Chamber and committees

A broad range of agencies have a role. I will start with justice social work, and social work more broadly, because it is an area that I know well. There is a huge role for justice social workers in the management of people who offend, but they are not telling me that they need any more powers to supervise release licences or community payback orders. I am interested in the work that is being done by our independent sentencing and penal policy commission in respect of our prison population. The question is whether we have the right breadth and depth of disposals and alternatives to custody. However, I do not want to go too far off-piste from my purpose here today.

Children and families social workers are hugely important. I am very pleased that my colleague, Ms Gilruth, has invested in some additional financial support for student social workers, because there is a recruitment and retention issue, particularly for children and families social workers, who have big child protection responsibilities. Obviously, doctors, nurses and schoolteachers all have a responsibility for safeguarding and for engaging with other services when there is a wellbeing concern. A whole host of services right across the public sector have very particular responsibilities.

That is the $6 million question, convener, and it is what we have to challenge ourselves with, as politicians and as parents. We are not sighted on all aspects of our young people’s lives, that is for sure.

I know about some of the work that other colleagues across Government have done to invest in and ensure that we have the right content on the Parent Club website. It is a question of how we reach more parents and more adults who are involved in ensuring that our children are safeguarded and well. We have a clear programme for Government commitment, and I am very pleased that Siobhian Brown, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and Natalie Don-Innes, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, are leading the online harms task force. That is an important bit of work. Notwithstanding the fact that regulation on online activity and online harms is reserved, we as a Government want to do everything that is in our capacity.

We need to engage young people; in many ways, they will guide us. As justice secretary, I am acutely conscious that the figures that started to emerge a few years ago show that the proportion of young people who are either the victim or perpetrator of image sharing or online harm is significant. That is why our services need to engage with our young people on the realities of their lives. They are much more tech savvy, I suspect, than anybody sitting around this table.

You might recall the Online Safety Act 2023, on which we engaged closely with the UK Government. Under the act are new offences that apply to Scotland on the criminalisation of sharing materials that are intended to encourage or assist in harming others. Part of our work is to raise awareness and make young people aware of the risks associated with those harms, as well as the risks associated with breaking the law.

There are examples of the uniformed organisations engaging with young people. I know that Police Scotland has a youth volunteers scheme. The military has its cadets, and they are very visible, certainly in the community that I represent, at local gala days and events.

At the end of the day, this is everybody’s responsibility. These are our children, and we need to exercise our responsibility to rear them well and keep them safe and happy.

It is important to say that we continue to live in a safe country and that the long-term trends for offending overall, including youth offending, are on a downwards trajectory. In more recent times, from the Scottish crime and justice survey and other information, we have seen that changes in behaviour tend to be in and around schools, and we need to respond to that. One of the reasons why the summit was useful is that, in many ways, it reaffirmed and added to our understanding of the changing behaviour of some young people and the causes of that.

Essentially, you can boil that down to the long shadow of Covid and lockdown on some of our young people, which included their being out of school and having more unstructured time, with more time that was devoid of the normal socialisation that young people would have with young people and adults and when out with their family.

Online harm continues to be a growing concern—that certainly concerns me deeply. We are seeing bullying and behaviours that are being orchestrated online spilling over into our schools and communities. There is also concern about online influencers and how they are damaging the view that young men have of their own sense of masculinity, which feeds into violence against women and girls.

I am concerned about any such change. It is, however, important to put that into context, because we need to understand things better. Information from Police Scotland shows that the number of serious assaults by 11 to 18-year-olds has reduced by more than a quarter—27 per cent—over the five years from 2019-20 to 2024-25. However, Police Scotland also advises—it presented this information to the Scottish Police Authority recently—that serious violence by young people in schools over that five-year period rose from six incidents to 40 incidents. Although those numbers, which are Scotland-wide figures, might appear low in total, we are concerned about the rate of the increase.

As I have said, it is not for a Scottish Government minister to decide what the penalties or punishment should be for any offender. That is very important, particularly if we believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law. Like all MSPs, I am under an obligation to support the independence of the judiciary. We passed legislation in Parliament in 2008, if I recall correctly, in that regard. What is important is that the process responds to offending and that there is a range of factors that the independent decision makers, whether in the judiciary or in the children’s hearings system, have to take into consideration. The impact on a victim is a factor, along with the severity of the offence, the pattern of offending and public protection.

Some of the more recent legislation that the Parliament has passed—the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, for example—has been about enabling more children to go through the children’s hearings system. However, it has also been about enhancing the rights of victims to receive information and widening the scope of offences that can be subject to movement restriction conditions, for example. Much of the work that I am currently involved in—through, for example, the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill—is around enhancing victims’ rights and, in particular, the victim notification scheme.

