Chamber and committees

The amendments that I am proposing seek to bring the emergency release provision in the bill into line with changes that were made to the comparable provision in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 provides the power to release from prison early groups of prisoners who fall within a particular category specified in regulations. That must, of course, be done in response to the effect that the coronavirus is having, or is likely to have, on a prison or on prisons in general.

The power contained in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill is a wider and permanent power that will be used in response to the effect that an emergency situation is having on a prison or on prisons in general. It is clear that, by its nature, that power would rarely, if ever, be used, but I believe that it is an important safety net to have.

Given that the amendments that were made to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 were agreed to after the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill was introduced, it is appropriate that those amendments be replicated here.

Amendment 90 seeks to limit the application of the early release powers to ensure that prisoners cannot be released any earlier than six months prior to their scheduled release date. Amendment 92 seeks to exclude people convicted under the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 from the early release provision. I think that that is absolutely crucial. Finally, amendments 91 and 94 are technical amendments resulting from amendments 92 and 90.

All of those amendments reflect amendments to the comparable power in the 2022 act, and I believe that they are necessary to ensure the safety of victims and give them some piece of mind in the unlikely event that they would be needed.

I move amendment 90.

The discussion has been useful. We are now getting into the finer detail. I do not think that the committee is necessarily opposed to the principle of the measures in section 8, unless I have misunderstood. I am sure that the detail could be explored at a later stage, but I am happy to press amendment 90.

Amendment 66 relates to section 23D. For the record, I thought that we had a very useful discussion on Pauline McNeill’s amendment 65, and I appreciate that the cabinet secretary took time to respond to that.

During evidence taking, I was really concerned about the removal of section 23D. We heard strong reassurances from the legal profession and others that it would not open up risk to victims of domestic abuse and stalking, but I felt that something needed to be put in the bill to strengthen those reassurances.

I was particularly struck by the evidence from Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Speak Out Survivors, which highlighted to us the critical role that bail conditions play in what are uniquely pernicious crimes, both in the practical sense of protecting victim safety and in the wider sense whereby the right special conditions of bail can help a victim to feel safer and more secure.

The message that is sent out to victims is crucial, and I felt that that would be lost with the removal of section 23D, hence the reason for lodging amendment 66. It is really important that we strengthen the role of bail conditions in cases of domestic abuse and stalking.

Currently, when the court grants bail on standard conditions to a person accused of a sexual offence in either solemn or summary proceedings without imposing any further special conditions of bail, it must explain why it did not consider special conditions to be necessary. My amendment 66 would extend that existing duty on the court so that, when the court grants bail on standard conditions to a person accused of an offence involving domestic abuse or an offence of stalking, it must give reasons why no further special conditions of bail were imposed.

Adding domestic abuse and stalking offences to existing requirements for sexual offences cases will ensure that the court must justify any decision not to put in place additional protective conditions in cases in which a victim would feel especially threatened by the risk of further offending by the accused. That is where special conditions of bail are of particular importance. As such, I consider that the amendment is vital. It seeks to emphasise to the court the importance of the consideration of robust special conditions of bail in cases in which the complainer might have particular reason to be concerned about the risk of further offending by the accused, including domestic abuse or stalking.

Amendment 66 would also serve to increase the transparency of court decision making in this area, which, as we heard from those representing victims’ interests during stage 1 evidence sessions, is of the utmost importance. As a committee, we have heard that many times. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 66.

I put on record my thanks to Katy Clark for lodging amendment 37 on data for women on remand. It is a crucial issue and the data is very much needed. I am so glad that she has opened up the matter for discussion, and I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary is willing to look into the issue and bring back something at stage 3. Gathering the data is very worthwhile, and I agree with everything that Katy has said.

I do not know the answer to some of the questions that Russell has raised—I might have missed the correspondence or whatever. Obviously, the wider mental health issues are incredibly important and we have been doing a lot of work on them, but it would be good for us as a committee to home in on the suicide issue.

I know that it is hard to separate them, but suicide should be seen as a stand-alone issue. Wider mental health issues are incredibly important, as I said, but suicide is very specific and should be dealt with that way.

I want to put on record that I think that the committee is doing really good work on the whole. On the issue that Russell Findlay mentioned and the cases to which he referred, have we as a committee had an exchange with the police, not on the wider issue of mental health but specifically on suicide?

I do not disagree with a lot of what has been said by various people on the budget so far, but I am a bit confused, as the budget is now settled for this year. I am not disputing what has been said, but is this a pre-emptive strike for the next round of negotiations? We are where we are with this budget, so I am a wee bit confused by some of the stuff that members are saying.

My big concern is about body-worn cameras. I am not good with graphs and things like that, but I found the response from Police Scotland quite confusing. As Jamie Greene said, it would be good to know exactly whether the situation is due to budget or operational reasons, and why it is presented in the way that it is. We were talking about the introduction of body-worn cameras five or six years ago, and I understood then that it was close to happening, but it still has not happened.

Would it be possible to slot in somewhere a wee evidence session with somebody who knows about the matter, whether it is the SPA, or whoever the person leading on it would be? Rather than letters going back and forth, it would be better if we could just sit and talk to them and ask questions. I would prefer that, anyway.

Thank you, convener. I have nothing to declare.

I have a brief question. What assessment has been made of young people with learning difficulties, to whom the age threshold perhaps does not apply? Would that be down to an individual assessment?