Chamber and committees

Okay—thanks very much. Jamie?

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning, and our first item of business is consideration of the Scottish Government’s response to our pre-budget scrutiny report. I refer members to paper 1.

I intend to allow about 25 minutes for this session, and I will open it up to members for discussion and agreement on any follow-up, as required. In the spirit of efficiency, I start by asking Russell Findlay for any comments that he would like to make.

As the minister highlighted in his statement, many local authorities, including Aberdeen City Council, invested significant resources in preparing comprehensive bids for round 2 funding, only to be told at the very last minute that they were not eligible. Does the minister agree that that shambolic state of affairs should urgently be rectified by the UK Government refunding the significant costs that have been incurred by councils that prepared unsuccessful bids? Does he also agree that the UK Government must urgently provide clarification on the criteria that are to be set for future funding rounds?

Absolutely. I agree with all that, and it brings me nicely to a follow-up question that has been raised in committee and was raised recently when I was on a visit to HMP Grampian. People there spoke about how planning for release should start on the day that somebody enters prison. One scenario that is difficult for prisons, families and stakeholders who support an individual is unplanned or unanticipated release from remand. We are grappling with how we can make the process less volatile and perhaps less unpredictable so that, in those circumstances, something is put in place that supports that individual when their leaving prison is not planned.

A very good morning and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have apologies from Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark.

Before we begin, I pay tribute to firefighter Barry Martin, who has sadly died following the tragic fire at the Jenners store in Edinburgh. On behalf of all members of the Criminal Justice Committee, I extend our deepest condolences to Barry’s family, his friends and all his colleagues in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. We know that he will be greatly missed.

Our first item of business is an oral evidence session on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans and his officials. I welcome the cabinet secretary. His officials are joining us online, and I welcome Jennifer Stoddart, community justice division; Philip Lamont, criminal justice division; Linsay Mackay, criminal justice division; Ruth Swanson, legal directorate; and Jamie MacQueen, legal directorate. They are all with the Scottish Government. I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement, and then we will move to questions.

We are just under 10 minutes away from the end of our scheduled time with you, cabinet secretary. I have a question on the release of long-term prisoners on a reintegration licence, which section 7 provides for. It provides for that in two situations: before and after the Parole Board has recommended release on parole. In relation to the second of those situations, we took evidence from John Watt, chair of the Parole Board for Scotland, who advised us that it would need a power to reverse its parole decision if an offender failed to comply with the conditions of release on a reintegration licence. Is there a plan to amend the bill to provide for that power?

I will move things on and then come back to you, Fulton.

Thanks very much. Do you want to add anything, cabinet secretary?

Thank you.

Thank you. I know that members will probably ask more questions about the resourcing side of things. I would like to follow up with a practical question about the broader role of criminal justice social work that is outlined in the bill and how it informs court decision making. So far, we have received a lot of witness evidence that indicates support for the proposal. However, there is concern about its practical implications; in particular, resourcing and the time issue that can come into play around that. For example, the judiciary articulated concern about the

“unnecessary detention of individuals while information is gathered”.

From that, I assume that there is the potential for somebody to be remanded, albeit for perhaps one day, while information is gathered. That could be a particular challenge in rural areas, for example. Can you outline a wee bit more about how that might be addressed?