the light of legal advice that Craig McGuffie can describe better. We did not want to be in the position where a prisoner wanted to speak to an independent monitor about aspects of their temporary release but, because temporary release was not stipulated in the order, they could not do so. For example, if a prisoner wanted to discuss with an independent monitor the transport to their temporary release location or their temporary release being cut short, we did not want that discussion not to be possible legally because we had not included the words that are now in the order. Craig McGuffie can describe better the legal position.
The issue arose during the drafting process. The powers that we previously gave the chief inspectorate to inspect prisons and the treatment of prisoners and the powers that we gave prison monitors to monitor prisons and the treatment of prisoners referred to the treatment of prisoners within prisons. We were concerned that the words “within prisons” might create a loophole that would prevent the chief inspector from inspecting the arrangements for temporary release and, similarly, prevent prison monitors from monitoring those arrangements.
We considered taking out the words “within prisons” but, following discussions with parliamentary counsel, it was decided that that would not be enough to close the loophole. That is why a paragraph was added. It is intended not to create a significant extra burden on prison monitors but to close a potential loophole that might have prevented temporary release arrangements from being considered.
Will that be made clear in guidance? The provision is open to the interpretation that it is putting an onerous responsibility on monitors.
Additional guidance will go alongside the work, and it will include aspects of how the order will operate.
There are concerns about what looks like a requirement for monitors to use the official complaints system of the SPS, although some prisoners do not have confidence in the official system. Can you clarify—[Interruption.]
I am sorry; I am just checking whether you are asking about complaints. There are voices on either side of me, and some in my head as well, so there you are.
As long as it is not complaints from either side of you.
Sometimes it is, cabinet secretary, but I ignore those.
There are two aspects. There is a formal complaints process, which has been reviewed and changed. Additionally, complaints about the Prison Service can now go to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Improvements have been made to the SPS complaints process.
If an issue was raised with an independent prison monitor that they wished to pursue directly, they would also have the opportunity to do that.
Will they still—
The monitor would still be in a position to do that. Outwith that, there is the formal prison complaints process, which has been enhanced and which now extends into the SPSO, which it did not do previously. That has been improved.
Would it be open to a prisoner, in discussion with a monitor, to decide that they do not want to take the official route and would rather take a more informal route?
That would be at the prison monitor’s discretion, if they felt that the formal complaints process might not be the most appropriate route. The decision would depend on the complaint and how the prison monitor felt it could be taken forward most effectively.
Professor Coyle felt that the draft order was weaker than the existing legislation on prisoners’ capability to take things up directly.
There is and has always been a formal complaints process, and the order does not change that. However, the way in which the independent prison monitors will be established under the order means that they will be able to pursue a complaint directly if they feel that to be the most appropriate course of action.
As we have all found, sometimes the best way of dealing with issues raised by constituents is to engage directly with the organisation concerned and sometimes the best way is to go through the formal complaints process. That all depends on the complaint, but the order provides flexibility for the independent prison monitor to take such action if they so choose.
On the complaints system, I understand that the draft order was consulted on in September and redrafted in November. Monitors’ role in handling complaints was removed in September—without warning, it would be fair to say—and then partly reinstated in November. If I understand the situation properly, the SHRC and the Howard League Scotland have expressed concern that the proposal for independent prison monitors to assist with existing internal complaints weakens the process. Is that the case?
As I have outlined, monitors can assist an individual prisoner to pursue a complaint through the complaints process—
Are you talking about the internal complaints process?
Yes—the internal SPS complaints process.
I think that that is the concern.
That process can lead to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman; as that is an external body, a complaint would therefore go outwith the SPS. That is the normal complaints process.
An independent prison monitor has an opportunity to take up in an establishment or in the SPS an issue that a prisoner has raised with them. Kerry Morgan might be able to offer a wee bit more background on how that came about.
Before Kerry Morgan does that, I should make it clear that the crucial point is about monitors helping with the internal complaints system. According to previous evidence, that might compromise their independence in prisoners’ eyes. As a result, there is a human rights issue to address.
I have a feeling that that point was answered in the earlier kerfuffle, but perhaps the cabinet secretary will clarify the matter.
The issue is about choice. If an independent prison monitor wants to assist a prisoner through the complaints process, the complaint might at some point go to the SPSO, which is outwith the SPS and is independent in such matters. I am not entirely sure how that will compromise the monitors’ independence, and I am not entirely clear how those who have expressed such concerns have arrived at that view.
I point out that an independent prison monitor can pursue an issue directly through an establishment and the SPS. As I have said, I am not entirely sure how the view that you described was arrived at and, from what you have said, I think that it is not necessarily a view that I share.
