Chamber and committees

I am watching the time. I will put a final question to all three of the witnesses on something that I do not think we have covered this morning, which is the proposal in the bill that minimum standards for throughcare be developed. It is a simple question: are you supportive of that proposal?

I will come in with a couple of questions. I am looking at the submission from the Wise Group, so I will come to Charlie Martin initially. I found your submission comprehensive, with a lot of good points teased out in it. I will ask a couple of questions about the release of long-term prisoners and the use of a reintegration licence.

You mention the benefit of all categories of prisoners being made eligible for early release, whether under a reintegration licence or a home detention curfew. The eligibility assessment process would involve each case being decided on its merits, and, where release is refused, the reasons for that would be communicated clearly and a plan to address that would be put in place.

You comment on the underutilisation of processes of that type, such as a home detention curfew. Do you have any further comments on where—and why you feel that—there would be benefit in that type of early release option being better used?

My follow-on question was going to be on who should inform the process. From what you and other witnesses have said, the third sector is clearly integral to the process. At what point on the timeline should that process start and sectors such as the third sector become involved? I will go back to you, Tracey, and then Charlie and Lynne can pick up on anything else.

I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending. We will have a short suspension before moving on.

I thank members for their comments.

To summarise, we are looking to strike a balance. There is our desire to deal timeously with the LCM, and, as has been pointed out, we have to take into consideration timescales elsewhere. However, it is important that all members are comfortable that we have fully considered the implications of the bill and, accordingly, feel that we, as individual members, can take a position on it.

On that basis, I propose my initial suggestion to delay putting the question of consent to committee members today so that we can obtain more information. I note Jamie Greene’s comments about seeking copies of correspondence, if possible. He also mentioned the Lord Advocate, which is entirely appropriate, given her role in this. We will come back to the matter at a future meeting, when we will give it further consideration and, I hope, come to a conclusion. Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item of business is consideration of some recent work that we have undertaken on policing and mental health. I refer members to papers 2 and 3.

Before we begin our discussion, I record our thanks to all the police officers who spoke to us privately. Their brave and incredibly helpful testimony is really invaluable to our ability to question Police Scotland on how it supports its officers and staff.

In paper 3, the committee is invited to agree to a series of recommendations on follow-up actions as a result of our conversations. I invite members to comment and give their views on the suggested actions.

That is a fair comment. I am happy to do that.

If there is nothing else on that letter, we will move on to the letter from Police Scotland on cyberkiosk training. Do members have any comments on that? Did you want to come in on that, Collette?

I have a quick update on the point that Jamie Greene raised about the correspondence that was sent to the UK Government from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in relation to the bill. I can confirm that, to date, there has been no reply to that letter, which was dated 10 November.

In view of the questions that were raised in response to the update given by the cabinet secretary and some of the comments made by his officials, and also in view of the Scottish Government’s position on the LCM, I propose—I am happy to discuss this further with members—that we do not put the question of consent today and that we consider the matter as a committee, so that we can obtain more information for further consideration. That is my proposal, and I am interested in hearing members’ views on it.

I call Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Russell Findlay.

No worries. Thank you.

We will ask the clerks to support that follow-up work and to keep on top of that piece of work into the new year.