Chamber and committees

The importance of well-planned support for people on release from prison was a theme that the Criminal Justice Committee heard about at length during our scrutiny of the bill. In my constituency MSP role, I have engaged with a number of stakeholders on release planning and on how provision around the process of release could be improved. That is why I welcome sections 9 and 10, which seek to start that release planning at an early point and will drive consistency in the provision of throughcare support for people leaving prison. I am also clear that that will contribute to keeping victims and people leaving prison safe. In our stage 1 report, the committee broadly welcomed those sections, and we will be watching their implementation with great interest.

Another theme that was raised during the scrutiny, and which I feel very strongly about, is the importance of supporting people who are released direct from court, usually following a period of remand. I understand that, in those circumstances, release is difficult to anticipate and plan for, which makes accessing services extremely difficult for those individuals, rendering them on occasion extremely vulnerable.

I recognise that section 9, as drafted, would cover that scenario, as it covers release planning for remand and sentenced prisoners. However, I want to ensure that the Scottish ministers and, indeed, Parliament have additional levers if further action is considered necessary to make improvements in this area. I therefore consider that the Scottish ministers should have the power to make further provision in the area if they need to, particularly in relation to supporting people who are released directly from court following a period of remand, given all that we now know about how challenging that is.

My amendments 46 and 47 would hence provide ministers with regulation-making powers to make further provision in this area, should they need to. My amendments specifically reference the issue of release direct from court, following time on remand. I believe that Parliament must have a role in scrutinising any future use of the powers, so my amendments require that they be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I hope that those powers are not needed and that sections 9 and 10 work as intended. However, I feel that the additional powers would be helpful to ensure that the outcomes that we all seek—reductions in reoffending and better outcomes for people leaving prison—are achieved.

I move amendment 46.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for supporting amendments 46 and 47 in my name. I welcome the additional amendments that she lodged, which provide comprehensive detail on the guidance set out on release planning. I have nothing further to add beyond the points that I set out earlier. I will press amendment 46.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Audrey Nicoll]—and agreed to.

Amendment 48 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Throughcare support

Amendment 49 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

The recently published “European Drug Report 2023” highlights that, across Europe, opioids, in combination with other substances, remain the group of substances that are most commonly implicated in drug-related deaths. It also notes that the proportion of deaths among older age groups is increasing. Furthermore, the report highlights that the hidden and stigmatised nature of high-risk drug use makes preventing and responding to drug harm extremely difficult.

With reference to MAT standard 3, can the minister outline the progress that is being made to ensure that people at high risk of drug-related harm are proactively identified and offered support to commence or continue MAT?

As the minister has explained at some length, the narrow limits within which we can carry forward additional resource makes managing underspend a very careful balancing act. How does the Scottish Government’s underspend compare with that of other devolved nations that are also required to balance their budgets?

Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received apologies from Pauline McNeill, and Katy Clark is joining us online.

Our main item of business is consideration of a draft affirmative instrument: the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland (Constitution, Arbitration and Qualifying Cases) Regulations 2023. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and her Scottish Government officials. We are joined by Peter Jamieson and Graham Thomson, from the police division, and Louise Miller, from the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 1 and annex B in our briefing paper, and I thank the Scottish Police Federation for its comments.

I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the regulations.

Finally, I invite members to agree to delegate to me and the clerks the publication of a short factual report on the SSI.

Members indicated agreement.

My question was whether you had had sight of the Scottish Police Federation’s submission and had had an opportunity to consider the points that it made about the constitution.

That is helpful. I point out that, in its submission, the Scottish Police Federation says that it feels that the proposals are

“relatively strong in our favour and in the spirit of fairness, acceptable to SPF.”

I open the questioning to other members.

I will pick up and clarify the point about the options for the committee today. We are aware that the Scottish Police Federation has made a number of recommendations for amending the SSI and, as the cabinet secretary has pointed out, it is not possible for a committee to do that, in so far as SSIs come to committee as they are and we either agree them or do not. The only option available to members if they wish to see changes is to vote against the motion or to ask whether there is scope for the SSI to be withdrawn and brought back in a revised version. From what the cabinet secretary has said, she is not minded to do that. I hope that that provides some clarity.

I will try to pull the discussion together. I appreciate the points that members have made and the cabinet secretary’s responses to them.

It is important to clarify that the federation seems to seek that the wording of the constitution be amended. We have heard—I refer specifically to the update from Louise Miller—that, down the line, the constitution can be amended, which would be a separate process from agreeing the SSI in its current form today.

Is that correct, cabinet secretary?