Chamber and committees

I bring in Stewart Carle to add to that.

Thanks very much. That is very helpful.

Do you want to bring in Stewart Carle on that?

David, would you like to add to that?

Thank you, Pauline, and thank you, Jamie, for your words. Collette, I endorse what my colleagues have said. Thank you for your contribution. You have always been a really active member on the committee and we will miss you. We wish you both well in your new roles in the broader Parliament and on your new committees. Thank you for your contributions.

That concludes our business in public this morning.

Last but by no means least, we will hear from David Threadgold.

Thank you for your initial contributions, which covered a lot. I know that members have a lot of questions on and interest in the issue, so I will open up the session, kicking off with the deputy convener, Russell Findlay.

The introduction of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill is welcome in relation to the development of age-appropriate care and justice that places the rights, safety and wellbeing of children at its core. What steps are being taken in the development of the legislation to include the voices of children and young people with disabilities who have navigated the justice system?

I will come back to the member if I can.

The secure care estate may need to be reconfigured so that the very small minority of young people aged 18 or under who may present a risk to others can be held securely while the risk of them harming themselves or others is minimised. The committee also heard that, in future, consideration should be given to having a more flexible, individualised system rather than one that is based on age criteria alone.

The second issue that we considered was the rights of children who are held in police custody. Although we broadly welcome the bill’s provisions, we again seek assurances about resources. We recognise the funding implications that arise for local authorities from their proposed new role of providing an alternative place of safety for a child, rather than their being held in a police cell.

This is an important bill. Although it was not for our committee to reach a conclusion on its general principles, we heard support for the two main provisions that I have covered in the short time that was available to me today. I thank my fellow committee members for their constructive and collegiate approach to scrutiny of those provisions and I thank all the witnesses who engaged with us.

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.