Chamber and committees

Yes, I do. I would like an early indication of additional investment in GPS technology. Considering all that we would need to do to provide safety for communities, I think that investment in GPS technology would need to be front ended.

Karyn McCluskey, head of Community Justice Scotland, pointed out that good, structured, unpaid work helps to repair the harm that people have caused and gives them purpose. We know that. There is power in seeing the results of our labour, but we need such sentences to be more robust, and we need sheriffs presiding over them in order for us to have confidence in them.

Another reason for our overcrowded prisons is extremely high reoffending rates, particularly for those serving short-term prison sentences. There has been a revolving door. We already know about that, and there is evidence to show that there is less reoffending with community sentencing. The rate is far lower if people are given a community payback order—just one quarter of people on those are reconvicted within a year.

This month, three teenagers were convicted of murdering Kayden Moy at Irvine beach last May. That is just one example. In that case, the superintendent, Graeme Gallie, said that

“violent crime among young people is falling”

but that

“weapon carrying is on the rise.”

That is the point that the Scottish Government needs to think about in its strategy. The superintendent also said:

“We have through our stop and search activity noticed that weapon-carrying is on the increase, especially amongst teenagers.”

Of course, we know that some teenagers carry a weapon because they want to feel safe.

I have had some conversations with the legal profession—

I have to get a chance to set the context, but, okay, I will ask the question.

Has the Government spoken to the legal profession, which has defended boys, about how we can take a different approach to explain to young people the implications for their lives? I am really asking the Scottish Government whether it might need to think about a refresh of its policy.

I will conclude with a specific point on deaths in custody, which the Criminal Justice Committee had a brief chat about on Wednesday morning. There was a promise in the recommendations that families would get unfettered access to the prison system to understand what happened. That is an example of a recommendation that has not been implemented. My plea is that, in this parliamentary session, there should be more implementation of things that had already been recommended in the first place; otherwise, the public will further lose confidence in the justice system.

I move amendment S7M-00469.2, to insert at end:

“; is concerned that the current prison population crisis is chronically hampering effective rehabilitation; calls on the Scottish Government to increase its investment in GPS technology and speed up its roll out, and notes that the current approach to rehabilitation, community justice and early release is failing to address the prison population crisis.”

14:54

Fulton MacGregor made an important point in his speech. I looked back at the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 that changed how we deal with long-term prisoners, which is covered in the consultation. Fulton MacGregor said—and I agree with this—is that, in the debate on that legislation, there was a bit of a competition about who would be toughest in relation to the justice system. That is a difficult issue for politicians, and it is a big challenge for the Government.

One way in which the Government could demonstrate its commitment to balancing the realities in the political scenario around justice issues is by putting serious investment into alternatives. I know that the cabinet secretary has made an announcement in that regard, but it seems quite small. I think that all parties would like to see a bigger investment.

I am trying to get across a substantial point. I want to give the background—

Scottish Labour welcomes the opportunity to have an early discussion on the state of the Scottish prison system. There is a lot in the amendments from the other parties with which we agree. We have just heard a considerable announcement. I will address some of it, albeit briefly. I hope that the Presiding Officer will consider that we all heard the announcement only an hour ago and have to try to respond to it.

I reiterate what I have said before: it is a national disgrace that we are nowhere near solving the problem of an overcrowded prison system that is making it extremely difficult for staff to manage prisons, and is making things extremely difficult for prisoners themselves. As we have heard from HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, we are breaching international standards and human rights. I have consistently raised my concerns about prisoners not being guaranteed time out of their cells, and a number of prisoners have written to me, as a criminal justice spokesperson, because they cannot get access to the rehabilitation programmes that it is vital for them to do in order to be considered for release back into the community.

We must be clear about the severe state of the Scottish prison system. I do not believe that that was inevitable—Stephen Kerr alluded to that in his intervention—and the reality is that, in 20 years of Scottish National Party Government, ministers did not even consider that there might be an increase in the prison population. Henry McLeish warned of that in 2008, and he was not the only person to do so. There have been warnings that it could happen, yet here we are.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has just taken up his post, and I respect the fact that he is at least attempting to put some bold proposals out there. I will address some of them briefly. Changing the definition of long-term sentences from more than four years to more than five years has serious implications. In my understanding, that means that there are prisoners who have committed serious offences who would be eligible for release under the rules of the short-term prisoner regime. Those who have followed the debate will know that that is early release at 30 per cent of the sentence served, and the definition of short-term sentence would increase to sentences of less than five years.

I have some preliminary concerns about that. On the release of long-term prisoners at 60 per cent or two thirds of their sentence, when I was not in Parliament, one of the big issues around the release of long-term prisoners was that the public thought that a prisoner’s sentence would be served in jail, and nobody could really follow the number of years that they would spend there. There should be transparency in sentencing, and the public should understand the sentence that is given by the courts—I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board in the consultation, because, for Scottish Labour, that is fundamental.

Questions remain about the potential changes. What investment is the Scottish Government prepared to make to commit in the longer term to robust alternatives, such as GPS monitoring, which is referred to in the Scottish Labour amendment, to ensure that communities are safe?

I do not mind saying that I have had this conversation with many previous cabinet secretaries. Scottish Labour has said that we are in favour of robust alternatives to custody, but, over a very long period of time, there has not been any serious approach to that.

Community sentencing cannot be a tick-box exercise.

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to renew its strategy on preventing knife crime, particularly among young people. (S7O-00131)

As we heard from the cabinet secretary, the UK Government’s National Security (State Threats) Bill introduces new offences of supporting or assisting organisations that are linked to foreign powers.

As has been noted, the bill was introduced to close loopholes. However, although it was introduced only this month, the reason for its introduction is clear: MI5 has reported a 35 per cent increase in state threat activity. That includes cyber operations, espionage and political interference, which I am sure members of the Parliament are interested in. Therefore, although the bill is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament, the wider issue is of interest to everyone.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is an argument for having consistency across the UK. As national security is a reserved issue, we want to align our systems to ensure the same level of public protection regardless of where someone is convicted.

The Scottish Government and the Parliament were given very limited time for scrutiny, so I understand why standing orders have to be suspended.

Scottish Labour supports strong action on national security but, as we have always said, we also want to ensure that we protect the integrity of the Scotland Act 1998, and if there are any implications for the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament—for example, in relation to the early release of prisoners—clearly it is a matter, albeit a minor one, for the Scottish Parliament.

Scottish Labour is content to support the Scottish Government’s legislative consent motion.

17:36

I agree with the minister that there is a challenge, because seized e-bikes have been found to be capable of going at up to 70mph, which is far above the 15.5mph legal limit. Many e-bikes have been modified and lack proper brakes for high speeds, which has led to the police calling them death traps. It has also been reported that, in Glasgow, there has been a 600 per cent increase in the number of children aged seven to 15 attending accident and emergency departments due to e-bike or e-scooter incidents.

Will the minister clarify whether the police have the powers to issue warnings or fines for what they regard as the dangerous use of e-bikes in pedestrian or residential areas? In parts of Glasgow that I have covered for many years, I am getting an alarming number of reports of incidents that go beyond antisocial behaviour and are now criminal issues.