Pauline McNeill
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Does she welcome what I am setting out to do in providing an expansion in GPS technology for bail management and home detention curfew, in order to give reassurance around the community management of offenders? Pauline McNeill: Yes, I do. I would like an early indication of additional investment in GPS technology.”
“I have consistently raised my concerns about prisoners not being guaranteed time out of their cells, and a number of prisoners have written to me, as a criminal justice spokesperson, because they cannot get access to the rehabilitation programmes that it is vital for them to do in order to be considered for release back into the community…”
“Scottish Labour welcomes the opportunity to have an early discussion on the state of the Scottish prison system. There is a lot in the amendments from the other parties with which we agree. We have just heard a considerable announcement. I will address some of it, albeit briefly.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has just taken up his post, and I respect the fact that he is at least attempting to put some bold proposals out there. I will address some of them briefly. Changing the definition of long-term sentences from more than four years to more than five years has serious implications.”
“What investment is the Scottish Government prepared to make to commit in the longer term to robust alternatives, such as GPS monitoring, which is referred to in the Scottish Labour amendment, to ensure that communities are safe? I do not mind saying that I have had this conversation with many previous cabinet secretaries.”
“On the release of long-term prisoners at 60 per cent or two thirds of their sentence, when I was not in Parliament, one of the big issues around the release of long-term prisoners was that the public thought that a prisoner’s sentence would be served in jail, and nobody could really follow the number of years that they would spend there.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Pauline McNeill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the road works on the M8 in Glasgow will be completed by 2026. (S6O-04722)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I experienced connection problems. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McNeill. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Justice Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Gambling Addiction”
“The Presiding Officer: Unless any member objects, I propose to ask a single question on three Parliamentary Bureau motions. As no member has objected, the final question is, that motions S6M-17610, on committee membership, S6M-17611, on a committee substitute, and S6M-17612, on designation of a lead committee, all in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to. Motions agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that Patrick Harvie be appointed to replace Gillian Mackay as a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. That the Parliament agrees that Mark Ruskell be appointed to replace Gillian Mackay as the Scottish Green Party substitute on the Education, Children and Young People Committee.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament recognises Scotland’s islands’ invaluable contribution to Scotland’s economy, culture and identity; welcomes the investments that have accompanied Scotland’s first ever national islands plan; recognises the positive impact that the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 has had, but notes the need for further action to tackle island challenges; welcomes the extensive community engagement to develop the new national islands plan, and notes that measures to address depopulation and create community wealth should be key themes of the new plan; further welcomes the positive progress and impact of the Carbon Neutral Islands project, and agrees that the Scottish Government should continue to work towards prosperous and sustainable island communities.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-17598, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on empowering Scotland’s island communities, is: For 63, Against 40, Abstentions 7.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-17598, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on empowering Scotland’s island communities, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-17598.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is: For 46, Against 64, Abstentions 0.”
“[Inaudible.] The Presiding Officer: I am just going to ask for your microphone, Ms McNeill. We are having an issue with your microphone. Pauline McNeill: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McNeill. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had the same issue. My app would not refresh. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“The updated equally safe strategy certainly recognises that, just as violence against women and girls takes place in all communities and places, the same also applies to online places. There has been much engagement with the UK Government, in particular around the Crime and Policing Bill. I will engage further with my officials and provide Ms McNeill with a more detailed update.”
“Deepfake abuse has been described as a “new frontier” of violence against women, and the United Kingdom Government plans to make creating sexually explicit deepfake images a criminal offence. The cabinet secretary will be aware that it is the creation of the images that is the issue. In January, the First Minister said to me that the Government was considering whether there was a gap in the law, and that it would discuss whether it could make a joint effort on the issue with the UK Government. Will the cabinet secretary update me on whether there has been any further thinking about making the creation of such images a criminal offence? Angela Constance: Ms McNeill raises a pertinent point.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of Scotland participating in a United Kingdom-wide fan-led review of the live music industry, in light of the recent UK-wide survey of the industry. (S6O-04640)”
“Finally, on digital productions, it makes sense that the bill suggests that a digital copy could be used and stored instead of being presented to the court, but we must not lose the right of the jury to see, for example, the actual weapon that is used in a murder case. We need to make sure that it does not become a default position that there will be digital productions and that the prosecution or the defence can argue unencumbered if they want the court to see an actual item on display. There is a lot to unpack in stage 2 of the bill; however, I will support the general principles of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Maggie Chapman to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 15:29”
“Surprisingly, although the provisions on virtual attendance are welcomed by Police Scotland as streamlining processes and because, it says, they can reduce impact on the front line, it also stated that “there are real questions about the feasibility of implementation”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 3.] A running theme can be seen in the feedback from many organisations that are already using virtual attendance in our court system. It is fundamental that we ensure that there is the technology to support that model. The proposal of a national jurisdiction for custody cases is another aspect of the bill. I want to ensure that the concept of local jurisdiction remains and that we are quite clear where national jurisdiction starts and where it ends.”
