Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the point that Beverley is making, which she covered in the First 4 Kids submission, does she have any proposals for how some of those ideas could be taken forward—in relation to people who are working in childcare also having roles as classroom assistants, for example? Does she have any practical suggestions about that?

Given that there is probably a limited amount of money, decisions will have to be taken. Are the witnesses of the view that it is right for the Scottish Government to target things in the way that it is doing? Is it making the right decisions, or would you criticise its approach or say that the issue needs to be looked at again?

I think that Matthew Sweeney wants to come in.

Do the witnesses have any specific proposals with regard to eligibility criteria that focus on tackling and reducing child poverty? Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to focusing on some issues, particularly low incomes. There are arguments, which I think Irene Audain was putting forward earlier, for focusing more generally on all working parents, both those currently in work and those who are not. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of prioritising groups? Is it better to have a more universal approach?

The Scottish Government has said that it is planning to focus provision for one and two-year-olds on those who need it most. As you will know, the expansion of school-age childcare is also focused on those on low incomes. What do you think of eligibility criteria and the impact on child poverty? What can we do to maximise the impact on child poverty?

When officials gave evidence, they said clearly that, currently, no 16 or 17-year-olds could legally be moved into secure units, because of the disposal of the court. However, it would be helpful to ask the Scottish Government for confirmation that that remains the case and for a commitment that it will continue to be the case that 16 and 17-year-olds will be held in secure units wherever possible. If, for whatever reason, that is not possible, the committee should be advised through the Government’s writing to alert us to the fact that there has been a change.

I have a further point, which is about data and women in custody. The committee has discussed such issues many times and has expressed concern on numerous occasions, both publicly and in our private sessions, about the lack of data that is available to us and the difficulty in carrying out our scrutiny work when we do not have an understanding of the profile and the nature of the people who are being incarcerated in this country.

The Scottish Government’s intention seems to be to reduce the number of women in custody, but, in reality, that number is increasing, and there seems to be concern that it will continue to increase. It would therefore be helpful to get more information from the Scottish Government about the profile of the women who are held in custody and the reasons why there might have been an increase. There might be a range of reasons for that. I do not want to speculate in this meeting as to what those might be, but we need an explanation from the Scottish Government.

It is far from clear whether the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill will make any difference to the number of women who are remanded. We were told yesterday that the current figure for women on remand in the prison estate is 37 per cent. That is high, and it is very unclear whether the bill will make any difference to that. It would be useful to find out whether the Scottish Government believes that the bill will make any difference to the number of women who are held on remand and why it remains the case that so many women are being held in the prison estate.

We know that the new custody units have, at maximum, been at only 53 per cent capacity, which tells us that, at other times, they have been less than half full. The committee should write to express concern about that. I fully understand that the issue has now been raised and that the Scottish Prison Service is considering it, but those custody units have been open since August.

Committee members were very impressed by what we saw when we visited the units—there has clearly been massive investment, financially and in other ways, in those facilities, so it is important that they are a success. We should express our concern in the strongest terms about the fact that they have not been used to their full capacity and call for urgent action in that regard.

We know that people are put in custody not just because of the legislative framework but because of the lack of alternatives to custody. In relation to the alternatives to remand reference group, we need a great deal more detail about what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that there are genuine and robust alternatives to custody. We know, for example, that people who are given community service orders are often not required to carry out the measures that are set out in their sentence.

We need a shift in resources into alternatives to custody if the Scottish Government is to be successful in enabling the courts to dispose of cases in other ways. When we look at the budgets, we see that the money for that is not being provided. The direction of travel is the wrong one: the amount of money that has been provided for alternatives to custody is going down instead of up. We should express in the strongest terms the need for the Scottish Government to shift resources now if it is to have any success with its stated strategy.

My points, which are about data, relate to the letter from the Scottish Prison Service dated 26 April. The terms of the letter are general but they relate to areas in which the SPS has data.

When Teresa Medhurst appeared before us, she said that the SPS could provide the committee with more data. We cannot wait for the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to get more data so that we can do the job that we have been tasked with. I suggest that we write to ask Teresa Medhurst if she could look at what data the SPS could share with the committee, because she made it clear that further data was available and, from talking to people in the system, my understanding is that there is a great deal more data that we have not seen that could easily be shared with us. We should write with that specific request.

Amendment 11A was lodged as a consequential amendment to an amendment that was discussed in the previous group. However, given the cabinet secretary’s amendment 11, I intend to withdraw amendment 11A.

I move amendment 11A.

Can the cabinet secretary give some examples of situations in which she would envisage such legislation being necessary?

The cabinet secretary has asked about delivery. Perhaps an example of how victim support organisations might be involved in the delivery of such services would be to do with housing allocation and whether it is appropriate for someone who has been convicted of a violent offence to be, say, relocated in the same part of a town as the complainer. Might that be an example of something in which victim support organisations could appropriately get involved?