There is nothing soft about our justice system. The Scottish crime and justice survey is an important flagship survey. It gives us good information and the longer-term trajectories speak to falling rates of youth crime and Scotland being safer. However, you are quite right to point to the fact that the proportion of violent crime where the perpetrator is a child has increased to 31 per cent of incidents. That is what I meant earlier when I said that there is newer information in the shorter term that gives cause for concern. We need to acknowledge that it is not acceptable and that it must be addressed.

You ask what has gone wrong. I think that it is the change in the behaviour of some young people due to the challenges that I spoke about earlier. I know that people do not always appreciate this, but it was ably articulated at the round-table discussion chaired by the First Minister and me that lockdown during Covid has had an impact on young people’s behaviour. Youth work leaders, people at the forefront of violence prevention and, of course, teachers in our schools will all narrate that as a reason. We have spoken at length about the online harms that are exposing our children to outside influences, and that is an issue. Related to that is the influence of what is called toxic masculinity on some of our young men. Those are three important drivers of the recent changes.

As for what is gonnae work, there is value in and a place for youth work. I am a huge advocate for youth work, which is supported via the cashback for communities programme, for example. We often think of punishment, and there is a place for that, but, to change behaviour, young people need reliable and trusted relationships. We absolutely must continue with prevention work and must not be swayed into thinking that we need to put all our eggs into the punishment basket. We must continue to commit to the long-term preventative work, because we are seeing long-term improvements as a result. However, there is no doubt that we need to be acutely aware of and address the recent changes in the behaviour of some young people.

There is nothing soft about our justice system. The Scottish crime and justice survey is an important flagship survey. It gives us good information and the longer-term trajectories speak to falling rates of youth crime and Scotland being safer. However, you are quite right to point to the fact that the proportion of violent crime where the perpetrator is a child has increased to 31 per cent of incidents. That is what I meant earlier when I said that there is newer information in the shorter term that gives cause for concern. We need to acknowledge that it is not acceptable and that it must be addressed.

You ask what has gone wrong. I think that it is the change in the behaviour of some young people due to the challenges that I spoke about earlier. I know that people do not always appreciate this, but it was ably articulated at the round-table discussion chaired by the First Minister and me that lockdown during Covid has had an impact on young people’s behaviour. Youth work leaders, people at the forefront of violence prevention and, of course, teachers in our schools will all narrate that as a reason. We have spoken at length about the online harms that are exposing our children to outside influences, and that is an issue. Related to that is the influence of what is called toxic masculinity on some of our young men. Those are three important drivers of the recent changes.

As for what will work, there is value in and a place for youth work. I am a huge advocate for youth work, which is supported via the cashback for communities programme, for example. We often think of punishment, and there is a place for that, but, to change behaviour, young people need reliable and trusted relationships. We absolutely must continue with prevention work and must not be swayed into thinking that we need to put all our eggs into the punishment basket. We must continue to commit to the long-term preventative work, because we are seeing long-term improvements as a result. However, there is no doubt that we need to be acutely aware of and address the recent changes in the behaviour of some young people.

In every circumstance in which remote evidence is used, it is delivered in a way that is consistent with the solemnity and integrity of court proceedings. As the Crown Office set out in its evidence,

“Professional witnesses are sent additional information on what is expected of them”

if they are cited to attend a trial virtually.

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Office, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland have also agreed a witness protocol that sets rules that must be complied with by all witnesses who are giving evidence remotely—I have already referred to that. The protocol includes the rule that, while a witness is giving evidence, no one else can be in the same room or be able to overhear what has been said, unless the court gives express permission.

Moreover, when hearing remote evidence, the court has all its normal powers to regulate proceedings, either of its own accord or in response to an objection raised by parties. As such, if there were concern that the integrity of proceedings had been compromised, because the witness was not complying with the rules, the court would be able to address that appropriately.

Ms McNeill has previously probed the lack of a requirement in the bill for a witness to attend a Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service site or other approved place to give remote evidence. Again, I refer to the evidence of the Crown Office, which was supportive of the flexibility that could be afforded to police and professional witnesses and which highlighted that the framework of special measures to support vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence remains in place.

I would also point out that, in its stage 2 evidence, Victim Support Scotland highlighted its opposition to the amendment. Witnesses can, and continue to, give evidence remotely using SCTS remote sites and other purpose-built facilities. Therefore, I do not share Ms McNeill’s concerns and, with respect, ask her not to press or move her amendments.

My officials have engaged with justice agencies on amendments 41 and 42. On amendment 41, committee members will note the briefing from Victim Support Scotland, which cautions against such an approach and opposes that amendment.