“Malcolm Graham from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service acknowledged the concerns that arose from the pilots and gave a commitment to the committee that the service is focusing on such feedback to ensure that those provisions can be used effectively. We also heard from representatives of the users of the justice system that any arrangements for virtual attendance should take account of particular needs. Adam Stachura from Age Scotland highlighted the importance of avoiding digital exclusion in relation to the bill’s proposals, pointing out that the fact that someone can go online does not mean that they “are very good at using the internet.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 38.] There is a lot to consider when it comes to ensuring that everyone feels that attending virtually is accessible.”
“more difficult for the solicitor to form an impression and, in effect, a personal bond with the client.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 6.] As I noted, there were also concerns about Kilmarnock sheriff court, where it had not gone so well. Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland commented: “the trouble is that the virtual systems that we have had so far have tended to be pretty inflexible.” He noted that “that is not really something for the bill,” but that it should “inform the decisions that are made around the bill.”— [Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 12.] However, as far as I am concerned, in many ways, it is for the bill, because, before we permit the further use of those provisions, those matters must be resolved.”
“He noted that those “Courts took four or five times as long, regularly running until 8 o’clock in the evening,” and that “the communication with clients was very poor.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 5.] According to him, the difficulties included insufficient rooms being available in police stations, limited time with clients and the inability of solicitors to obtain follow-up meetings with clients because of a lack of space. Paul Smith from the Edinburgh Bar Association pointed out that the lack of facilities in Edinburgh for virtual custodies caused delays, and that for “clients who have not been through the system before and do not know a solicitor, and for whom this is their first point of contact, virtual custody makes it ...”
“However, it also noted that “These undoubted and important benefits do come at a cost to the justice system”, because “Valuable court time is regularly lost due to delays in establishing remote links and re-establishing failed remote links.” That is not good enough, and that is why the committee has asked for more certainty on that issue. There were also concerns about the practical difficulties associated with virtual custody courts. Simon Brown of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association told the committee that he had participated in a pilot scheme for a virtual custody court in Kilmarnock sheriff court that was “a singular failure”.”
“The second strand of evidence was about the practicalities of implementing virtual attendance. There are currently many flaws in the system. In fact, some organisations noted that the success of virtual attendance would depend on the availability of reliable, effective video connections. Written submissions from the sheriffs principal stated that they observed “that virtual hearings are heavily dependent on the adequate resourcing of technology and infrastructure.” In its written submission, the Faculty of Advocates was supportive of the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance and noted that “the use of Webex to conduct preliminary hearings in the High Court of Justiciary works extremely well”.”
“In that respect, we note that the bill sets out the circumstances in which a court can issue a direction as to whether a physical or virtual attendance should take place. I note the convener’s helpful remarks that drew out where the committee thinks there should be more detail on that. The bill sets out the framework within which the courts can take such a decision, rather than being prescriptive as to how virtual proceedings should be run. Of course, the provisions have been in place on a temporary basis since 2020. The bill seeks to make these provisions permanent, but I am concerned about the lack of detail on how such decisions can be arrived at. I think that there should not be a blanket decision on types of cases, but that each case should be judged on its merits, at least until we see how the approach can be run efficiently.”
“The use of virtual attendance has its place, and it is being used in courts. However, its use is key to some victims giving evidence, and it can revolutionise the opportunity for victims to give their best evidence. We must scrutinise the bill to ensure that the new arrangements can work fairly for everyone, especially given that the provisions that were put in place during Covid will become permanent if the bill is passed into law. We have already established giving evidence by commission in our courts—that has worked well for victims, and the courts are getting used to that. There are two broad strands to the evidence that the committee received on virtual attendance. First, there was evidence about the principle of allowing virtual attendance and whether the framework for permitting virtual attendance in the bill was appropriate.”
“I agree with Liam Kerr’s remarks about the volume of work that the Criminal Justice Committee has undertaken, and I hope that we have done justice to the bill. The Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill does two distinct things. First, it sets out extremely important provisions on domestic homicide and suicide reviews, aiming to identify what lessons can be learned and potentially applied following a death where abuse is known or suspected, in order to help to prevent future abuse and deaths. Scottish Labour whole-heartedly supports the Government in that regard. Secondly, the bill sets out fundamental and permanent changes to the way in which evidence can be given in court and where the court can hear the initial stages of the court case virtually.”
