Chamber and committees

It is broadly similar.

It is my understanding that past experience always informs future negotiations over matters in and around such important agreements.

It will be for the UK Government to meet the costs that are incurred by Glasgow City Council and Police Scotland. The Home Office has been very clear on that. We are still some distance away from the general assembly. We are looking at November next year, so much of the work on estimating costs will continue. Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council are confident that the plans that they have in place are appropriate, but there will continue to be very close dialogue between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and, of course, our partners in Glasgow.

As my speaking note and the policy memorandum indicate, the order has two functions. One is to enable Glasgow to host the general assembly of Interpol, so there is very specific consideration given to the operational needs of Interpol with respect to those functions. The other purpose to the order is that it is particularly important post-Brexit to ensure that the United Kingdom can continue to collaborate with Interpol, given its importance as an international forum of co-operation in law enforcement.

There is no end date to the order, and it is for either party—Interpol or the United Kingdom—to terminate it. It is a necessary order for the specific function of the general assembly and the individuals who will attend the general assembly. Its broader function relates to what the UK Government has negotiated in the agreement to secure an on-going relationship with Interpol, and it is in all our interests for the UK to continue to engage with Interpol.

I am grateful to Mr Greene for raising those matters. It is, of course, a great opportunity for the city of Glasgow. It is a prestigious international event. It is not as big as the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—as it will be on a smaller scale and will not last for the same duration. It will have fewer delegates than visited Glasgow during COP26. Nonetheless, it is a great opportunity for the city to show that it is well able to host such events.

I will re-read the pivotal sentence in my statement: there is an exception to immunity in respect of road traffic accidents. I think that that is very clear. I do not know whether officials wish to add anything, but the fact of the matter is that there is an exception to immunity.

Good morning, convener, and thank you. The draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 confers various legal immunities and privileges on the International Criminal Police Organization, which is more commonly known as Interpol, and specified categories of people who are connected to Interpol so far as it is within the devolved competence of this Parliament. The United Kingdom Government has negotiated a privileges and immunities agreement with Interpol to provide it with the privileges and immunities that are necessary for it to function effectively in the UK and to enable Glasgow to host the 2024 Interpol general assembly, for which granting privileges and immunities is a prerequisite.

The agreement regulates the privileges and immunities that are afforded to Interpol, such as certain tax exemptions and immunity under certain conditions from legal process. The agreement obliges the United Kingdom to abide by the terms of the agreement. The order before the committee today fulfils those obligations in so far as they relate to devolved matters in Scotland. Equivalent provision in respect of reserved matters and devolved matters in the rest of the UK is being conferred by legislation at Westminster. However, to the extent that privileges and immunities relate to devolved matters in Scotland, conferral rightly falls to the Scottish Parliament. When respective parliamentary passage is complete, both orders will go before the Privy Council in July.

To assist the committee, I will say a little bit more about the nature of the privileges and immunities that are involved. The immunities cover things that are done or omitted to be done by members of Interpol only while exercising their official functions in connection with Interpol and the general assembly. There is an exception to the immunity in respect of road traffic accidents. All persons enjoying privileges and immunities are expected to respect the laws and regulations that are in force in the UK, and the secretary general of Interpol must co-operate at all times with the appropriate UK authorities to prevent any abuse of the privileges and immunities. The order also provides for the inviolability of any private residence of the secretary general, exemption and privileges in respect of personal baggage, and exemption or relief from all devolved and local taxes.

It is customary to grant such privileges and immunities to diplomatic missions and international organisations to enable them to function. The agreement is broadly in line with global practice and includes provisions to ensure that immunities and privileges do not impede the proper administration of justice. The privileges and immunities that are conferred by the draft order are granted primarily on the basis of strict functional need. They are no greater in extent than those that are required to enable Interpol and specified individuals connected with Interpol to function effectively. The immunity does not apply to a person who is a British citizen or any person who at the time of taking up his or her functions is a permanent resident of the United Kingdom.

