Chamber and committees

Glasgow city and region has not had a serious transport project under the SNP Administration since 2007, but we desperately need one. The proposal for the Clyde metro has no timescale and no serious funding allocated to it. It appears to be more of a concept in a document than a real and tangible transport project.

When is that project likely to start? When will it be a reality? Will it be in five years or 10 years, or is the cabinet secretary saying that it will take 20 years? I think that the people of Glasgow and the wider city region have a right to know.

I largely agree with Russell Findlay’s comments. We need to take proportionate action to tackle the scourge of drugs in our prisons, and I am content that the regulations are necessary.

As other members did, I asked the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, for reassurances in relation to prisoners who might innocently get caught up in what is happening. I felt satisfied that prisoners would be present if any suspect mail went through the process. That gave me some reassurance.

I think that it is useful to put on the record that the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation has written to the committee to express concerns. It acts on behalf of convicted prisoners when it feels that there is a credible case that there has been a miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that correspondence.

I for one will be listening out and monitoring the impact of the regulations, to make sure that they are proportionate.

One of the concerns that Families Outside raises is that families of prisoners might stop writing to them because of a fear that something untoward would happen to their innocently sent correspondence, such as birthday cards.

For those reasons, I think that the committee should keep an eye on the regulations.

I will start with the point that Russell Findlay made about fatal accident inquiries. There is a lot to welcome, but I have a few points that need further investigation or amplification.

I, too, am surprised that the cabinet secretary thinks that the current system for deaths in custody represents the right model for the future, given the extraordinary length of time that families are waiting. A big piece of work by the Scottish Government is needed, along with some investment.

I do not fully understand the relationship between the response and the Scottish Government’s recent statement that deaths in custody will be investigated independently. We heard that powers will be given to those who are tasked with that to ensure that they can get on with the job of getting to the bottom of deaths in custody with no barriers and with unfettered access. We have had an extraordinary number of deaths in custody, and a lot of families are really concerned about the length of time that it takes to investigate them. I share Russell Findlay’s view that there seems to be a bit of complacency on the issue. I would have thought that there needs to be some investment attached to the measures.

My second point relates to the implementation of measures in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, such as victims being offered support when making a statement. It seems to be a theme for the committee to explore whether there should be more formal support for victims in the system, either through being legally represented or in other ways. We need further investigation into that.

Finally, the Government has an excellent and comprehensive programme on violence against women and girls. I would like to see investment to ensure that the action plan is sustainable and that we make achievements along the way. I have made the point in Parliament a few times that there are cross-cutting issues between the justice portfolio and, for example, the equalities portfolio in relation to attitudes to violence against women and girls. We have seen high levels of sexual harassment of girls at a very young age. In some of our private sessions, we have discussed concerns about rape culture and other social issues. I would like cross-cutting investment between the justice department and other departments that have an obvious interest in that matter.

I thank the committee for the excellent work that it has done. We are all agreed that we have to reduce carbon emissions by retrofitting our homes. I will speak about the wide gulf between where we want to be and our ability to achieve it. So far, many speakers have addressed that.

What is important is that if Scottish householders are to be adequately supported to make changes, they must have confidence in alternative heating systems. Have we even agreed on what the trusted alternatives are? Mark Griffin, Liam McArthur and Liam Kerr have hit the nail on the head by raising some of those issues.

I am seriously concerned that ordinary families and workers have no idea of how to take matters forward, although I know that the minister has tried to address that. The majority do not have £7,000, £10,000 or £14,000 to spare for a new heating system. Even if they had, who will guarantee that the purchase of a zero-carbon heating system will reduce their heating bills or will be a genuinely more efficient heating system for their homes? There is a lot to consider—not just the financing of it.

The International Energy Agency has stated that if net zero is to be achieved, gas boilers should no longer be sold from 2025. Electric heat pumps—air source and ground source—are seen as the most effective alternatives to gas boilers. However, those can cost anything from £4,000 to £14,000 to purchase and install. That, presumably, is why demand remains low.

