Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks for that. I appreciate that the contract is with the UK Government, but, in the meetings that you have described, does the Scottish Government get an opportunity to raise the concerns that we have heard about Mears? Is there an opportunity at those meetings to discuss how Mears operates in Scotland?

That is good to hear. I think that the women who spoke to us that day will welcome hearing the Scottish Government respond so categorically.

Similarly, we have heard right through our evidence sessions quite a lot about provision for interpreters, which is something that you are probably aware of, minister. We have heard a lot of concerns about inconsistencies in the provision of interpreters and the quality of interpretation; indeed, we have heard from asylum seekers that, sometimes, interpreters do not interpret what the person for whom they are interpreting has said. Are you aware of those concerns? What more can the Scottish Government do to address them?

Thanks very much for that. When we produce our report, the issue will be highlighted, because of the amount of evidence that we have heard on it from organisations and individuals.

My second line of questioning is on Mears, about which we have heard varying evidence. Broadly speaking, I would say that third sector organisations were fairly critical of the service that Mears provides. However, Mears itself—unsurprisingly—and statutory services such as local authorities were more positive. What is the Government’s understanding of the relationship that Mears has with statutory agencies and community organisations? Are there regular meetings between the Government and Mears? I do not know whether anybody else is involved in those meetings.

Thanks very much for that.

My final question will be very brief, convener. In her response to Karen Adam, the minister mentioned the paper that was published this week—just yesterday, actually—on independence, a constitution for Scotland and the protection of rights. Will the minister outline how she thinks such a constitution will impact directly on asylum seekers in Scotland? As we have all heard, they are being treated in the most appalling way by the current UK Government regime.

Before we move on, I want to put on record that, based on what I heard today from the minister, the answers to colleagues’ questions, the information in our papers and Stephen Imrie’s explanation, I would be quite happy to consent to what was asked of us today, although I am happy to follow the approach that the convener has suggested, if that will lead to a similar conclusion.

Like others, I will take the opportunity to put something on the record. This is quite a historic moment, which will possibly—I certainly hope that it will—mark a real change in the culture of how we deal with women’s custody and justice in Scotland.

For anyone who has had any involvement in the criminal justice system, either as a user of services or through working in that sector, Cornton Vale is synonymous with Scottish justice and is therefore almost a household name. As Russell Findlay alluded to, over the years, it has not always had the best reputation, but that is nothing to do with the staff who work there. I want to put on record my thanks to the staff.

What we are seeing now is a real change in how we approach women in the criminal justice system, which can only be welcomed. Given the institution’s status in Scottish society, I thought that it was important that I put on record my acknowledgement of that change and my thanks to all the staff who have worked there over the years in what must have been some very difficult circumstances.

My question is for Stephen Imrie—sorry, Stephen, it is almost like you are part of the panel.

You said that we could agree but wait. If we do that, would that mean that we were in effect consenting to what has been put before us today—which is where I would probably want to be—or would it mean that we were consenting to it with reservations?

I am not inclined to support amendment 70. Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay are asking the Government to bring forward legislation that is based on evidence—I feel that the bill is based on evidence—but they present us with amendments, such as amendment 70, on which we have not taken any evidence. Such a change would be really significant and it could result in a massive increase in the prison population. It would also have massive resource implications for the Parole Board and for how the system would work in practice—it would be necessary to go back to the drawing board.

I acknowledge the report and its recommendations. My point is that what you are proposing would be a big change and would require a big piece of work, so I am not sure whether the bill is the right place for it. I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s response, but there are quite a lot of questions here. Even if we think that something should be done in principle—there is obviously a very emotive background story, which Mr Lumsden outlined—it would need to be done right. We would not want to create a situation that made things worse. Where would the person have to have been detained, under what legislation and with what mental health conditions? If all that is not ironed out properly, it could be worse for people in the long run.

I just wanted to put those concerns on record, although, as I said, I note the principle behind Mr Lumsden’s plea to the committee.

I thank Jamie Greene for that intervention. I did not say what he has suggested; I said that the Parole Board was one aspect to consider.

The change that amendment 70 proposes would be an absolutely massive and sweeping change and we have not taken evidence on it or had a chance to consider its implications. Given that we are talking about a policy that has been in place in Scotland and, I believe, across the whole of the United Kingdom for a significant time, a lot more work and a lot more scrutiny would have to be done before we could consider making such a change.

I will not support amendment 70.