Chamber and committees

I am pleased to speak in the debate, with most of my speech being made in my capacity as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I again thank witnesses, the bill and clerking teams, other Parliament staff and organisations and individuals who supported and informed our scrutiny of the bill.

It is an important bill. I want to note from the outset that, although the committee did not reach consensus on all the issues that we considered, we were able to reach an amicable view in our report on the bill. I will start where most consensus was found.

Part 2 of the bill proposes changes to the process of release, including on planning for release, accessing services and throughcare, release on certain days of the week, release on licence, powers to release early and victim notification. Committee members were clear in their support for most of the provisions in that part of the bill. Throughcare plans for prisoners and access to key services including housing, benefits, healthcare and medication on release are essential to support reintegration and avoid the revolving door of recidivism and the setting up of people to fail. As the committee heard, release planning must start on the day that someone enters prison.

An issue of particular personal interest to me is how to better support prisoners who are released unexpectedly by court, and I am pleased that the Government accepted my amendments providing ministers with a regulation-making power to make further provision in the area of release planning, if necessary.

Part 1 of the bill proposes important changes to the use of bail. It was here that committee members differed on some of the key provisions of the bill. Some members wanted the Government to be clearer about what it wanted to achieve with the bill, as has already been articulated by other members. For example, did the Government propose the changes so that bail being granted would be more likely, which would, in turn, bring down the numbers of people being held on remand, which we all agree are too high?

As noted at stage 1, the Scottish Government has not set a specific target for the number of cases in which it expects that the outcome would be different under the revised bail test. That made it harder for the committee to scrutinise the likely difference to the numbers of people being granted bail who would previously have been remanded.

We had concerns about the resource implications for the wider role of justice social work in bail decision making and whether that would, in fact, slow down the process.

There were differences of opinion on the proposal to remove section 23D from the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and around provisions on the consideration of how time spent on electronic monitoring while on bail might be taken into account during sentencing.

However, despite those differences, all members agreed that there are some useful provisions in the bill that, resourced properly, will go a long way to improving the release process for prisoners. Despite our differences, the bill benefited from robust scrutiny at stage 1 and from amendment at stages 2 and 3. That is especially true in relation to part 1 of the bill, on which views among committee members differed.

I look forward to the Criminal Justice Committee undertaking further scrutiny on the legislative provisions to follow and to confirming that we have, indeed, delivered positive reform to bail and release from custody.

I am very pleased to speak in the debate as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, which is a secondary committee for consideration of the bill. We took evidence on the justice provisions, and I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence.

In the short time that is available to me in the debate, I want to highlight two key issues. The first is the use of secure care. The bill proposes that any child aged 18 or under should be held in a secure care setting rather than in a young offenders institution. It also provides for a young person up to the age of 19 not to automatically transfer to a YOI if that is in their best interests and it is not contrary to the best interests of other children in the secure care facility.

During our scrutiny, the governor of HMP and YOI Polmont told us that, at that point, he had seven young people in custody, but he said:

“no 16 or 17-year-old child should be in our care.”

He said that holding them in secure care rather than in a YOI was

“Morally ... the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 March 2023; c 19.]

His view was supported by other witnesses, including Linda Allan, whose daughter Katie took her own life in Polmont and who now campaigns on behalf of young offenders. I pay tribute to Linda for her courage when speaking to the committee.

Secure care is not a soft option. A young person in secure care is still removed from the community, but they will receive far more appropriate care than they would get in a prison setting. Staff-to-offender ratios are better, and staff are more appropriately trained and skilled to provide a trauma-informed setting within which young people are better supported and their needs met.

It is for those reasons that there was strong support for the proposal that young people aged 18 or under should no longer be held in a YOI and that they would be better held in a secure care setting. However, we need assurances that the necessary resources will be put in place to deliver the changes that will be necessary, given that secure care places can cost up to four times as much as a place in a YOI.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies, and Fulton MacGregor joins us online.

Our first item of business is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and her officials Clare McKinlay, who is a solicitor in the Scottish Government’s legal directorate, and Michael Halpin, who is defence policy manager in the directorate for safer communities.

I refer members to paper 1. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the supplementary LCM, after which we will move to questions.

Thanks for raising that. There are a couple of points to make here. First, time is against us—we are under pressure of time. I am assuming that, if there was an update regarding the Lord Advocate’s position on the matter, and if she felt it appropriate to share it with the committee or with the Government, she would do so. The key issue concerns timescales, unfortunately.

I thank committee members very much for raising those issues. We will ensure that they are included in the committee’s report.

On that note, the question is, that the committee agrees with the Scottish Government that the Scottish Parliament should not give its consent to the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, as set out in the Scottish Government’s draft motion. Do members agree?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)

Abstentions

Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)

The issue will now move to the chamber for all members to debate, based on our report. With that, I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending this morning.

We will now have a short suspension while we wait for the next team to come in.

Absolutely. As the minister said, one of the important areas of work is the preventative work that is being done. I suppose that prevention and intervention are absolutely key.

I think that you might have jumped ahead to our next agenda item.

On that note, we will move swiftly on.

Our next item of business is consideration of any final issues that we want to raise in our report on the supplementary LCM. Again, I will open up the meeting for members to raise any specific points.

I remind members that we will be having a public evidence session next week on the issue of police officer suicide, which I hope will be an opportunity to raise some of the issues that Russell Findlay has outlined. I know that he is very interested in that particular issue.