There are a number of concerns about amendment 41. Again, as noted by Victim Support Scotland, there might be significant confidentiality and security concerns for some witnesses in having their addresses made available. There are also concerns that, when the direction is made—which is often far in advance of the trial—prosecutors might not know the location that remote evidence will be taken at, if it is subject to, say, witnesses’ working arrangements. As such, extra time and procedure will routinely be required to vary directions when, closer to the trial date, the location changes. A further concern is that being restrictive about location would limit the witness’s ability to be responsive to any pressures arising, where such matters might lead them to work from a location that is not their usual place of work.

On amendment 42, it is not clear how those requirements could be enforced, other than by the court reacting if there were real difficulties with the evidence being given. As the court would already be able to respond to that appropriately, I would be wary of placing an additional onerous and potentially impracticable obligation on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.

The bill already provides, at subsection 3 of proposed new section 303K of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, that the court must set out in its direction that enables a person to attend virtually how they ought to do that. In practice, that is achieved by providing them with information on how to use the Webex platform. The guidance is publicly available and, as I have mentioned, I can send it on.

As with in-person attendance, issues with individual cases will no doubt crop up from time to time. However, I am satisfied that over the past five years of the operation of those provisions, partners have refined the process and have no concerns about implementation when it comes to remote evidence. As with any aspect of operational practice, they will continue to keep matters under review. I acknowledge that things have not been as smooth with virtual custodies, and they are being paused to allow the development of an improved model that better meets the needs of all users.

As for Mr Kerr’s amendment 43, I do not think that it would be possible, as currently drafted, to deliver the required report. Information on technical issues is not collected and reported on in a systemic way, and to require that in relation to everything that might be considered a technical issue would be resource intensive.

However, if the report were to focus on improving understanding of how virtual attendance is delivering greater efficiency and effectiveness, and if it were more closely linked to existing data collection processes, we might be able to explore that further. If Mr Kerr’s concerns relate to virtual custodies, that will be addressed by the work that is being led by Malcolm Graham of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I am of course happy to engage further with Mr Kerr on that in advance of stage 3.

To conclude, I ask Mr Kerr and Ms McNeill not to move or press their amendments in this group.

Good morning. I thank the Parliament clerks, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee for agreeing to accommodate the scrutiny of the SSI within the minimum SSI laying period of 40 days.

I hope that the committee and the wider Parliament will support the proposals, which will allow us to complete the SSI process before Parliament rises for the summer recess. That will provide the Scottish Prison Service and justice social work staff with as much time as possible to make preparations before the proposed changes come into force on 20 October.

As members will be aware, the changes that are set out in the SSI relate to a commitment that was made in the programme for government for 2024-25. They are part of our on-going efforts to achieve an effective balance between the use of custody and the use of community alternatives, and they will support our efforts to achieve a sustainable population across our prisons.

Home detention curfew is a long-standing part of the prison system that is consistently deployed as a method of easing the transition from prison sentence back to the community. Home detention curfew provides a structured way to manage that transition, placing the individual under clear licence conditions and a nightly curfew, while allowing them to readjust to life in the community and engage with any support that they need.

The foundation of home detention curfew is the individualised risk assessment that is conducted by the Scottish Prison Service, with evidence provided by community-based justice social work staff before any individual is permitted release on home detention curfew. I assure members that the proposals in the SSI will not alter any of the risk assessment aspects of the HDC process.

The SSI proposes to allow home detention curfew to be granted from an earlier point in a prisoner’s custodial sentence, from the current point of 25 per cent of their sentence served in custody to 15 per cent. That change will help to realign the home detention curfew process with the new automatic release point for eligible short-sentence prisoners at 40 per cent. It will enable individuals to spend a similar proportion of their sentence on HDC to what they would previously have done. The SSI includes a further proposed change to increase the maximum permitted period that an individual can be granted home detention curfew, from 180 days to 210 days. That change will affect only a minority of prisoners, whose sentence length and other circumstances make it possible for them to be granted a longer period of HDC.

All eligible individuals will continue to have to pass the risk assessment and community assessment process before they are granted home detention curfew. HDC will continue to be based around the same risk assessment of each eligible individual. It is therefore not expected that those changes in time criteria will produce a significant increase in the number of individuals being granted HDC. Instead, it will facilitate suitable individuals to be granted more time on HDC than they currently can be, following the change in the automatic release point. That is likely to result in more individuals being in home detention curfew at any one time. However, the number of prisoners who will access home detention curfew in the future will continue to be shaped by the number of eligible individuals in the prison population at any one time and by how many of them pass the risk and community assessments.

Overall, the proposed changes are relatively straightforward. They are intended to enable individuals who are eligible and have been assessed as suitable to be granted more of the days on home detention curfew that they are eligible for. On that basis, I encourage members to indicate their support for the SSI. As always, I am happy to answer members’ questions.