Chamber and committees

I know that the First Minister will be aware of the work of the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, having had regular supportive engagement with the group in his previous roles. He will also likely be aware of recent work on mandatory reporting, and of a round-table discussion on the matter that was held in the Parliament a couple of months ago, which I chaired in my position as convener of the group. Clearly, there is now a strong coalition of support for that measure from a broad range of survivor agencies and, crucially, from survivors themselves in Scotland.

In the light of the news this week that the United Kingdom Government will now introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse across professional bodies, what further consideration has the Scottish Government given to adopting that approach in Scotland?

Many children and young people in secure care are vulnerable and have faced significant adverse childhood experiences. What is the Government doing to ensure that local authorities can provide intense alternative-to-care support services that focus on keeping young people out of secure care, so that it is only ever used as a last resort?

Yesterday, I met GPs and the practice manager at the Atrium medical centre in Coatbridge. I was given a demonstration of a typical day at that busy GP practice, and I heard about the pressures that are faced all year, particularly during these difficult winter months.

What support is available for GPs in their role in response to winter pressures? What opportunities will there be for GPs to feed their concerns into Government?

It will come as welcome news to my constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston, as well as to people in Neil Gray’s Airdrie and Shotts constituency, to hear that the increase in NHS capital funding will allow for the new Monklands hospital replacement project to go ahead. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with NHS Lanarkshire with regard to that announcement, and what are the Government’s expectations on the progression of the project, which is urgent and very much needed for the people of Lanarkshire?

Thanks for accepting my late request to speak, Presiding Officer.

I thank Richard Leonard for what was—as always on this issue—a very powerful speech.

I represent Coatbridge and Chryston, which has a rich coal-mining heritage as well as hosting other heavy industry. I come from Coatbridge myself. I was only four or five around the time of the miners strike, but I do have some memories of it, and my family had a rich history in the heavy industries, so I wanted to speak in the debate.

Clare Adamson mentioned Summerlee museum in Coatbridge. Every year, it hosts the international workers memorial day for Lanarkshire, which is always a poignant event. There is the Cardowan colliery in Stepps, and there is the Auchengeich site in Moodiesburn, where this year we commemorated the 65th anniversary of Scotland’s worst coal-mining disaster of the 20th century. Forty-seven men lost their lives, 41 women were widowed and 76 children lost their father. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Willie Doolan, who is in the public gallery, and to all those at the Auchengeich memorial committee, for the work that they do to ensure that we remember those men, and others who tragically died.

I do not think that the Tory contributions today have been helpful at all—I have to agree with Carol Mochan on that, and that is me being very nice about it. Stephen Kerr said that he wanted the Parliament to be clear on his stance, so let me be clear on mine. The Tory Government of the 1980s and what it did to the miners and our communities were an absolute disgrace. I would say to Stephen Kerr, as Carol Mochan did, that our communities are still paying the price. Stephen Kerr represents Central Scotland, which of course includes many of the Lanarkshire constituencies. Those communities are still paying the price for what the Thatcher Government did.

I welcome the calls for a UK pardon, following the line of the Scottish Parliament, and I absolutely back the call for a public inquiry into the policing of the miners strike. It was completely political, and it should never have happened. That is not to blame the police officers. As another member said, they had to do what they were told. It was a political intervention.

I see you looking at me, Presiding Officer, so I will finish there. Thank you again for letting me speak. Thanks, too, to Richard Leonard for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I have real concerns about amendment 5, which I think poses more questions than it answers. Who would be imposing the community payback order? Presumably it would be a court. At what time would it be imposed? Does the person need to reappear at court? What are the impacts on the courts, if that is the case? That is the only way that I can see things happening.

We must remember that a community payback order is, in itself, a sentence, and a very serious one. I am sure that Jamie Greene has not meant it in this way, because this is emergency legislation, and he has had only a short time to pull amendments together, but amendment 5 feels like it is in the mould of the Tories’ general attitude to community sentences: that is to say that custody is best but, if we cannot get custody, let us just put people on community payback orders.

As I say, I am sure that that is not what the member intended, but, to me, the approach that he is proposing is disrespectful to the court processes, it minimises the purpose of community payback orders and what they are meant to do, and it seriously downplays the role of those who carry out the orders with offenders, making the role more of a mere add-on or addendum to the justice system—an afterthought.

I therefore cannot support the amendments in this group, and I would be surprised if any other party in the chamber supports them.

I have just started and I have quite a lot to say.