“On Ms McNeill’s point about HMP Addiewell, colleagues will be aware that the SPS manages the contract, and, when things do not go well or additional assistance or support is required, it is the SPS that will ultimately step in. Ms McNeill’s point about families having appropriate access, whether that is to services or personnel in HMP Addiewell or to HMIPS, is important, and I will take that away and address it directly.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that the state has a responsibility to keep prisoners safe while they are serving a sentence? In too many cases, it has not done so. Does she have concerns about Addiewell prison? There have been 14 deaths there since the tragic deaths of Jordan Burns, who took his own life, and Lewis Spence, whose family have expressed concerns about the running of the prison. Families must be given full and unfettered access, as was promised by HMIPS. Will the cabinet secretary look into those matters? Angela Constance: Ms McNeill is quite correct to state the importance of transparency. Transparency leads to accountability; accountability leads to action; and action leads to change. I unequivocally state that the state has a responsibility to keep those in our custody safe and well.”
“I whole- heartedly welcome the commitment that the cabinet secretary has made on non-means-tested legal aid for close family members who are involved in deaths in custody FAIs. I called for that when the cabinet secretary made her previous statement on the issue, and I am delighted that the Government will use the powers that are available to it to make that happen as soon as possible, and note that additional powers will be needed at a later stage. I also welcome the transparency that we are trying to achieve in relation to deaths in custody, and the appointment of chairs of FAIs relating to deaths in custody who can be independent of the Scottish Prison Service. The removal of bunk beds at Polmont and the progress towards the removal of ligatures are really important for preventing more deaths in custody.”
“The transition would be an on-going consideration in relation to the child’s plan. The member will be aware that there are provisions in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 that would allow young people to stay beyond their 18th birthday. Those have still to come into force, and we will be considering that issue in line with the act.”
“The increased duration of some placements as a result of the increased sentenced and remand populations is welcome. Will the minister outline whether appropriate mental health support will be given to children who might be awaiting proceedings or trial? In relation to young people who reach the age of 19 and who are in the criminal justice system, has any assessment been made of what support they might need to transition to a young offenders institution? Natalie Don-Innes: All of that is contained in the conversations around and the plan for the child who is entering secure care. Mental health needs would be recognised. As we have spoken about, the case of every child is taken on a case-by-case basis. Where extra support is required, that would be recognised and implemented.”
“We have policy capture that is widespread in public bodies, and the Government’s smoke-and- mirrors amendment tells us nothing really about whether it takes any responsibility for that. We will work with the Government to protect women and girls and their right to single-sex spaces, and we will work with it to make that policy work for all people, but I say to it, please take some responsibility for the shambles that we have to endure right now. 15:47”
“I do not need to tell the minister that 70 per cent of them have experienced domestic abuse and a third of them have had head injuries because of male violence. To force them to share a space in a female prison with someone who is charged with a sex offence is completely unacceptable to most people, and certainly to the people I represent. The judge found in that case that the offender had a high risk of reoffending, which only serves to highlight the risk that was posed to women. We do not have clarity over whether female prison officers have to search a male-bodied trans woman. This is the point that I want to make—we cannot make unilateral changes to policy without involving those who are expected to enact that policy. I hope that the Government would at least agree with us on that point.”
“It was the case of Isla Bryson that probably altered the public understanding of the self- identification policy. It was while Isla Bryson was waiting to stand trial and was placed on remand in a women’s prison that the transition began. The Government seemed to realise that the policy was problematic only when it became public, and the Scottish Prison Service made the decision to divert Isla Bryson to Cornton Vale prison rather than Stirling prison or the planned destination at HMP Barlinnie. However, only after public outcry was there redirection of the destination of the prisoner. Having allowed that to happen was a prime example of where the Government’s policy is contradictory. We agree with the Scottish Government that special policies should be applied to women offenders, because most women in prison are vulnerable.”
“The Government has to take responsibility in that regard. The Equality and Human Rights Commission pointed out that, in the case of Fife health board, no assessment was done. Police Scotland’s guidance says that all members of staff are entitled to use toilet and changing facilities that are appropriate to their sex, but, again, the current policy ignores the 1992 regulations. I believe that that is under review, but I am unclear on what the current policy is. We need leadership on the issue. Women’s spaces are about their right to dignity and privacy as much as they are about safety. Women should be central in the design of those policies, because levels of violence against women and girls have never been higher. None of those examples illustrates that women have been central to the design of those policies.”
“That is despite—and this is important—there being a legal duty to conduct such an assessment. You cannot cut corners, even if you agree with the policy. It is relevant that the 1992 employment regulations are clear that communal sanitary washing or changing facilities will not be sufficient or suitable if they are not provided separately for men and women, as Fergus Ewing said. That was endorsed by Jackie Baillie. Dr Michael Foran said that “There is no plausible legal argument that the 1992 Regulations must permit access on a self-ID basis. Indeed, doing so would be a clear breach of the regulations, and guidance that suggests otherwise is incomplete, misleading or false.” The central questions are, why do public bodies risk being on the wrong side of the law and where do those policies come from?”
