Chamber and committees

Without focusing on the specific example that I mentioned, as it might be an extreme one, can you give us a bit more information about how possession of drugs is dealt with in prisons? It might have all sorts of consequences, including on length of sentence.

Is the fact that we have such inconsistency of practice due to a lack of resource, or is it a cultural or organisational problem? I do not know whether Suzy Calder has a view on that.

The committee has met small groups of former prisoners in private to discuss their experiences of drugs in prisons, and one of the people whom we met told us that, originally, he had been expected to serve a nine-year sentence but, in reality, had served 27 years in prison due to drug issues and drug use. Do you recognise that scenario? Will you tell us a bit more about how possession of drugs is dealt with in the prison system? Perhaps Linda Pollock might be the best person to come in on that.

So it is treated as a criminal matter. I understand.

We have heard a lot of evidence of inconsistency of practice across prisons and, in particular, inconsistency of provision of medication, recovery and other support services. The Scottish Recovery Consortium has said that there should be a minimum set of standards across prisons. What is your response to that?

You have made the point about access and organisation more than once in your evidence today, and we have also heard a lot of evidence about the lack of continuity of care and inconsistencies throughout the system in relation to throughcare and release. We have heard many examples of very good practice in some prisons, but clearly it is not uniform, and there are some very bad examples, too. Can you tell us a little bit about how you think good practice can be shared across the estate?

Perhaps you can also pick up some of the points that have already been made about whether the problem is lack of resource or cultural, and about whether we are not organising ourselves well enough to ensure that we are able to deliver, for example, the throughcare and release planning that is needed. As we know, the evidence shows that the more planning for release that is done, the more successful that release is and the less reoffending that takes place.

Who would like to respond to that?

Greenock police station has not been properly maintained for many years and is earmarked for closure. Police Scotland’s estates master plan also noted that Greenock needs a new station. Will the cabinet secretary give an update on the progress on delivering a new station for Greenock and confirm that it will have a custody suite?

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

We remain concerned that the bill might have unintended consequences and disappoint victims. We are also concerned about the significant amendments—for example, on victim notification and the rape shield—that were lodged by the Scottish Government at stage 3 but not considered by the committee. We are not opposed in principle to those proposals, but they are major changes that require consultation and scrutiny. Much of what we proposed and argued for at stage 2 on victim notification—such as a single point of contact—was agreed to and accepted by the Government, whereas the amendments that the Government lodged at stage 3 extend to many areas that were not scrutinised by the committee.

We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government did not proceed with the most polarising part of the original bill: non-jury rape trials. These were controversial, and we do not believe that they were the top demand of victims. Indeed, many of the rape survivors whom we spoke to said that the jury was not an issue for them. It is unclear how the changes to jury size and jury majority and the abolition of the not proven verdict will impact conviction rates.

One of the most significant complaints from complainers is about the delay that they experience in the system. We are concerned that an unintended consequence of the bill could be further delays, given the massive reorganisation that will be required to create new courts. Even if extra resource were put into the new courts, the result would be less resource for the High Court and the sheriff courts, which may continue to deal with many rape and sexual offence cases. We would have been more supportive if the proposals had been more radical, with new buildings and infrastructure, so that a very different environment was created. However, the reality is that the new courts will use the same buildings and rooms, and complainers are likely to be walking into a similar set-up but with new signage.

We support radical cultural change and embedding trauma-informed practice throughout the system for victims and witnesses. We believe that the experience of other countries is that one of the most effective ways of delivering justice for victims is by empowering them within the system. Yesterday, I spoke about some of the international examples in which victims have been given stronger voices and more access to information.

The whole of my speech addresses the point that Rona Mackay is making.

There are many proposals in the bill that we agree with. Indeed, many of them do not actually require legislation. For example, with regard to part 1, we strongly support the proposals for trauma-informed practice, but that should be happening already, and the Government needs to be driving that policy. We strongly support that approach, but we do not need the bill for that. What we need today is not warm words but the kind of real action that will improve the experiences of victims and witnesses in the system. Our view is that giving them access to information and to independent legal advice and representation and enabling their voices to be heard in the system are probably the most powerful steps that could be taken.

We welcome the very narrow provisions on independent legal representation in relation to access to medical records, but we believe that far more needs to be done. The bill was far too large. The committee attempted to give equal scrutiny to the different parts of the bill, but, inevitably, much of the scrutiny focused on proposals that have now been removed from the bill, and too many parts of the bill received little or no scrutiny or were added late. Therefore, unfortunately, on this occasion, we are unable to support the Government.

I would like to declare an interest, in that I am a member of the House of Lords, on leave of absence.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was a technical problem. I would have voted yes.