You keep talking about raising a complaint with the SPS, but can an issue that a prisoner raises with an independent prison monitor be taken to a prison governor without having to go through that process? I think that that is the point.
Of course it can. The independent prison monitor can go directly to the governor about an issue that has been raised with them; they do not have to go through the formal complaints process.
I should point out that the independent prison monitor can, as they see fit, go directly to the governor with any issue that a prisoner or any person in the prison has raised with them. They can also go to the chief inspector of prisons, who can raise the matter with Scottish ministers or come to the Parliament.
As for the independent prison monitors’ role in the formal complaints process, we are talking about assisting prisoners who might have literacy issues and who might not understand the system. It is all about assisting a prisoner who has decided to go through the formal process; it is not about the independent prison monitor being seen as part of the system that is dealing with the complaint.
I understand that, but the cabinet secretary will understand that perception is everything. The point that was made was that, if prison monitors chose to help—if prisoners chose to involve monitors in their complaints—that might be seen as compromising the monitors’ position.
How many independent prison monitors are envisaged? Moreover, is there any idea of or provision for the number of visits that they will make?
Establishments should be visited on an annual basis and a range of visits should take place across the year. The issue is about the visits taking place rather than the number of independent prison monitors. Once the system is established, it will be for the inspectorate to determine how many monitors are required. There will be three co-ordinators with responsibility, and they will require a sufficient number of independent prison monitors to undertake the visits that will be carried out.
Under the order, establishments will require to be monitored weekly, and there will have to be enough independent monitors to allow that to happen. The important aspect is the frequency rather than the global numbers that are brought on board to act as independent prison monitors. That will be determined on the basis of the need to carry out the frequent monitoring visits, as the inspectorate will need a cohort of staff that can undertake that workload.
The difficulty is with capacity for the three types of visit that you have mentioned and with the rota. We then have the fact that visits have to be approved by or co-ordinated with the prison governor, and the fact that some visits will be made without prior notice. There is a concern that visits without prior notice might slip if more predominance, influence or priority is given to other elements. Do we have any idea how many independent monitors we might need or how many visits we are talking about?
I am not specifying how many monitors there should be, so I do not know how their capacity can be questioned. If I said that we should have five, you might say that there would be issues of capacity and their ability to undertake the range of work, but we are not specifying a number; we are specifying the frequency with which visits should take place.
A weekly monitoring visit needs to take place, and there is a programme of work to ensure that all the establishments are covered on that regular weekly basis and that all aspects of establishments are considered. It will be for the chief inspector of prisons, along with the advisory group, to determine the right number of monitors to have in order to get the right complement of monitoring visits taking place to the frequency that the order sets out. I do not understand how capacity can be questioned if we have not specified the number.
Will all this—the number of visits and the number of independent monitors to be appointed—be left to guidance?
The frequency of visits is set out in the order.
Will the number of independent monitors be set out in guidance?
That will be taken forward by the chief inspector of prisons, who will determine with the advisory group how many monitors are needed to meet the requirement that is set in the order for weekly monitoring visits to be undertaken.
Will the issue be covered in guidance, along with the monitoring of temporary release arrangements that independent monitors are to be asked to carry out?
We are not specifying the number or determining how many we should have. We have been questioned about the monitors’ independence. We are not saying, “This is how many you should have,” because people would then say that we were limiting the number to ensure that monitors could do only X, Y or Z. We are saying to the inspectorate, “You have to do at least one monitoring visit per week in every establishment in Scotland. It is for you to determine how many independent monitors you require to have the capacity to achieve that.” We are not constraining the inspectorate. We are giving it the opportunity to determine how many monitors it requires to do the job.
My difficulty is with the scrutiny. Would the cabinet secretary agree to any additional guidance having statutory scrutiny or being subject to a statutory review?
We are getting into the territory of my limiting the role. Part of the purpose of having it undertaken by the chief inspector of prisons is for them to determine the process and how it will operate. If I started issuing statutory guidance and saying, “This is how many you require,” I could be accused of compromising the inspectorate’s independence by defining and constraining the position.
We are creating the ground rules and stating what is expected and the visits that are required. We have put in place the advisory group, which will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating how the system is operating, and the chief inspector has indicated that he would prefer an independent person to do that. The group will involve stakeholders such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and if it were determined that, for example, the number of independent monitors who were appointed was insufficient to undertake the work effectively, I would expect the chief inspector of prisons to respond to that. If I started determining how many monitors there should be and within what constraints they should operate, I would be compromising the independence that is such an important part of the new model.
11:45
There is a balance to be struck between interfering and having the appropriate checks and balances, and that is what I fear there may not be, under the order as laid.
