Chamber and committees

Lastly, I ask Teresa Medhurst to answer that question.

My question is why it has taken so long. Why would it take to 2025-26? Is that just how long it takes to build a prison? It seems an extraordinarily long timetable. That means that, for five years, until we imprison fewer people, the largest prison in the estate, which is over capacity, will still take the wrong prisoners—it is meant to be a short-term prison but it is taking long-term prisoners—and we will not be able to get prisoners out of their cells. What is the explanation for why it will take until 2026? I thought that it was 2025, but now you are saying that it is 2026.

I will make it quick. To be honest, I am not sure who is best placed to answer this, but I hope that the witnesses can help me.

We have heard a lot of important stuff, including from Ashley Cameron, about secure care, which probably needs to be reviewed and so on. I know that we are going to come on to discuss deaths in custody, but I want to highlight the case of William Lindsay—also known as William Brown—although I am sure that there are others. He was a 16-year-old who should have been referred to secure care and not to a prison—everyone involved in the case was clear about that. However, my understanding is that secure care was not available.

Has anything happened since that case? I know that there have been other cases to deal with—there seems to be a lack of secure care. I believe that we are only mandated to a maximum of 70 or 80 per cent, leaving the remainder for English placements. I do not understand why we have done that, so can anyone help me understand it? Does anyone have any answers as to whether we have actually acted since that case? To me, it is a death that could have been avoided.

I thank the minister for her thorough explanation. I do not have any questions, but it is worth noting that the minister specifically said that there will be no immunity in relation to road traffic offences, which was an issue that sprung to my mind.

So you have the money, but it takes three to four years to design and build a prison.

A University of Glasgow study of 200 fatal accident inquiries into deaths in custody found that, in 90 per cent of cases, sheriffs made no recommendation to improve practices, which I found surprising. I think that the cabinet secretary mentioned the issue in the tail end of his answer to Gillian Mackay. In view of that study, I thought—

I think that the cabinet secretary referred to the independent review into deaths in custody, which have become a serious issue for Scotland. Will the Government commit to implementing its key findings quickly so that we can learn from past mistakes?

The Scottish Government is rightly concerned about the current situation with Covid. As Jackie Baillie said, the daily infection rate is too high, and we clearly need to do something about it. However, I do not believe that introducing vaccine certification passports is the right thing to do, nor have the arguments that I have heard from the Government and its back-bench members today given me confidence. As we just heard, Paul McLennan was unable to answer Daniel Johnson when he rightly asked for the science behind the argument that is being made.

The views of the much-quoted Stephen Reicher, whom the First Minister quoted today, do not really support anyone’s argument. If members actually read all his tweets, they will see that he says many things. He says that passports are neither negative nor positive, as the issues are “complex”, and that passports will have “have a mixed effect”. I am mystified as to how that backs up the Government’s arguments.

The TRNSMT festival kicks off in Glasgow tomorrow, with 50,000 people attending over the weekend. Those who are attending will require proof of a negative lateral flow test to be recorded on the Government’s website, which is something that Scottish Government officials asked for. One of the issues that is causing confusion for concertgoers is that the Government’s message has switched from wanting a negative lateral flow test to having a vaccine passport for entry.

The sector has acted responsibly so far. Venues such as the Sub Club already ask for proof of a negative test for entry, and Michael Grieve, who is the owner of the Sub Club, wrote to me yesterday and confirmed that the venue is taking other mitigation measures to reduce transmission.

He and many others in the sector say that a more honest position for the Government would be to admit that its real policy is to coerce 18 to 29-year-olds to get vaccinated. The Government cannot even define what a nightclub is and the inconsistency in its approach to nightclubs versus large pubs is staggering. The sector is livid about the suggestion by public health figures in the press this week that ventilation in nightclubs is poor. Many venues in Glasgow—the city that I represent—heavily invested in ventilation before the pandemic and are insulted that there does not seem to be any understanding of that.

