Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is a quick question on part 3, which is about failure to appear before a court following police liberation. It enables the courts to modify the date on which a person is required to attend court on an undertaking, if they fail to appear at court for a reason attributable to coronavirus. I am assuming that that is if they are unwell with the virus. The proposal is that that will expire on 29 November. What was the thinking behind that? I know that coronavirus is still among us.

That is okay; if you could come back on it, that would be fine but we can also get that information from other sources.

Community Justice Scotland gave evidence at last week’s committee meeting. One of the things that I will be asking the cabinet secretary about later is the direction of the justice system in Scotland. We obviously want fewer people to be in prison and I know that Teresa Medhurst and others agree. However, it feels as though we need to invest more in community justice in order to achieve that. At the same time, however, that is the first thing to go when things get tough.

Do you recognise that as part of SPS’s decision about throughcare? It was an invaluable service and I think one that has been highly praised across the board. HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland said that the decision was highly regrettable; most folk who have spoken to us about it have praised the standard of the throughcare service that you used to have in place. What factors were taken into account when you made the decisions about throughcare?

Thank you. It seems that the bulging prison populations are continuing to cause a host of issues.

Is the decision not to reinstate throughcare support simply due to budgetary pressures?

Are the Community Justice Scotland throughcare services still offered through the Wise Group and Sacro? Do the costs of providing throughcare services not come out of your budget at all?

Do the Wise Group and Sacro provide throughcare services for everybody, including all prisons and all populations?

To avoid the risk of stepping on any colleagues’ toes in terms of where they go with questioning, I will leave it there, but I might come in again towards the end of the meeting if that is alright.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.

Cabinet secretary, the committee has already heard, in written evidence and in the oral evidence taken last week, a lot of support for the approach that you have taken, as it aims to minimise the risk of referral to the Supreme Court, as you have said. However, in your letter, you indicated that there was the potential to have gone further. Can you elaborate on that and on why, in the end, you chose to keep the approach that has been outlined?

Thank you for that very full answer. Building on that, as I said earlier, the approach that you have taken seems to have widespread support in the sector, particularly from children’s organisations, many of which we heard from last week. That support is based, I think, on a real feeling in the sector that there is no alternative way to achieve incorporation at this point, given the Supreme Court’s decision. Do you agree with that? Were there any realistic alternatives?

Good morning, panel. I have a general question on which I am happy to take the panellists’ views one at a time. The convener will be glad to hear me say that the witnesses can give me as short or as long an answer as they feel necessary. I have heard what the witnesses have said, including their opening statements, at which point I was attending remotely, so I think that I know where each of them might go with my question, but I will give them a chance to put it on the record.

Will the proposals in the bill make it easier for people to find a lawyer who can advise them and help them to enforce their rights?