Chamber and committees

I am pleased to support Jamie Greene’s amendments 13 and 14. The Government is committed to continuing to engage with justice partners and victims’ organisations on the temporary justice measures in the bill. Amendment 13 would embed a statutory duty for ministers to consult as part of considering whether to extend these temporary measures.

The bill already requires that, if ministers seek to extend the expiry date of the temporary justice measures in the bill, they must provide Parliament with a statement of their reasons for an extension. These amendments would strengthen that requirement by requiring that the statement of reasons must include a summary of the consultation and the findings of the review. I therefore welcome the amendments, which would enhance Parliament’s ability to scrutinise any extensions effectively.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Section 42—Regulations under this Part

Ensuring the security and good order of our prisons and young offenders institutions and the health and safety of both those detained in them and those who work in them is absolutely vital. It is a responsibility that I take extremely seriously. The emergency prisoner release power—which, I remind the Parliament, the Scottish Government has used only once since it was introduced under the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020—is a way of meeting that important responsibility. The Scottish Government currently has no plans to use the power, but we have all seen how unpredictable the coronavirus and its variants can be and the significant impact that coronavirus outbreaks have on the prison regime.

Without these temporary provisions, we would be required to introduce emergency legislation if the impact of the coronavirus placed the security of our prisons or young offenders institutions at risk. Even emergency legislation would take time that we could not afford. For those reasons, the Government is opposed to Russell Findlay’s amendment 92.

Amendments 93 and 95, in the name of Jamie Greene, seek to provide that victims be notified before prisoners are released under that mechanism. I agree that ensuring that victims receive clear and appropriate information about prisoner release is critical. Indeed, that is why the Government is legislating to extend that provision to victim support organisations under our Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, which is proposed to take over from the extended temporary provisions in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill.

The regulations for the May 2020 early release process extended the remit of the victim notification scheme to include prisoners released under that mechanism. That meant that individuals who were registered with the scheme would be informed if the prisoner that they had registered to be notified about was to be released early. We intend to take that bespoke approach should the power ever be needed again.

The drafting of amendment 93 appears to require ministers to notify anyone registered with the victim notification scheme of the release of prisoners, but it is not specific about which prisoners or which victims should be notified. The drafting is so wide that it would mean that every victim who had registered with the notification scheme would need to be notified, not just the victims of prisoners who stood to be released under the emergency mechanism. That seems to risk unnecessarily retraumatising people, although I cannot believe that that is the intention behind it.

It is not my or the Government’s responsibility to correct an incompetent amendment. I have laid out what we think our approach should be. We think that that is the right approach, so why would I want to amend Jamie Greene’s amendment 93 if I do not agree with it in the first place?

I could be corrected, but I am sure that I said the same thing at stage 2. If we were to follow amendment 93, we would have to notify every victim who had registered with the scheme on the release of any prisoner. That cannot be what Jamie Greene intended. It is not my fault if that is the impact of the proposed amendment.

Amendment 93 also fails to provide an important safeguard on the sharing of information about prisoner release. The legislation underpinning the victim notification scheme provides the Scottish ministers, as the Scottish Prison Service, with a discretion not to share information with a victim who is registered with the notification scheme in certain circumstances. That discretion is, in part, to protect the human rights of the prisoner being released where they may be at risk from retaliatory attacks following release. Amendment 93 does not give the Scottish ministers such a discretion and, therefore, does not provide for that necessary safeguard.

For those reasons, the Scottish Government cannot support amendments 93 and 95, and I ask Jamie Greene not to move them.

Amendment 94, in the name of Russell Findlay, seeks to exclude individuals who are serving sentences of more than 12 months from emergency release. That is a sweeping and arbitrary exclusion, which I do not support. It would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the emergency release power—which is probably its intention—as a mechanism to manage the prison population in the face of a serious threat to security and good order caused by a deadly virus.

The bill as introduced included restrictions on the categories of prisoner who could be released under the emergency release power. I have been pleased to work with Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene to lodge amendments to impose further specific restrictions that are sensible and proportionate. They are considered and proportionate safeguards. The blanket exclusion from emergency release of anyone sentenced to more than 12 months, regardless of the offence, is not. I urge members not to support amendment 94.

Amendments 26 to 28, in my name, will place further restrictions on how the early prisoner release provision will operate. Those amendments give effect to proposals made by Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay at stage 2.

Amendment 26 restricts the use of the early release power so that it can be used to release prisoners with only six months or less of their sentence left to serve. Amendment 28 is consequential on amendment 26.

Amendment 27 excludes individuals who are serving sentences for offences under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 and the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 from release under the early release provision. It gives effect to a proposal from Russell Findlay at stage 2 but goes further by also excluding from emergency release individuals who are serving sentences for offences with a domestic abuse aggravation under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016.

I invite members to support the amendments in my name.

I believe what I said to be true. I do not think that the Conservatives ever had any intention of supporting the bill in its final form. I believe that to be the case.

In relation to the Labour Party, it is unbelievable to hear somebody try to rewrite history. The Labour Party has a history of centralisation, of PFI, of compulsory competitive tendering and of local government ring fencing. Those of us who lived through it know that that is the real history.

In relation to the point about changing PFI to public-private partnerships, I remember putting forward a bid for a trust model to build three new houses, but the Labour Party turned it down and said that PFI must be used. That PFI legacy lives on in councils throughout the land through the debts that they face because of the Labour Party. More than 30 per cent of our funding from the Labour Executive was ring fenced. That is what Labour did in terms of centralisation, so forgive me if I do not take too seriously some of the points that Labour members made on centralisation. They should remember their past.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The app is getting a bit tired. I would have voted yes.

