Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 6 follows on neatly from our discussion last week about amendment 67, which Collette Stevenson lodged. [Interruption.] I apologise—I need to clear my throat.

Amendment 6 would add on a provision to allow a court to take into account compliance with bail conditions, including electronic monitoring and curfew arrangements. It would enable the court to take into account compliance with such conditions when sentencing, so that the sentence was either reduced or increased. I believe that courts already do that; the amendment would simplify codify a practice that already takes place, when the court takes into account all the circumstances in considering the appropriate sentence in the situation.

I was sympathetic to Collette Stevenson’s amendment 67, to remove section 5, which concerns consideration of the time that has been spent under electronic monitoring. I am very aware that electronic monitoring is imposed only when an accused poses a real risk. Electronic monitoring is used to avoid remand; it has never been considered to be a punishment or a sentence.

Amendment 6 takes a better approach than amendment 67 proposed, because it would give the court more discretion. In reality, the court already takes account of such issues—for example, if an accused person had not complied with curfew arrangements, had attempted to approach the complainer or had not complied with electronic monitoring requirements, the court would take that into account when considering what the appropriate sentence for the individual was. When an individual has complied with requirements from the court, the court often bears that in mind when considering sentencing. Amendment 6 would give the court more discretion to take into account all the circumstances.

I move amendment 6.

Amendment 42 is a probing amendment. The proposed new section 34B sets out that

“Scottish Ministers must ... publish standards applicable to throughcare ... in Scotland”

and that

“In preparing, reviewing, and revising the standards”,

various bodies should be consulted. My amendment stipulates that the consultation should be “public”.

Establishing new statutory minimum standards for throughcare support is a key change that affects individuals’ successful integration into the community and offers assistance around accommodation, healthcare, education, employability and other services. Input from wider communities can only be useful, therefore, and I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary what the Government’s thinking is on my proposal.

Amendment 43 is another amendment that has been informed by discussions with Victim Support Scotland. The argument is that the support that is provided must be safely and appropriately designed and must address the needs of victims, but section 10 makes no specific reference to engagement with victims of crime or their support organisations. Amendment 43 is similar to many of the amendments that we have discussed in previous groups in that it would ensure that the input of victims organisations is explicitly required.

Amendment 3 relates to resource issues, which we have debated on a number of occasions. In debating previous amendments on reporting, it has been recognised that, without greater funding and resource, there is a fear that many of the organisations that will have obligations put on them by the bill will simply not be able to deliver those obligations adequately because of a lack of resource. Amendment 3 is designed to highlight the fact that organisations will be overburdened with responsibilities unless adequate funding and resource are provided. Amendment 3 would support greater parliamentary scrutiny of the issue by ensuring that the bodies that are required to comply with the throughcare support standards have the capacity to do so. It would enable the Parliament to actively scrutinise whether resources are provided to ensure that the legislation is meaningful.

Amendment 44 relates to the provision of access to education, training and work opportunities to prisoners on remand. There is currently no statutory basis for enabling that to happen, although I understand that some prison establishments attempt to provide such opportunities to remand prisoners even though they are not legally required to do so.

As we have discussed previously on many occasions, we have a high number of untried prisoners in the prison system, who are often held in prison for extended periods. The period for which individuals are held on remand has grown considerably for a number of reasons, including the extension of time limits and legislation that the Parliament has passed, and the situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

A range of types of accused people are held on remand. Although many will be on remand for non-violent offences, a significant number will face charges of a significant nature. Amendment 44 would enable untried prisoners to have greater access to services that are available to convicted prisoners. It is tied to section 10, on throughcare support, and it would ensure that such obligations are guaranteed and could be met immediately, as soon as a period in custody starts.

Operational considerations and other considerations would need to be taken into account. Certain types of training and opportunities might be more appropriate for someone who might be in prison for less than a week, whereas, if it is known that an individual will be on remand for an extended period of time, a range of other opportunities and training might be more appropriate. Amendment 44 seeks to open up that debate. If there are specific problems with the wording, I would be happy to discuss that with the Scottish Government.

The principle is that some of the services and access to education, training and work opportunities that are available to convicted prisoners should be available to remand prisoners and that that would significantly improve the quality of the time that those individuals spend in custody. We should remember that those people have not been convicted of anything. Such a measure might also be of significant benefit to the SPS. As I said, I understand that, on occasion, such opportunities are offered to prisoners on remand, although I am not convinced that there is a statutory basis for that.

I move amendment 42.

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.