Immunities and privileges are, therefore, limited in that they apply only to official functions and can be waived. The immunity is analogous to but more limited than the immunity that has been for generations conferred on diplomats working in foreign jurisdictions. As with diplomatic immunity, all individuals benefiting from privileges and immunities in Scotland are expected to respect Scots law, both criminal and civil.

The draft order implements the agreement that the UK has reached with Interpol in line with global practice. It enables Interpol to hold the general assembly in Glasgow and conduct its activities in the UK, while ensuring and upholding protections for the effective administration of justice. As a good global citizen, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to bring the order to the Parliament for consideration. I commend the order to the committee.

I will make a few points by way of intervention. I was forgetting that it is not me who will sum up for this group, so I have been sitting here taking notes.

To pick up your earlier point, in essence, the provision is about risk to life. If we had time to reconvene the Parliament, contact the committee and get on Microsoft Teams, the decision would not be one for this power.

It is imperative that we have this debate and discussion now, during peacetime—if I can use that word—as opposed to scrambling around and trying to pull together emergency actions that might or might not be underpinned by emergency powers.

As I have outlined, section 8 states that an “emergency situation” is one that places at significant risk

“the security and good order of a prison”

or

“the health, safety, and welfare of prisoners”

and staff. In essence, this is about life and limb.

On Ms McNeill’s point about regulations, we could narrow things in relation to who could be released. We will continue to engage with members and victim support organisations on that point. I hope that that is helpful.

Thank you. In relation to the operation of prisons, I appreciate that this is difficult, because we are trying to future proof without knowing what specific disasters could come down the track. However, if a prison did not have the space or capacity to safely look after all the prisoners, and if that was of significance in that there would be a risk to the health, safety and life of staff and prisoners in the event of a fire, resulting in the absolute necessity to release some prisoners, surely we would want to release prisoners who presented a lesser risk? That is part of our work to—

I am clear, as I know that others have been, that ending scheduled liberations on a Friday or the day before a public holiday is the right thing to do. It will enable more people to access on release the support that they need and that will keep them and others safe.

The policy intent behind section 6 is to increase access to those services, including housing, mental health and addiction support, and contact with justice social work. It is common sense, and the proposal itself came from a recommendation from, among others, the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce. However, I make it clear to members that this is not an either/or situation; we absolutely have to improve out-of-hours access, particularly to addiction services and family support. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think that we really need to bring all the solutions to the table, but this is one practical solution that we can put in place now.

That said, it is clear that, if Fridays and the day before public holidays are added to the existing list of excepted days, more releases will take place on a Thursday. Given that, as the member has said, we do not currently release people on public holidays or the weekend, there is already compression and pressure on Fridays that could then be displaced to Thursdays. That would increase the pressure on both community-based services and the Prison Service on that particular day of the week and would risk undermining the intent behind this provision.

To try to mitigate that impact, then, section 6 also provides that individuals whose release date would ordinarily fall on a Thursday will have their release moved to the nearest preceding suitable date. In practice, that will largely mean their being released the day before—in this case, the Wednesday—although I appreciate that there will be exceptions to that. I also note that section 6 does not seek to move any other dates.

This approach was not decided on some whim; it was—and is—intended to support the underlying principle of section 6, which is to enable people to access the services that they need on release from prison in order to keep our communities safe. Given that, taken together, amendments 68 and 69 would remove that provision, I cannot, for the reasons that I have outlined, support them, and I ask Russell Findlay not to press amendment 68 and not to move amendment 69.

Amendment 71 would require the Scottish ministers to report annually on the distribution of prison releases across the days of the week. Of course, the Government acknowledges that monitoring is important, but the amendment would also require the Scottish ministers to report on whether services were still being provided by the bodies listed in section 34A(2) of the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 to deliver

“the effective release of prisoners on Thursdays.”

A number of non-Scottish Government amendments to part 2 of the bill call for various reports and reviews, and I agree that it will be important to review the impact of the provisions. I am therefore minded to lodge at stage 3 an amendment that will encompass the various asks for reviews in the different sections of part 2 to provide a more coherent picture. I therefore ask Mr Findlay not to move amendment 71.

Will the member give way?