I seem to have enlivened the Labour group, which is good to see.

I am disappointed that some members remain of the view that the current bill process should not be used to enact key public health and education continuity powers now, ahead of the temporary legislation expiring in September.

We also heard that the Government should not act in advance of the conclusion of the public inquiry. I think that we all agree that the public inquiry must be independent and that we cannot fix its timescales. I know in my heart that, if we were to say that we will do nothing just now and that we will wait until the end of a public inquiry, we would be attacked by the Labour Party for sitting on our hands and doing nothing about the situation.

In relation to the current bill process, Professor Fiona de Londras, who was mentioned by Murdo Fraser, has said:

“There is significant scope for public and parliamentary involvement. The bill is a product of a meaningful pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation process. MSPs have been given plenty of time to prepare for the legislative stages. The robust treatment of the bill through this ordinary process is very welcome.”

I agree with the Deputy First Minister that digital public service reforms should not disadvantage service users who cannot, or prefer not to, use digital means. We absolutely recognise that some people cannot or do not want to use technology to access services, and we remain committed to offering alternative options. We are also working with partners to support connectivity across Scotland and to minimise the risks of digital exclusion. However, it is important to emphasise, as the Deputy First Minister has said, that nothing in the bill as amended precludes in-person or paper-based services.

The bill’s education provisions are based on our experience of the Covid pandemic. Ensuring continuity of education for children and young people, and students, is at the heart of the measures. The Government is committed to continued engagement with education stakeholders as we implement the bill’s provisions.

The debate on the rent freeze amendment was important. The Government is committed to doing what it can to tackle such issues in ways that are workable and robust. I am very grateful to Ross Greer for the interventions that he made; he put some facts into the debate.

The bill supports Covid recovery in the justice system and the Government’s Covid recovery ambitions more widely. Ministerial colleagues and I have listened to stakeholders, Opposition MSPs and scrutiny committees, and the bill has been improved in the amending stages in the ways in which the Deputy First Minister set out earlier. I have made it clear that engagement on justice system reforms will continue and that there will be further justice bills in this parliamentary session. The most significant public health and education powers in the bill are now subject to additional strong parliamentary safeguards, including, but not limited to, the gateway vote mechanism.

As the Deputy First Minister said, there are provisions in the bill that can be supported by all members, and there is no reason why they cannot be supported by all members and all parties.

That being so, and as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care said in the stage 1 debate,

“I invite the Parliament to vote to learn the lessons of the pandemic, to complete the statute book and to put in place that preparedness for whatever challenges may come in the years ahead.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2022; c 117.]

As the cabinet secretary responsible for part 5 and the schedule to the bill—the temporary justice measures—and a number of permanent justice system reform measures in part 3 of the bill, I am pleased to close the final debate for the Scottish Government. Before I turn to points that have been made, I will say a little more about the wider justice policy and legislation, and build on what the Deputy First Minister said about the other provisions in the bill.

The bill is important for the Scottish justice system and the legal professions, and I repeat the Deputy First Minister’s thanks to the organisations, victims, witnesses and other people who are affected by the justice system for their engagement specifically on the justice provisions.

As other members have done, I thank the members of parliamentary staff who have made the debate possible at this late hour.

If the bill is passed, it will extend the temporary justice measures in the schedule, initially until November 2023, giving justice partners increased certainty to aid planning and support recovery as they continue to respond to the effects of the pandemic.

During the bill’s passage, it has been apparent that some of the measures—for example, the extensions to criminal procedure time limits—should remain in place only for as long as they are essential to aid recovery. However, we have heard views from members and from stakeholders that other temporary justice measures that were introduced in response to the pandemic could have a part to play in a longer-term transformation to a modern person-centred justice system. Under the bill, none of those measures can be extended beyond November 2025. However, as our programme of justice transformation continues to develop, the Parliament will be able to consider any permanent legislation that we introduce and to determine the most appropriate approach for the longer term.

It has been a long but—sometimes—interesting debate. I will try to address one or two of the points that members made.

I come first to the Conservative Party. It is clear that, whether in relation to the justice provisions or the wider provisions that have been taken forward by the Deputy First Minister and Patrick Harvie, there have been substantial compromises and that substantial ground has been given, not least in ensuring that the Parliament is well informed. Despite that, it is clear to me, having listened to some of the summing-up speeches, that the unionist block was never going to vote for the bill, regardless of how much ground was given by the Government.

I wonder whether Alex Rowley, being a former council leader, remembers, as I do, compulsory competitive tendering, private finance initiatives and the ring fencing that went on under a previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Government and, prior to that, the Tory Government.

During stage 2, I tried as best I could to provide the committee with scrutiny assistance on various aspects of different amendments, including offering to write to the Lord Advocate in support of the committee’s requests and, in a number of other regards, to increase the information flow. I will only give a general commitment that, in addition to the evidence that the committee seeks, if it requests information from the court service or elsewhere, I will try to assist with that.

On the questions about why extensions are being sought and their extent, that is based on the evidence that we have heard from the court service and the Crown Office about what they require to deal with the backlog. It is not just that Covid is still here but that the backlog is still here, and that is what we are trying to deal with.

Amendment 25 is a technical amendment that is consequential to Pauline McNeill’s stage 2 amendment to section 201 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It ensures that the full policy intent of the amendment, which was agreed to at stage 2, is met. I invite members to support amendment 25.

In addition to what I have said to Pauline McNeill, Liam McArthur will be aware that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill has been introduced. It specifically seeks to address our high levels of remand, based on the general concern among members about that, so it might present an opportunity for further scrutiny.