Seòmar agus comataidhean

The policy aim of the legislation in relation to domestic abuse is to help protect the rights of women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse and financial control and living in social housing to remain in their own home, or be rehoused if that is their wish, and to ensure that arrears accrued because of domestic abuse are not a barrier to accessing social housing in the future. To what extent do the bill’s provisions relating to domestic abuse achieve the stated policy aim?

Professor Fitzpatrick, do you have any concern that these provisions need to be strengthened or that they are not quite right? There seems to be positive feedback.

The policy aim of the domestic abuse provisions is to

“help protect the rights of women and children experiencing domestic abuse financial control living in social housing to remain in their home, or be re-housed if that is their wish, and ensure arrears accrued because of domestic abuse are not a barrier to accessing social housing in the future.”

The previous panel was of the view that those aims will be achieved by the bill. I am interested to know whether the current panel is also of that view.

I also have a specific question for Jules Oldham from Scottish Women’s Aid. Jules, would you like social landlord policies to be included in the bill to strengthen those provisions? You have stated that there is no mention of young women. Will you explain your findings relating to young women and domestic abuse? Do the bill or guidance or regulations need to address that in more detail?

Okay. That is helpful. Would any of the other witnesses like to comment?

I will ask a question and get a very short answer—yes or no. We were told last week that the governor’s veto was little used with Covid legislation. Is it correct that there was only a handful of cases? Maybe Andy Hodge could confirm that. We were told that the governor’s veto has been little used in the past, and that there were not huge numbers of governor’s vetoes. Is that accurate?

Overcrowding has been a massive issue in the Scottish prison estate for many years, and prison numbers have been increasing for a number of years. The cabinet secretary said that early release is the only option that is available. The Government is relying on a clause in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. In discussions on that legislation, the focus was very much on situations such as a prison fire at Barlinnie or a possible spread of infection. What consideration has been given to other legislative options?

I understand that the Government is looking at home detention curfew for long-term prisoners, which the cabinet secretary has already referred to. Is the Government looking at remand, for example? Scotland is an outlier with the levels of remand within our prisons and the use of it in our system.

Is the Government also looking at specific cohorts, such as women or those who have been convicted of non-violent offences? Within the cohort of those who are being considered for early release, there are people who have been convicted of serious violent offences, including culpable homicide. I will put that question to the cabinet secretary.

Convener, is there time for me to ask a question about victim notification?

That is actually higher than the indication that we were given.

The cabinet secretary is very clear that she does not see early release as a solution but as a measure that will give the Prison Service time and capacity, but we are trying to understand what it will give the prison service time and capacity to do. The measure is clearly a sticking plaster and will not resolve the issues, so are we not going to be back in this place in, say, three or four months? Does Teresa Medhurst envisage that we will be back here in three or four months?

This has been an inadequate scrutiny process of a draft order that is based on a section of an act that was passed by the Parliament last year, following on from emergency legislation that was passed during Covid and which, at the time, everybody accepted to be draconian. That particular section did not get a huge amount of attention during that process, because there were so many other parts to the legislation. I recall questioning the cabinet secretary about it in this committee, and the focus was very much on justifying the section based on an eventuality such as a prison fire at Barlinnie or the spread of infection.

I therefore have concerns about the process itself and about the idea that, basically, this is going to be it. A lot of information has been provided to the committee extremely late, and some of it is contradictory: some of the evidence that we have heard today contradicts what we heard last week. I am saying not that the information that we have heard today is inaccurate but that, simply, we have been given different information over the fortnight.

The committee has been put in an impossible position by being asked to make this decision today. There is absolutely no doubt that we are in this situation because of failures of Government policy. Concerns about overcrowding and the increase in the prison population have been expressed for very many months—indeed, for very many years—so it is not an emergency in that sense. I fully accept that the situation in the prisons is completely intolerable and unacceptable. However, we are being asked to vote for what has been described as the only option available.

There is no doubt that many prisoners who are now in the prison estate could be safely released. However, we need to be convinced that the cohort that is covered by the order is the cohort that could most safely—and should—be released. That has simply not been addressed through this process. A great deal more thinking and work should have been done over the past days and weeks to identify such a cohort—and, if necessary, to bring emergency legislation to Parliament. The committee has repeatedly discussed who those prisoners might be. We have specifically focused on women and remand prisoners, but there are many prisoners who are in prison for non-violent offences. However, the cohort in the draft order includes many people who have been convicted of violent offences, such as culpable homicide or other offences of a very serious nature.

We have to listen to what Victim Support Scotland has said. It could not have been more forceful in raising its concerns, including a concern that most victims will probably not be notified.

It is appropriate to put all that on the record today and say that the committee has been put in an impossible position. This has been a rushed process. Many members have not been able even to ask questions and, even now, we do not have the information that we need in order to make a decision.

Scottish ministers are ultimately responsible for charity law and third sector policy in Scotland. I understand that OSCR works closely with the Scottish Government’s charity law team to ensure effective regulation. How well does that work in practice? How frequently do you engage with the Scottish Government? Is the level of collaboration effective? I will address those questions to Marieke Dwarshuis first.