Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government has said that it is planning to focus provision for one and two-year-olds on those who need it most. As you will know, the expansion of school-age childcare is also focused on those on low incomes. What do you think of eligibility criteria and the impact on child poverty? What can we do to maximise the impact on child poverty?

When officials gave evidence, they said clearly that, currently, no 16 or 17-year-olds could legally be moved into secure units, because of the disposal of the court. However, it would be helpful to ask the Scottish Government for confirmation that that remains the case and for a commitment that it will continue to be the case that 16 and 17-year-olds will be held in secure units wherever possible. If, for whatever reason, that is not possible, the committee should be advised through the Government’s writing to alert us to the fact that there has been a change.

I have a further point, which is about data and women in custody. The committee has discussed such issues many times and has expressed concern on numerous occasions, both publicly and in our private sessions, about the lack of data that is available to us and the difficulty in carrying out our scrutiny work when we do not have an understanding of the profile and the nature of the people who are being incarcerated in this country.

The Scottish Government’s intention seems to be to reduce the number of women in custody, but, in reality, that number is increasing, and there seems to be concern that it will continue to increase. It would therefore be helpful to get more information from the Scottish Government about the profile of the women who are held in custody and the reasons why there might have been an increase. There might be a range of reasons for that. I do not want to speculate in this meeting as to what those might be, but we need an explanation from the Scottish Government.

It is far from clear whether the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill will make any difference to the number of women who are remanded. We were told yesterday that the current figure for women on remand in the prison estate is 37 per cent. That is high, and it is very unclear whether the bill will make any difference to that. It would be useful to find out whether the Scottish Government believes that the bill will make any difference to the number of women who are held on remand and why it remains the case that so many women are being held in the prison estate.

We know that the new custody units have, at maximum, been at only 53 per cent capacity, which tells us that, at other times, they have been less than half full. The committee should write to express concern about that. I fully understand that the issue has now been raised and that the Scottish Prison Service is considering it, but those custody units have been open since August.

Committee members were very impressed by what we saw when we visited the units—there has clearly been massive investment, financially and in other ways, in those facilities, so it is important that they are a success. We should express our concern in the strongest terms about the fact that they have not been used to their full capacity and call for urgent action in that regard.

We know that people are put in custody not just because of the legislative framework but because of the lack of alternatives to custody. In relation to the alternatives to remand reference group, we need a great deal more detail about what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that there are genuine and robust alternatives to custody. We know, for example, that people who are given community service orders are often not required to carry out the measures that are set out in their sentence.

We need a shift in resources into alternatives to custody if the Scottish Government is to be successful in enabling the courts to dispose of cases in other ways. When we look at the budgets, we see that the money for that is not being provided. The direction of travel is the wrong one: the amount of money that has been provided for alternatives to custody is going down instead of up. We should express in the strongest terms the need for the Scottish Government to shift resources now if it is to have any success with its stated strategy.

My points, which are about data, relate to the letter from the Scottish Prison Service dated 26 April. The terms of the letter are general but they relate to areas in which the SPS has data.

When Teresa Medhurst appeared before us, she said that the SPS could provide the committee with more data. We cannot wait for the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to get more data so that we can do the job that we have been tasked with. I suggest that we write to ask Teresa Medhurst if she could look at what data the SPS could share with the committee, because she made it clear that further data was available and, from talking to people in the system, my understanding is that there is a great deal more data that we have not seen that could easily be shared with us. We should write with that specific request.

Amendment 11A was lodged as a consequential amendment to an amendment that was discussed in the previous group. However, given the cabinet secretary’s amendment 11, I intend to withdraw amendment 11A.

I move amendment 11A.

Can the cabinet secretary give some examples of situations in which she would envisage such legislation being necessary?

The cabinet secretary has asked about delivery. Perhaps an example of how victim support organisations might be involved in the delivery of such services would be to do with housing allocation and whether it is appropriate for someone who has been convicted of a violent offence to be, say, relocated in the same part of a town as the complainer. Might that be an example of something in which victim support organisations could appropriately get involved?

I do not intend to press amendment 45—I wish to withdraw it. In brief, I hope that the Government will look at the issues before the next stage of the bill. As Russell Findlay and Jamie Greene have said, victims organisations are highly critical of the provisions in section 11. My amendments 46 and 48 are a perhaps more extreme response to that than the approach that is suggested in Russell Findlay’s amendments, but they very much express the view of the victims organisations that I have met during discussion of the bill. I do not plan to push the amendments to a vote on this occasion, but I hope that we will come back to the subject at a later stage.

Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 102 moved—[Russell Findlay].

That contribution is helpful. When I asked the cabinet secretary to give examples, she gave what was perhaps the first example that I had thought of and that Jamie Greene has just mentioned: a prison fire. If HMP Barlinnie or another large prison establishment burned down, what would be the emergency response? I would be far more sympathetic to the Government’s approach if the bill had a defined list, which could be based on emergencies that have presented internationally when it has been necessary to take immediate action.

It is fair to say that most situations that could be considered to be an emergency could probably wait for Parliament to meet to consider the issues and whether emergency legislation was needed. However, that might not be realistic in situations such as a fire, if the number of people who were involved could not be catered for in the rest of the Scottish prison estate or by asking the English prison estate to assist.

There might well be scenarios in which the law would need to be addressed. My concerns are that section 8 is drafted widely, that the power is permanent and that the bill fails to define the limited circumstances of a genuine emergency in which it might be necessary for the Government and the Scottish Prison Service to take action and it would not be possible for the Parliament to be involved.

As I said, I am sympathetic to the approach that amendment 93 outlines. I am interested in whether the Government can look again at the drafting to address the concerns that are being raised.

That is correct.

Amendment 11A, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Section 8—Power to release early

Amendments 4 and 5 have been lodged following meetings with my constituent Linda McDonald, who, since her own personal experience, has campaigned to ensure that dangerous prisoners are not released without sufficient monitoring.

For context, amendment 4 relates to the multi-agency public protection arrangements—better known as MAPPA—that were established by the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005. The 2005 act imposes a duty on responsible authorities in a local authority area jointly to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks that are posed by certain categories of offenders—for example, sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

A few months ago, Linda McDonald contacted me, in my capacity as a member of the committee, to discuss her petition to drive change in the parole system to prevent dangerous prisoners from being released without sufficient monitoring.

Returning to the draft legislation that we are discussing, amendment 4 aims to ensure that level 3 MAPPA prisoners are monitored in the same way as other sex offenders, with regular check-ins with police and justice social workers. It would require ministers to review and report on the impact of part 2 of the bill on MAPPA. The report would, in particular, include consideration of whether changes were required to national guidance on how MAPPA offenders are monitored after release from custody and on ensuring a consistent approach across Scotland.

Amendment 5 would ensure greater scrutiny and analysis of the extent to which the operation of the bill will impact on resources. It would ensure that the reforms that are proposed are implementable.

I move amendment 4.