That is more of a debating point, which we will come to later.
Yes, I think that it is.
As no one has asked about it, I shall ask about the personnel who will make up the important independent prison monitoring committees. Such people are generally of a certain ethnicity and age—they are often retired.
As the relationship between monitors and prisoners is so important, it would be good if prisoners could relate to the parties who are coming in. One issue that prevents many people from becoming monitors is that they do not get time off work with pay to do the role. Is there any way of addressing that? It is not a matter for legislation, but there must be a way of addressing it. It must be difficult for some prisoners to relate to certain people who are coming in. It is not that there is anything wrong with those people, but they are from different backgrounds and are a different age, so it is difficult to talk to them about intimate details.
Has any thought been given to extending the pool of people who can become monitors by giving them paid leave from work? I understand that that happens if people who are involved in the General Teaching Council for Scotland or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency need time off from local authorities. Can that imbalance be addressed?
The intention is to recruit as widely as possible for individuals who would be attracted to taking on the role of independent prison monitor. We encourage as wide a range of individuals as possible to apply. There are technical issues around aspects of payment and legislation in that area, and Craig McGuffie can probably offer a bit of legal advice on the complexities.
I assure the committee that our intention is that independent prison monitors should be as reflective of our society as possible. When the opportunities are advertised, I have no doubt that committee members will know of individuals who would be suitable for such a role, and I would be keen for you to encourage them to consider applying.
I think that you will agree that the problem is that the additional duties make it extremely difficult for somebody in employment who will not get time off with pay to take up such a post, so we are likely to get the same decent people coming in from the same catchments. Is there any way of changing that? I look at Mr McGuffie with anticipation.
The difficulty is that we consider the issue to be outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence. Paragraph 2 of schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998 provides that
“the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, the law on reserved matters.”
The subject matter of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is reserved, although we can make consequential changes.
Is there any way of addressing the issue in liaison with the UK Government? I think that what I described happens elsewhere in the UK and it seems a fairly reasonable thing to do if we want to make the system work.
Potentially. The last change to section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to add a Scotland-based body, was in connection with water legislation, and I think that a legislative consent motion was required to make that change. It is possible that an LCM could be agreed.
I just wanted to put another thing in your in-tray, cabinet secretary, as I know that you do not have enough to do.
Of course not—the suggestion is much appreciated. We will certainly consider it further.
The committee generally felt that a fair point had been made. It is the people who make the prison monitoring system work. The process might be fine, but it is the quality and range of people who will make it successful.
We move to agenda item 5, which is the formal debate on motion S4M-11850. I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson.]
On the basis of the evidence that we have had last week and this week, it is with regret that I must say that I do not think that the order provides a better system. There are too many questions and far too much is being left to guidance. The development of the guidance is being led by an SPS deputy governor. I do not question her integrity for a moment, but it is inevitable that she will look at things from an SPS viewpoint.
For all those reasons, I think that we will end up with an inferior system. We are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in bending over backwards to be OPCAT compliant. In other jurisdictions, the function has been taken over by the ombudsman. If that had happened, that would have been the end of the story: it would have rectified what was already a good system. It was not a perfect system, but it was a good one that could, with a little tweaking, have been improved.
I reflect on the fact that this matter has a long history and it has taken us a long time to get to where we are today. It is important to reflect on the fact that the distinctions between inspection and monitoring came out well in the evidence. I was very impressed by David Strang’s evidence, in which he explained that they are complementary but distinct.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns. I am reassured by what the cabinet secretary has said, but I hope that we will continue to recognise—as OPCAT requires us to—the importance of the unannounced visit.
We have dealt with the complaints procedure comprehensively. I reiterate what Dr McManus said in evidence:
“We have to bolster the SPS process rather than subvert it.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 December 2014; c 31.]
As far as the advisory group is concerned, I am reassured by what the cabinet secretary said. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and I wish the new system well.
I am in a bit of a quandary. I accept that a lot of progress has been made since the original order and that attempts have been made to address many of the issues. The problem for me is that I am not yet convinced that what is proposed is the best model. Professor Coyle is not convinced that it is the best model, either. It can be argued that a system that is more like the one in England and Wales might be preferable—I think that that was Professor Coyle’s preferred model.
I need the minister to convince me that there is a reason not to start again and reconsider the model. I need to be convinced that we are not settling for something inferior in proceeding with the system that the Government is proposing instead of ripping it up and starting again with a completely different model.