I asked representatives from the sector what they are willing to accept. I want to put on the record that the sector accepts that it has to do something, but vaccine passports would be incredibly difficult for hospitality venues and nightclubs to enforce—any proper engagement from the Government would highlight that. A certification scheme would be an added burden for nightclubs in particular, which already have to supervise long queues to ensure the safety of those attending in relation to drugs and weapons. That is the reality on the ground. Has any real consideration been given to nightclubs that already have to do that?

Threatening the sector with being closed down altogether does not help the discussion. That is the wrong tone for the Government to take to get the sector on board. It is unfair to place further demands on a sector that has had to endure more than its fair share of hardship due to Covid, particularly as it has been closed for more than 18 months, and because there is conflicting evidence on the benefits of a passport scheme. There is no hard evidence that it will make a difference.

I agree with Stephen Kerr that the measure will damage the sector, but there has been no offer of mitigation. I asked the First Minister yesterday, but she did not reply to me at all. The Night Time Industries Association has warned that nightlife businesses will lose more than a third of their trade if Covid passports are made mandatory. It points out that staff shortages will intensify, as many employees have indicated that they will quit the sector rather than accept compulsory vaccination.

The NTIA’s chief executive officer, Michael Kill, who I quoted yesterday, said:

“Contrary to popular belief, much of our core market and workforce will not accept being coerced into taking the vaccine.”

I ask again: why is the Government so convinced that this approach will have the desired effect? As we all know, we can still catch Covid and transmit it even if we have been vaccinated. The Government needs to be clear about why it has opted for that approach.

Many communities have low uptake of the vaccine. The real challenge for the Government is how to tackle that issue. The plan to impose vaccine passports only on nightclubs is flawed. Gillian Martin demonstrated that it is difficult to draw the distinction between nightclubs and large pubs. People would have to provide a passport to go to a nightclub, but a pub next door with a capacity of 400 and a DJ playing loud music would not require a vaccine passport for entry. It is a mystery why the Government does not see that there is an inconsistency there.

Promoters and sporting venues are already having to invent a refund policy due to the new rules, because people who are not vaccinated will not be able to attend. This questionable scheme to get the Government’s intended outcome will have a massive effect on the sector.

I hope that the Government accepts that we understand that it has to take action. We are not coming from an absolutely principled position on certification, although plenty people have written to me and to many other members to ask our parties to take such a position. However, the scheme is not practical, it will not have the desired effect, it is inconsistent and it will damage the night-time economy. The engagement on the development of the scheme has been woeful, so I hope that the Government will learn lessons and bring to the Parliament a measure that we can all get behind, because that is what we want to do.

We, in Scottish Labour, add our voices to that of the cabinet secretary in offering condolences to the families of John Yuill and Lamara Bell.

There were many troubling factors leading to the death of those two young people, and lessons must be learned from the huge mistakes in the case and from the fact that it took six years for the family finally to have a court confirm the failings of Police Scotland, with an admission of corporate criminal liability.

What deeper reflections does the cabinet secretary have, in issuing an apology, about ensuring that such a thing cannot happen again, and that all steps are taken? It is clear that failing to accompany the centralisation of Police Scotland with adequate staffing and training was a factor. We know that because various reports indicate that the officer who took the call, who had stepped in due to staff shortages, was not a trained telephone operator, and he did not even have access to the IT systems. That was a monumental, complete systems failure. A properly resourced 101 call centre with well-trained staff is obviously crucial. We have heard that, of 71,000 calls, 40 per cent were left unanswered.

I acknowledge that confidence in Police Scotland remains high, but I ask the cabinet secretary to say whether, with what I have said in mind, he is really satisfied that Police Scotland has the necessary resource to ensure that such a situation can never happen again. When the fatal accident inquiry proceeds, how can we ensure that it is completed speedily, and that the public see that justice is done and that there is accountability?

Good morning. As my colleagues have done, I put on record my commendation of all the services and organisations for their incredibly hard work in getting through the crisis.

I found the submission from the Faculty of Advocates helpful in setting out and identifying what practitioners thought would be helpful to keep and what would not be helpful to keep. That will be a central issue for the committee as we examine how to go forward. In the section about the backlog of trials, the faculty talks about the role of the defence and how the “depletion of talent” might impact on what seems to be good progress in dealing with the backlog of trials. Would Tony Lenehan like to expand on that?