Chamber and committees

Good morning. I commend the panel members for the work that they are doing on the establishment of the barnahus model, which is a testament to the good work of our predecessor committee on the issue. However, you will be aware of the document that the Government produced on 14 September, which outlines the visions, values and approach of the model. It was brought to my attention that there was some phrasing therein that might raise one or two eyebrows with regard to who might be eligible to use the barnahus model.

I want to explore that, in order to get a direct understanding of whether the scheme is designed to assist only children who are victims of crime, or who are vulnerable in the true sense, or whether there is any possibility that it will include children who are under the current age of criminal responsibility but who may have caused significant harm to others. Might they, too, be using that facility as opposed to being processed in a court environment? I have received one or two letters that have raised concerns about the interaction between those two different groups of children.

Does anyone have any knowledge of that issue, or can anyone clarify the situation for me? A hand is waving—I think that it is Ms Glasgow’s.

In the first instance, yes.

Thank you for that follow-up response. It is also the case that the conviction rate was nearly 49 per cent in 2015, but that dropped to 43 per cent this year, so there is a downward trend.

This is a chance to open up the discussion to the panel more widely. What do you want us to do and what do you think the Crown Office needs to do to improve the conviction rate? What should legislators be doing and talking about in this parliamentary session?

Thank you. That is helpful clarification. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the premise of how the law and society treat children. However, I raised the issue because specific concerns have been raised that what was initially perceived as being a safe space for the victims of crime may also be a place that will be used to facilitate the processing of those who have been accused of something. There are genuine concerns out there, and you are acutely aware of them—I can tell that from your response. As we go through the process, we will be looking for any comfort that you can provide that all children will be protected in that environment.

I echo Ms Stevenson’s comments and would welcome more information on this. What seems like a minor negative instrument extends for a significant period of time certain powers that governors in our prisons and young offenders institutions have, such as the ability to confine prisoners to their cells for prolonged periods of time, to restrict activity, to suspend prison visits and to curtail work, educational activities, counselling and purposeful activities for another six months.

I appreciate that this might be linked to the extension of other Covid regulations that were debated in the chamber more widely as part of other legislation. However, I note that paragraph 9 of the policy note says:

“SPS intends to publish the consultation, the responses received”—

which, I should add, were not all positive—

“and its response to the consultation responses on its website in October”.

However, the powers run out at the end of September, and we are being asked to approve their extension prior to the publication of the consultation and the SPS’s response. I find that wholly unacceptable. I therefore expect the Minister for Community Safety or whoever is presenting the SSI to give us more information on the concerns that have been raised in the consultation process so that members can take a view on the suitability of extending the powers as the SPS or the Government is asking for.

I thank the academics, who have put in great work on the important issue of deaths in custody, which has, rightly, been highlighted in today’s media. Dr Graham has done excellent work on an area that was perhaps previously unreported, as has the University of Glasgow on FAIs. It is worrying that nine in 10 of the FAIs that were analysed by those academics were found to have produced no recommendations at all on things that can change. The mother of one girl who died in a young offenders institution was widely quoted as saying that the FAI system was broken. We have heard that time and time again. That may be an observation rather than a question.

We could spend all day talking about community sentencing. I want to ask about prevention. There may be a perception that Scotland does not suffer from the same level of youth gang violence as other parts of the UK or the world. However, we know from the number of inmates who are involved in serious organised crime that that is an issue. What work is being done—or not done—to ensure that people are not sucked into serious organised crime at a young age? We want to prevent them from falling into the trap of ending up in prison as high-tariff, high-profile offenders. The main thrust of my question may be crime prevention.

That was a very good answer that explained the rationale behind the policy, but it did not quite answer my question. My question was about why so many phones were hacked. The obvious next question is: what will be done about that? Are those 7,600 prisoners being allowed to keep the devices when we know that many of them—hundreds, or perhaps even thousands—are being broken and used for illicit purposes in your prison estate?

We also know that 80 per cent or more of the current backlog of court cases relates to sexual crimes or crimes of violence against women and children. I suspect that the average age of the accused may be higher than for other types of crime. We know that such crimes can come from adverse behaviour and experiences at an early age. We aim to prevent violent crime; what is being done to prevent people from going on to commit sexual crimes?

I will try to stick to that general theme, but I have some specific questions. I would like to interrogate Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. I thank Wendy Sinclair-Gieben for her written submission, which I thought was quite stark. The first page paints a rather grim picture of Scottish prisons. It talks about overcrowding, high levels of substance abuse, mental health challenges, what is described as a

“fragile organisation with aging infrastructure”

and critical inspections. Given what we now know about the endemic problem of drug and substance abuse in Scottish prisons, have we simply got it wrong in Scotland? We have high remand rates and one of the highest incarceration rates in northern Europe, and Scottish prisons seem to be a revolving door of drugs, reoffending and poor mental health outcomes. What are we getting so wrong?

Thank you, convener. I have a supplementary on the line of questioning on parole. I indicated that I also have a question on alternatives to custody, because we have not really discussed that issue today, but I am happy to keep that for later, if we have time.

The number of people involved in the victim notification scheme is dropping year on year. At the moment, it is an opt-in service. I vividly remember from reading the Parole Board for Scotland’s submission that the word “victim” was not used once. Is that not the root of the problem? The entire submission is centred around how we make parole better for those involved in the hearings—in other words, those in prison. None of the submissions says how we can proactively improve the victim notification scheme, so that we tell people who have been affected by serious crimes that those who perpetrated them are back out on the street, in order that they do not bump into them in the queue at the supermarket.