Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is lovely to see you, too—it is always a pleasure.

We do not have a lot of time, unfortunately, so I will try to keep my questions brief and to get through as much as I can.

I want to ask a more fundamental question. People who are watching from the outside, and who might not have been as involved in this topic as we on the committee or you as head of the working group on the report have been, might wonder what we are trying to do. They might have reservations about where the legislation might end up, because the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was hugely controversial. How do we ensure that we, as legislators in a Parliament, are not passing law for law’s sake as a direct response to public mood or pressure on a live issue that could be dealt with in other ways, such as through education or enforcement of other pieces of legislation? How do you think that we could scrutinise the new legislation in detail in such a way that we cannot be accused either of not supporting the principle of dealing with misogyny or of being misogynistic ourselves?

It is also illegal already.

I suspect that the debate will centre on what is and is not in the legislation—what it does and does not cover—and, more importantly, on how the law will be applied and enforced. Parliaments pass laws every day, but those laws are not always up to scratch and are often open to challenge. We like to avoid that in advance of passing a law.

How has the proposed legislation been received by the key stakeholders that will be involved in its application, delivery and enforcement? For example, how have Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation—the police will have to deal with inquiries and complaints on the front line—the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Lord Advocate responded to the practicalities of the legislation? Have they raised any concerns with you?

In principle, you are saying that there are holes or gaps in the existing legislation, hence the need for new legislation. That is the fundamental argument in favour of new legislation.

Sorry—just to press on—

I appreciate that negative instruments are usually waived through nice and quickly, so I apologise for taking up time. However, I want to refer to the policy note that accompanies the instrument. In essence, the instrument is about changes to electronic monitoring and bail conditions. Under the policy objective section, it says that the instrument makes

“a technical change to ensure that the policy intention of having electronically monitored bail includes specific reference to ... two further ways in which a person on bail can have conditions varied.”

What are those “two further ways”? What variations would the change induce?

The policy note says that there has been extensive consultation with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but neither the consultation nor the SCTS’s response is contained in the note. It also says:

“Extensive impact assessments were undertaken”,

and that the change will have

“limited ... impact on the wider ... use of electronic monitoring of bail.”

How will we know whether that will be the case? The note does not quantify or, indeed, define the change.

I do not know how much of an issue the change is, which is part of the problem. I would have preferred the Government to have explained what the variations are and the resulting potential changes to bail. Ministers could have done that in person, although I appreciate that doing so would be unusual for an instrument subject to the negative procedure. However, they could have at least done that in writing. As a committee, we are none the wiser as to what we would be agreeing to, so I am uncomfortable with agreeing to the instrument for that reason.

I appreciate that annulment is the only option that is available to us. However, I want to put on record that I do not think that it is suitable to simply provide a one-page policy note that does not explain what we are being asked to agree to. I am sorry, but that sets a bad precedent.

Good morning.

Given that the bill is not imminent and the Parliament has had a short debate on HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s comments about where people are sent to, I would find it helpful to understand the Government’s position on where people go and under what circumstances. There is a little bit of confusion as to whether, as a matter of principle, or as a blanket position, no one under 18 would ever be sent to HMP Polmont, for example, or whether there are circumstances when it would be an appropriate place for them to go to. If the Government is simply ruling that out, we need to know what its plan would be. It begs the question as to who goes to which institution under what circumstances and for how long.

I know that legislation is coming down the line, but, given that this is a live discussion, it would be helpful if the Government set out its current position, because people are sentenced frequently. If that identifies that there is a gap in, for example, secure care accommodation—that is why people are being sent to Polmont—the committee can press the Government to take action on the issue more quickly.

I do not think that it is appropriate to wait for the bill, as we are currently implying that we will do, to see what the Government is proposing. It would be helpful to understand where the Government sits in response to the comments that the wider public have made around the issue. We have pressed the issue in the chamber, but I feel that it is not quite clear exactly where the Government sits at the moment in terms of the suitability of certain places for certain crimes and people.

Great. My colleague Russell Findlay might disagree, because he has been passionate for a long time about the issue of the photocopying of prisoner mail, but my interest is in the three issues in the middle of page 8—recovery cafes, residential rehabilitation and throughcare—and the fact that we are not quite sure who is responsible for those. There is an indication that throughcare is

“an operational matter for SPS.”

Of course, the Government would say that, as it wants to maintain the independence of the operation of day-to-day activities.

However, if we take a step back, there is a much wider point, which is what the Government’s strategy is for people who go into prison with mental health and addiction issues, and what the link is between those issues and reoffending rates. The fact that we are asking for improvements to rehabilitation, funding and throughcare identifies that there is a problem. Again, it is not acceptable to be told “No information provided” and “To be decided”. We are being told “We don’t know” or “It’s not our responsibility.” It is not good enough for the Government to say, “Oh, that’s an operational matter for the police, the SPS, the Crown or the courts.” We are asking the Government and it should get the answer for us.

“Tackling drug use in prisons”, on page 9, is probably the next big issue, which leads to the point about photocopying mail. It is all very well marking as green the fact that there has been a practical change in one element of that process, but what is the wider strategy? Although that may be an operational matter for the SPS, I would see it more as a Government policy matter, given the scale of the issue and the fact that the prison service is diverse and run by different operators through different operational means and contracts. Tackling drug use in prison is a big issue that has been a running theme in this committee and others, but the table on page 9 just says:

“No information from the SPS currently provided”.

I know that this is our first session on the action plan, but those are the sorts of big issues that I would expect to see a lot more detail on.

My final point about page 9 is a personal expression of disappointment about HMP Greenock—I declare a local interest—and our specific ask around the five-year investment strategy. Large chunks of the prison estate are vastly out of date, and we know how long it takes to procure, rebuild, renovate and renew the estate. I do not think that we can wait another five years before the conversation on that even kicks off. However, that is an issue that individuals can press the Government on.

This might be more of a structural point. We have marked that issue as completed in the table: we asked for information and it was given, so it is completed. However, the question is whether we are content with the information and whether the objective of our recommendation has been achieved. Therefore, I would refrain from turning to green the “Progress against delivery” box in the table until the committee has discussed whether it agrees that the information is sufficient or whether the matter is still a work in progress.