Last year, the UK Government announced grants of £5,000 for home owners in England and Wales to install heat pumps. In contrast, Home Energy Scotland offers households a maximum interest-free loan of £2,500 to install a heat pump, and that has to be paid back within 5 years. We see the wide gulf between where we would like to be and where we are. Demand is currently so low that, by October last year, Home Energy Scotland had approved loan funding for only 80 hybrid heat pumps—and in the previous year, the loans that it had approved were in single figures.

In the Glasgow region, which I represent, the cost of retrofitting is eye watering. Glasgow City Council’s leader, Susan Aitken, has estimated that it will cost £9 billion to retrofit around 450,000 homes. That is more than four times the council’s budget. We therefore see the wide gulf regarding what needs to happen.

Glasgow and Edinburgh, in particular, have to wrestle with the problems of retrofitting tenement flats. There are an estimated 182,000 tenements across Scotland, including around 73,000 in Glasgow. Those flats tend to be constructed of sandstone, and most were built pre-1919,?which?makes energy efficiency solutions much more complicated.

In April last year, the Niddrie Road project began. It is a pilot project to retrofit a block of eight tenements in Glasgow. John Gilbert Architects was commissioned by Southside Housing Association to undertake a full retrofit of the flats, which are empty. It is a massive job, including the renovation of the internal finishes and fittings as well as the upgrading of external elements such as the roof and stonework. The project aims to assess the replicability of the lessons learned for Glasgow’s wider pre-1919 tenement stock. However, the construction cost per flat is an incredible £88,000. When we can see those huge costs, we need to look at what would in fact be possible.

There is a huge number of issues to be addressed, including the huge skills shortage, which will be a problem for retrofitting our homes. I ask the Scottish Government to start engaging seriously with ordinary householders about how we will achieve those targets and to consider the reality that people will need extensive financial help.

Crucially, however, they will need not only financial help but help in relation to the type of heating systems that they can trust: the alternatives that have been tried and tested and that will directly benefit them as well as making sure that we make the reduction in carbon emissions in our homes across Scotland. Ordinary people should not pay a high price for a change.

It must benefit the whole of society.

It is really helpful to know that. Families Outside had asked about that issue, because the rules currently say that the prisoner “may” be asked to be present.

That being the case, if a complaint was made that correspondence had been read, it is not likely to have happened at that point, because the prisoner would have been present. That would have happened afterwards. Are you saying that, if a prisoner found out that their mail had been read or confidentiality had been breached, that would be dealt with by them making a formal complaint about it?

I put the question to you in order to understand the process. From what you are saying, it is quite robust, which has given me some satisfaction.

I have no further questions, convener.

Good morning. I totally accept the necessity for the Government to move ahead. I want to probe as much as I can into the detail of how the instrument will operate. Under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, there is a right to privacy and family life, especially for prisoners who are not involved in drugs. That is where I am going with this. Although Families Outside supports the statutory instrument, it has expressed a number of concerns and says that there is a concern that families might opt not to send correspondence, which could interfere with family relationships.

Teresa Medhurst has said that staff are not allowed to read letters. How do you propose to prevent that and ensure that families who are just keeping in touch with their loved ones in prison and are not involved in drugs have confidence in the system?

Thank you for that, but I do not want it to get to the stage where people have to complain. Is there a safeguard within the operating process that you can tell the committee about? The measures have been in place for only four weeks. What does the Prison Service have in place by way of a safeguard so that Families Outside and anyone else can be reassured? You said that you will “monitor” the situation, but what does that mean? Are you just going to wait until a complaint is made?

Today’s meeting is the first opportunity that the committee has had to drill down on the matter. I do not think that any of us is opposed to the instrument that we are considering, but we have a responsibility to raise such questions to make sure that, as the cabinet secretary said, the balance is right. I would like to know specifically what safeguard there is in the process.

Does that mean that the prisoner is present when a test is carried out?