I had reservations that were apparent in my line of questioning last week. The issue has been on the go for a long time. The crucial question was posed by my colleague Christian Allard, who asked whether the present system is OPCAT compliant. It is not, but the system that is proposed is OPCAT compliant. Is anything perfect? We strive for perfection, but I have been reassured by what I have heard today about on-going monitoring and the role that the Scottish Human Rights Commission—which has been critical—will have to play. For that reason, I think that we should go ahead with what is proposed, while always looking to improve.
My starting position was that what was in place previously was very imperfect. There were some very good prison visiting committees and some pretty poor ones, as we know from evidence that we had before the proposals were redrafted. I had concerns about the rota system, but I am content with the explanation that we have had. The rota system will provide a context, or a backcloth. Such a system is very distinct from an inspection. By visiting a place regularly, it is possible to get a sense of the changes that are taking place. That will not impede ad hoc inspections by IPMs, so I am content with that.
Now that I have heard further evidence, I am also more content with the complaints process. I was concerned that if prisoners had to go through the formal process in the place about which they were complaining, although that might be appropriate, it might also be the last thing that they would want to do, if they had difficulty in writing or putting down their words, but I was pleased when I heard that it will still be possible to make complaints through the IPM directly to the governor and to bypass the formal process if that is appropriate. That is a lot better. Having the SHRC on the advisory group has made a big difference.
The order is not perfect, but I have yet to see a piece of legislation that is. Some of the legislation over the years has been terrible—I will not name names, but it has happened under various Scottish Executives and the Scottish Government. The order that is before us is a darn sight better, and my position is that we should suck it and see. Enough markers have been put down in evidence to the committee, and if the order turns out to be flawed we will be the first—I will be, at least; I cannot speak for anyone else on the committee—to jump on it.
Given all that, and some caveats about how the order will operate, all the matters that we have discussed have now been put in position, and I am content to support the order. I am happy to hear further words from the cabinet secretary about my colleagues’ concerns.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate all the comments from members, and I appreciate that some members continue to have anxieties and concerns.
It is important to recognise that our prison visiting committees have, over many years, undertaken a lot of good and important work and have played an extremely valuable role. Despite our proposal to change the system, I do not want to underestimate that important role or the contribution of all the volunteers who have participated in them over the years.
The proposed new model will allow us to have in place in our prisons a much more effective monitoring regime that is independent of Government and the prison system. It will give us an additional level of understanding of what is going on in our prison estate and, over and above that, of our independent inspection regime for prisons. That regime is a very robust mechanism and inspections take place regularly.
If members listened to “Good Morning Scotland” earlier today, they would have heard the chief inspector’s most recent findings from HMP Shotts. We have a strong and robust independent inspection regime, and the independent monitoring model that we propose will be effective and will give us an additional level of confidence around independent monitoring.
I am with the convener on this one—
My goodness! That is breaking news.
It is the sort of issue for which other models with various pros and cons could be proposed. We have sought to strike a balance in our approach, hence the length of time that it has taken to arrive at this particular point, and the variety of consultations and changes that have been made during that time to address some of the concerns and to accommodate changes to improve the order.
I acknowledge that some members feel that we have not gone far enough, but the system will be OPCAT compliant, and the process will help to improve our prison estate and to ensure robust and independent monitoring.
I believe that we have in place the right safeguards to enable us to monitor effectiveness and, if necessary, to make further changes, should any be required in the future. The model is certainly better than what we have at present, and it is worthy of the committee’s support.
I want to clarify something important. You said that changes would be made “should any be required”. How would those changes be made? I am sorry to come in again after your summing up, but that point is quite important.
If after a period there are issues—if people feel that there is a deficiency in the model’s operation, for example—we should consider them to see where any changes may be required.
I am confident that we have a model that will work but, as ever, the test will be how it operates. If deficiencies are identified at some point in the future, I am open to looking at how those can be addressed.
Thank you. We now move to the question at item 5.
The question is, that motion S4M-11850 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Against
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014 [draft] be approved.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. Members will be aware that we are required to report on all affirmative instruments. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me to sign off on the report?
Members indicated agreement.
We can bring the report back to the next meeting. Thank you.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements (Protection Measures) (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/333)
Item 8 is a negative instrument that will facilitate the application of Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. The regulation is part of a package that aims to strengthen victims’ rights, and is designed to complement the European Protection Order Directive and related regulations, which we have just considered.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has not drawn Parliament’s attention to the instrument. Do members have any comments on it?
It is important to mention that the Scottish Government considers that the definition could, for example, cover interdicts and civil non-harassment orders. Although the Government says that it does not expect much business, I would have thought that it would cover more than the criminal procedure, which we are not considering.
Thank you for that note. Are members content that we make no recommendations in relation to the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session.
12:01 Meeting continued in private until 12:58.Previous
Modern Slavery Bill