Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I welcome Douglas Lumsden to the committee and thank him for the way in which he put forward his constituent’s case. It was very powerful.

I am quite sympathetic to where Mr Lumsden wants to go with this in a general sense, but I would not be inclined to vote for amendment 100 at this stage, because there are quite a number of questions that I—and, I think, the committee as a whole and the Government—would have about it. Would it apply if a person had been detained under mental health legislation? How long ago would that detention have had to take place? What supports would the amendment put in place for people?

Similar to an amendment that I spoke to earlier, I see the principle behind it, about which Mr Lumsden spoke very passionately—no one can deny that, and I would not seek to do so—but I have questions about the effect of the amendment in practice.

Thanks for that update. I know from the presence that you have in North Lanarkshire, where my constituency is, that that is something that you have been working on for a period of time.

I am sorry if my line of questioning is a bit disjointed and does not join up exactly, but please bear with me. This is probably for Caroline O’Connor and John Taylor. What are your thoughts on the issue of interpreters, which has come up in the various committee sessions that we have had on this subject? What is the service provision like around interpreters? A lot of people have told us that there are real concerns in that area. Are there difficulties with it, and how might those be overcome?

John Taylor, do you have anything to add to that? How does your team access interpreters? Is there any difficulty with that or do you feel that you have that provision?