Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

There may be things that I have not seen, but the media report in December said that it would take five years. That is a long time, if it is going to take that long for all officers to have the kit.

Many other police forces have moved on to second-generation and sometimes third-generation kit, which is even more efficient.

What options are available to us? Can we lodge some kind of motion?

Convener, could you come back to me, if that is okay?

I would like to raise a couple of things. On page 4 of our note on the rules, there is reference to a provision whereby the Parole Board for Scotland could consider whether people convicted of murder or culpable homicide make known the whereabouts of their victims’ remains. My colleague Jamie Greene has been calling for such a provision, as have I, and it indeed will form part of his forthcoming bill.

What puzzles me is that the note goes on to say that

“this matter may be considered where relevant, but does not change the underlying test for release applied by the Board”.

It is effectively a superficial tweak. The rules say that the Parole Board can consider that, but it will have absolutely no effect. That begs the question: why bother? That should either be done with intent or not done at all. It seems to be a bit of a sop. I know that such cases are rare, but there are a significant enough number of them, and there are families who, right now, do not know where their loved ones’ remains are, while prisoners serving a sentence do know. If there was a meaningful way of motivating prisoners to disclose that information, by virtue of what has been called in Scotland Suzanne’s law—it has other names elsewhere in the UK—it should be deployed.

I have a second point, regarding victims, who are referred to page 5 of our note. I have two things to say. First, I underlined the part that says:

“these changes are intended to prevent any victim getting information or contact that they do not wish to have and which may cause distress or disruption.”

In my experience at the committee, I have not heard any meaningful evidence that that is really an issue; the issue is largely about crime victims having to battle to get information, even where they have engaged with a victim notification scheme, which the Government admits is not doing its job and which is subject to an on-going review.

The evidence that we have heard is that there are barriers, and people have to be proactive. It is all very impersonal, and there is sometimes almost a sense of hostility towards victims trying to get basic information. It would be interesting to see when the victim notification scheme review is due, and it would be curious to see what the Government says about it. Clearly, it is not working.

The bill will stop the release of prisoners on a Friday or, indeed, on the cusp of a bank holiday period so that they are provided with the support that they need in order not to reoffend or find themselves in dire straits.

There are some pretty tragic cases—not least the 2019 murder of Alan Geddes, which I am sure that you are familiar with. That individual helped a prisoner who had been released from custody with, it seems, no support, and he ended up being murdered by him within 24 hours of that release. His family are happy for me to mention the case. That illustrates the seriousness of the lack of support.

Jennifer Stoddart mentioned the need for operational changes rather than legislative changes. The bill will reduce the days on which people can be released, but would it not be better and more practical to fix the system, allow for Friday releases, and have in place the networks that exist, I presume, on the other days of the week? Rather than shrink the system, would it not be better to strive to have one that functions and protects people?

South Lanarkshire Council makes an interesting suggestion that, given the additional burden on it and its social work department, funding should be transferred from the Scottish Prison Service to local authorities. I do not know whether the council means that the Prison Service would pay for the services that the council would provide, or whether the Government would be required to reduce Scottish Prison Service funding—which, I am sure, Teresa Medhurst would have strong views on—and divert it to local authorities. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is that something that you might explore or support?

Is that any different from how judicial discretion in such decisions operates just now?

No, I think that you have covered it, thank you.

I will go back to the financial elements. We got additional written evidence from South Lanarkshire Council suggesting that, by its calculation, the additional burden on its justice social workers would come in at £700,000 a year. However, the council thinks that that is an underestimate, because the amount is based on dated figures from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Given that it is just one of 32 local authorities, you can only imagine that the financial burden could be quite significant across Scotland. Is the financial memorandum realistic? In the light of those concerns, does it need to be revisited?