Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure whether this relates to paper 1; it is hard to keep track sometimes. My question relates to the Lord Advocate’s response to our letter on naloxone use. Is that an appropriate issue to raise?

You go first, Russell.

On the victim notification scheme, the comment is that our recommendation was agreed to “In part”. The column on “Notes and additional information”, refers to the work of the victims task force, a review of the victims commissioner for Scotland and so on. When do we expect the Government to come back to us? What format will that be in? Will it be a report, a parliamentary debate or legislation?

Given that there are a lot of wide and varied issues—although I do not want to go into all of them in detail today—around the VNS and other aspects related to supporting victims, I would like to know whether the Government will come back with a specific victims strategy, and what the format and timescale of that will be. That might take the pressure off us to chase up on individual points.

I am pleased to say that my point is not the same as Russell’s. I want to ask about diversion funding in general but also as a matter of principle. The table notes budget increases in that area. Two things are missing from the information. There is clear divergence in the range, volume and quality of diversionary activity that takes place across local councils. That is a piece of work in itself.

I would also be keen to hear a response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others as to whether they believe that that level of funding will enable them to meet what is being asked of them. Clearly, the number of people who come through the system is outside their control, and although any budget increase is welcome, the amount seems relatively small.

On whether diversion will be successful, the proof is in the pudding. The issue is not just about diversion funding; it is about whether diversion meets its objective as an alternative to prosecution. The delivery of that is largely through local authorities. Whatever your views are on that, it is clear that, when you unearth what is happening on the ground, the picture is diverse. In some places, the policy seems to have been done very well; in others, it has been done less well, to be honest. The committee needs to look not just at the Government’s promise of money, but at how the policy is being delivered and whether we are content that it is meeting its objectives.

This might be more of a structural point. We have marked that issue as completed in the table: we asked for information and it was given, so it is completed. However, the question is whether we are content with the information and whether the objective of our recommendation has been achieved. Therefore, I would refrain from turning to green the “Progress against delivery” box in the table until the committee has discussed whether it agrees that the information is sufficient or whether the matter is still a work in progress.

Great. My colleague Russell Findlay might disagree, because he has been passionate for a long time about the issue of the photocopying of prisoner mail, but my interest is in the three issues in the middle of page 8—recovery cafes, residential rehabilitation and throughcare—and the fact that we are not quite sure who is responsible for those. There is an indication that throughcare is

“an operational matter for SPS.”

Of course, the Government would say that, as it wants to maintain the independence of the operation of day-to-day activities.

However, if we take a step back, there is a much wider point, which is what the Government’s strategy is for people who go into prison with mental health and addiction issues, and what the link is between those issues and reoffending rates. The fact that we are asking for improvements to rehabilitation, funding and throughcare identifies that there is a problem. Again, it is not acceptable to be told “No information provided” and “To be decided”. We are being told “We don’t know” or “It’s not our responsibility.” It is not good enough for the Government to say, “Oh, that’s an operational matter for the police, the SPS, the Crown or the courts.” We are asking the Government and it should get the answer for us.

“Tackling drug use in prisons”, on page 9, is probably the next big issue, which leads to the point about photocopying mail. It is all very well marking as green the fact that there has been a practical change in one element of that process, but what is the wider strategy? Although that may be an operational matter for the SPS, I would see it more as a Government policy matter, given the scale of the issue and the fact that the prison service is diverse and run by different operators through different operational means and contracts. Tackling drug use in prison is a big issue that has been a running theme in this committee and others, but the table on page 9 just says:

“No information from the SPS currently provided”.

I know that this is our first session on the action plan, but those are the sorts of big issues that I would expect to see a lot more detail on.

My final point about page 9 is a personal expression of disappointment about HMP Greenock—I declare a local interest—and our specific ask around the five-year investment strategy. Large chunks of the prison estate are vastly out of date, and we know how long it takes to procure, rebuild, renovate and renew the estate. I do not think that we can wait another five years before the conversation on that even kicks off. However, that is an issue that individuals can press the Government on.

Given that the bill is not imminent and the Parliament has had a short debate on HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s comments about where people are sent to, I would find it helpful to understand the Government’s position on where people go and under what circumstances. There is a little bit of confusion as to whether, as a matter of principle, or as a blanket position, no one under 18 would ever be sent to HMP Polmont, for example, or whether there are circumstances when it would be an appropriate place for them to go to. If the Government is simply ruling that out, we need to know what its plan would be. It begs the question as to who goes to which institution under what circumstances and for how long.

I know that legislation is coming down the line, but, given that this is a live discussion, it would be helpful if the Government set out its current position, because people are sentenced frequently. If that identifies that there is a gap in, for example, secure care accommodation—that is why people are being sent to Polmont—the committee can press the Government to take action on the issue more quickly.

I do not think that it is appropriate to wait for the bill, as we are currently implying that we will do, to see what the Government is proposing. It would be helpful to understand where the Government sits in response to the comments that the wider public have made around the issue. We have pressed the issue in the chamber, but I feel that it is not quite clear exactly where the Government sits at the moment in terms of the suitability of certain places for certain crimes and people.

There are two separate issues. The format in which the recommendations were provided is public, so the Government and officials can look at that. The first question is whether the Government agrees or disagrees with each recommendation. If it disagrees with a recommendation, that turns the “Progress against delivery” column red and that is a closed matter, because we cannot monitor progress on something that has not been agreed to, as a point of principle.

Secondly, if a recommendation has been agreed to, or partially agreed to, which may be the case in some instances, it is for the committee to decide, based on the evidence provided directly by Government or indirectly via an agency, whether we are confident that the recommendation is being delivered as agreed by the Government. It is for us to then fill in the “Progress against delivery” column appropriately.

Although it is helpful to be pointed in the general direction of the wider policy document, because it probably contains a lot of detail that might help us, I have to say that that is a one-off document, not a working document, whereas the document that we are discussing is a working document—in other words, a live document. The only things that we would have to agree by mutual consent with the Government are the parameters by which we will monitor progress and whether that will happen every few months, every six months or whatever, but the Government needs to know that, as we carry out our formal work as a committee, we will regularly revisit this list and agree—or disagree, as is our prerogative—on whether we think that it and its agencies are meeting the objectives.

As Mr Findlay has pointed out, we cannot yet decide on those issues that are marked “To be decided”, because we do not have the evidence and have not had a response from the Government. I will give it the benefit of the doubt and another chance to come back at our next meeting, but I do not want to leave it too long before we have another such review. That might give the Government—and the officials who will probably write much of the response—some time to take the more thematic approach that we have created to what were recommendations, which I think is easier for the wider public to understand. I, as I think we all do, simply want people out there to be able to look at this document and say, “Good—I am glad to see that progress is being made,” or “I am disappointed that progress is not being made.”

What percentage of those 297 people were given a non-court disposal and what percentage were prosecuted more harshly? You can give the numbers instead of a percentage. What sort of penalties were given to those who were prosecuted in court? We know what penalties are available to the courts. I am trying to get a feel for whether we are using the powers that we currently have to their full extent.

On the legal challenge question, it might help if I give the context. You have picked five periods in the year: a Chinese festival, Diwali, a Sikh festival and two secularly celebrated festivals of new year and the Halloween and Guy Fawkes period.

If someone wants to celebrate other religious or secular events with their family in their backyard or another prescribed space, will the fact that the Government has chosen those very specific dates leave you open to legal challenge by other religious organisations or other groups or communities, which might feel that, by default, you have created a zone of dates that is exclusive and not inclusive?