Chamber and committees

Tess White should know that prisoners being disciplined is a matter for the Scottish Prison Service. It takes those decisions. If the member wishes, I can ask the interim chief executive of the SPS to respond to her.

The member quite rightly mentioned that the phones are tamper-proof. Their benefits have been huge in relation to managing prison services that cannot operate as they did in the past.

I will say one final thing. Discipline within prisons is much harder to maintain with 68-year-old prison officers. That is the effect of the Government that the member supports pushing the pension age back to 68. We should never have 68-year-old prison officers trying to exercise the kind of discipline that Tess White spoke about.

We believe that a very strong argument in favour of that has been presented by the people to whom Oliver Mundell refers, but other people have a different point of view, including many members of the legal profession.

There are two reasons why we are not abolishing the verdict straight away. The first is that there is no point in holding a consultation if we are not going to listen to what people have to say; we want to hear what people have to say on the issue.

The second reason is that the not proven verdict has a relationship with other parts of the justice system, so we should take that into account. There are interdependences in relation to the two-verdict or three-verdict system, the jury system and so on. It is only right that we take a sustainable approach, so that we can get to the right solution.

I have said in the chamber previously that I am clear that action is needed on remand. I know that other parties share that view.

The effect of Covid-19 on the courts has impacted hugely on remand numbers. We have invested £50 million to support the operation of the criminal courts to help to increase throughput of cases, thereby—we hope—lessening the need for remand.

However, it is fair to say that concern about remand pre-dates Covid-19, which is why our programme for government included a commitment to consult on reform in that area, with the introduction of legislative change in year 1 of this session of Parliament.

We continue to invest in and support provision of alternatives to remand, including additional investment in bail supervision and implementation of electronically monitored bail.

We intend to review and revise the national community justice strategy. To inform the review of the current strategy, which is a statutory requirement under the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, we will consult those who work in the community justice sector or closely with it, gathering views from a front-line perspective on how well the strategy has performed over the past five years and what might need to be taken into account in updating it. We will then engage with the public through a consultation exercise to explore what approach a revised strategy might take.

Our aim will be to consider how a revised strategy can be most effective and how it can build on the progress that has been made in recent years, and to set clear aims for all who are involved in delivering services. The views and evidence that are gathered as part of the consultative and collaborative approach will be used in finalising a new and improved national community justice strategy, which we intend to launch next spring.

That is a very good question. I have already had discussions with ministers in other portfolios who have responsibility in the area to see how we will address that issue. The idea is that we should not retraumatise victims by asking them to move between locations to have the same interview and give the same evidence. That is an important consideration that comes towards the end of the programme, although early thought is being given to how we can make the system as accessible as possible.

We agree on the overarching principles, and we should give local delivery partners the flexibility to adapt the model to their local contexts. We recognise the challenges of delivery in rural settings such as Alasdair Allan’s constituency; he is quite right to raise that issue.

Our approach will be based on the European “Barnahus Quality Standards” and should be flexible enough to allow local authorities to tailor barnahus to suit local circumstances while also ensuring a degree of national consistency for all children who are eligible for services.

The introduction of technology for virtual visits, prison-issued mobile phones in SPS establishments, and cell phones in HMP Kilmarnock have enabled contact to be maintained between people who are in custody and their friends and families. Since implementation, more than 56,900 virtual visits have taken place in the SPS.

The SPS has put in place precautionary measures, informed by public health guidance, to make in-person visits as safe as possible.

Following from my previous response, I say that it would be good to get, if possible, consensus in Parliament on that issue. Decision making on bail and remand is for the court, but Parliament sets the legislative framework. Prior to Covid-19, 20 per cent of the prison population was on remand; the figure is now 27 per cent. Recent increases reflect the unique circumstances of the pandemic, but concerns are long-standing.

I intend to publish in the autumn a consultation on possible changes to bail law that will seek views on emphasising the importance of public safety as an essential requirement for remand. It will also propose legislative changes to ensure an enhanced focus on victim safety, improvement of the information that is available to the court when it makes a bail decision, and expansion of the services that are available to support the process of reintegration into the community of prisoners who leave remand.

I have every sympathy for the case of the member’s constituent, but it is—again—important to say that it is the courts, not the Scottish Government, that make decisions on remand. The Scottish Government is specifically prohibited from involving itself in such decisions.

We can address such situations through the legislative framework, which is why we will introduce legislation on which all members will have the chance to have a say. We previously said what we intend to do with regard to the victims commissioner. It is important, and we want to ensure, that the victims organisations that currently exist—some of which have concerns about the introduction of a victims commissioner—have their say before we proceed.

Planning legislation is not within my remit. The member has rightly raised the issue with me previously; she might want to talk to the ministers who are responsible for that.

I appreciate that the matter is of significant concern to her and the community. I will ensure that my officials engage closely with Police Scotland regarding shooting ranges in Eskdalemuir valley. I understand that the police have already visited the ranges in question several times in recent months to assess their safety and operation, and that they plan to do so again in the near future.

As I said, planning matters—

We recognise that increasing numbers of prisoners have a range of multiple and complex needs. The health needs of the prison population, for example, are particularly challenging. We know that people in custody often have higher rates of substance use issues, mental health problems and complications with physical health in comparison to the general population. The support that is required to address the often multiple needs of vulnerable people in custody can be multifaceted and is delivered through effective joint working between the Scottish Prison Service and a range of partners including social care, health, third sector and education authorities.