Our prison population is at a critical level despite actions such as the presumption against short-term sentences and the focus on more restorative justice and community-based sentencing. The prison population is also becoming increasingly complex, with more and more older inmates presenting with more and more complex health needs. With a backlog of court cases still presenting an issue and many prisoners being held on remand for extended periods, our prison estate is under increasing pressure. Sentence length has also been increasing, so some prisoners are being held for longer periods.

It is the Government’s job to ensure the safe operation of prisons and to put measures in place that are not just short-term fixes but are sustainable. That is why I believe that the bill is necessary. If it is passed, it could result in a sustained reduction of about 5 per cent in the sentenced prison population.

I will not take an intervention just now.

The bill will allow us to take measures that will benefit the prison population in the long term and make prisoner levels more sustainable. It is worth re-emphasising that those who are sentenced for domestic abuse or sexual offences will not be considered for early release. Those who commit the most serious crimes will not be considered. As has been articulated, the prisoners who will be eligible for early release are those who would already be considered for unconditional automatic release after 50 per cent of their sentences—the bill amends that to 40 per cent.

Importantly, the reduction in prisoners will be maintained in terms of population. With the measures in place, there will always be fewer people in prison than there would have been without them.

As others have said, we are not alone in implementing such changes. In October 2023, the Conservative UK Government released more than 10,000 prisoners up to 70 days early, and the new Labour UK Government has taken further steps by changing the rules around release so that prisoners who are serving standard determinate sentences will be released following 40 per cent of their sentence rather than 50 per cent, as at present. It is important that Governments in other parts of the UK take steps to make sure that their prisons are safe for staff and inmates.

However, it is important that the bill, even in emergency and fast-track form, ensures that victims are at the heart of any changes. I note that Victim Support Scotland provided a very good briefing yesterday—it is vital that the Government consider the requests that are made in that.

Through an important measure that is already in place, victims of crime can receive information about a prisoner in their case, via the victim notification scheme or the victim information scheme. The information that victims can receive includes the prisoner’s release date. That is an important measure and a step forward.

However, although it is important that, over the next few days, we debate the early release of prisoners and prison safety, we must also grasp the opportunity to spark a wider debate on the justice system as a whole and on how we can bring about real and lasting change, for the country that we want to be.

As I am a former criminal justice social worker—as is the cabinet secretary—it will come as no surprise that I believe that further and seismic investment in our community justice services could lead to radical change. So much good work is going on but, if further funding moved from the punishment element of justice spending to the rehabilitative element, more could be done, and the confidence of the judiciary and the public would increase as a result. Perhaps the bill can act as a catalyst to allow us, as a Parliament and as a nation, to begin to shift the balance that every party has spoken about at some point.

We must also start to tackle particular groups of offenders who make up the prison population. Young men should be a key target group. Boys, who later become young adults, are often involved in low-to-medium-level offending, being in and out of court until community sentences are exhausted and courts feel that there is no alternative to a prison sentence. They are then in a cycle of being in and out of prisons and often their criminogenic needs increase—ironically, as a result of being in prison.

Working with young men earlier, before their offending begins, is vital. That needs investment in resources. Early intervention is key and youth work can be particularly effective. I know that that is not directly in the portfolios of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs or the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, but I encourage the Government, in the up-coming budget, to think of community work as an effective preventative measure.

We have heard from other speakers about the use of throughcare, which is a very important measure that we could do more to invest in, involving organisations such as the Wheatley Group, which does a fantastic job of working with people who are coming out of prison.

Similarly, we need to tackle the prison population’s growing health and social care needs, which are observed in particular among the older inmates, which is a growing group. We need to move to a more health-based but secure model—perhaps something that is not dissimilar to the example of the state hospital—for people who have mental health difficulties.

I could say more on the issue, but I hope that the emergency bill will lead to a greater focus on early intervention and rehabilitation. Through that, we will naturally and gradually reduce our high prison population. I urge members to support the bill today to ensure that our justice system is suitable and that it continues to be sustainable, especially as we continue to recover.

I start with a point of consensus. I say to Opposition members that it is of course not ideal that the bill is being taken through on an emergency basis. I do not think that anybody, including Government ministers or back benchers, would want that to be the case. However, I believe that, as has been said, it is necessary to do it in that way due to the overcrowding of our prison estate, which has become unsafe for those who are in prisons and the staff who serve us there. That is an unacceptable situation and one that we must act on.

It seems that some Opposition members are suggesting that Government ministers should not be attending events in an official capacity. [Interruption.] I said “some Opposition members”.

Can the cabinet secretary advise whether any of the Opposition parties have come forward with proposals about how and why that should be limited? Most of the questions today have not provided that, with the exception of the question from Liam McArthur.