“The UK Supreme Court is considering whether having a gender recognition certificate changes a person’s sex for all purposes under the Equality Act 2010, so we will need to wait and hear that decision. However, it is at least clear that it is not a requirement for public bodies to base their policies on self-identification. Public bodies are required to base their policies on the provision of single-sex private spaces. Public Health Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service, the NHS and universities have all gone beyond the law on the provision of single-sex facilities. They have failed to meet their legal obligations in relation to women and girls. In the case of Fife health board, there was no impact assessment on allowing the medic to use a single-sex changing room.”
“I am delighted to follow Audrey Nicoll, who has done a fantastic job as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I endorse all that she said about our joint work on violence against women and girls. “Scottish public authorities are at risk of costly court battles because of the ‘unregulated introduction of gender self-identification as a basis for policy’”. That is from The Herald last week. To be fair, some of those policies have existed in public life for a while—in fact, probably since about 2014—but, for long enough, they went unnoticed and were not publicly discussed. Jackie Baillie was right to say, as it says in the Labour amendment, that the Government has failed to produce any serious guidance on how public bodies should manage policies to protect women’s rights to single-sex spaces but also to protect trans people.”
“I very much welcome the summit that the Prime Minister hosted at the weekend, which, fundamentally, involved European leaders. That is an indication of really good intention on these questions. Pauline McNeill is absolutely right. I am certain that more could be undertaken at a European level to support peacemaking in the middle east. We all watch with horror the events that continue to take place in Gaza as we speak. The level of conflict in the world is intolerable, and we must use every available device at our disposal to work to bring communities together and to avoid conflict in the way that we are experiencing it today.”
“Our hearts go out to the people of Ukraine for what they have endured, and their hopes for peace and security for their nation and their right to sovereignty. Does the First Minister agree that we live in complicated and dangerous times, given the rise of the right in Europe and the unpredictability of the US Administration, and that we must therefore strive for peace and stability in Europe and influence, where we can, all nations that are at war? That includes peace and security in the middle east, where Europe could play a leading role for peace. The First Minister: Pauline McNeill knows that I come at my politics from the perspective of believing in the necessity of European co- operation and active participation in European decision making and governance.”
“I will pursue the matter and will keep the member updated. Child Sexual Abuse Images (Online Availability) 2.”
“I know that the cabinet secretary agrees that, as part of the strategy, we need to improve throughcare services. The Wise Group recently advised me that one of the big issues for offenders who leave prison is the fact that they will have lost their place on their general practitioner’s list. That is one of the stumbling blocks in getting them resettled back into the community. Will the cabinet secretary consider finding a way round that, perhaps by freezing the place of offenders on GP lists, so that it will be much easier for them to see their GP when they leave prison? Angela Constance: The short answer is that I will give that very serious consideration. Work is being done to improve the connectivity between prison healthcare services and the healthcare services that people are entitled to on release.”
“Health boards must ensure that they have policies in place covering all forms of restrictive practice and that staff receive appropriate training. We expect other interventions to be considered before any restrictive practice is considered. Healthcare staff have a professional responsibility to accurately record all elements of a patient’s care and treatment, including use of restraint and the reasons for it. The expectation is that episodes of restraint would be recorded in clinical case records.”
“Maree Todd: I assure Pauline McNeill that unannounced visits by the Mental Welfare Commission already occur. The commissioning of visits by the Mental Welfare Commission in combination with HIS is a new development as a result of the programme and of the concerns that have been raised. I am clear that I expect that approach to give greater assurance, both to members and the general public, that standards are as high as we expect and want them to be, right across Scotland. On restraint, the Scottish Government is absolutely clear that alternatives to physical restraint should always be considered first, and that use of physical restraint should only ever be a last resort for the shortest period of time in order to ensure safety.”
“Given that the Mental Welfare Commission has visited Skye house on six occasions since 2017, and given that the main issues that were raised in the BBC’s investigation include allegations of physical abuse—including nurses quickly resorting to force such as physical restraint and dragging patients down corridors, leaving them bruised and traumatised—can we have any faith that the enhanced programme of visits will provide the necessary oversight? Given the magnitude of the allegations, surely it is time to consider regular unannounced visits to such facilities, because Skye house is not the only institution that has had allegations made against it involving abuse of children. Otherwise, we cannot be sure that children are getting the standard of care that they need.”
“The Government will get our full co- operation. However, we do not want to see this happen behind closed doors. I move amendment S6M-16532.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert: “acknowledges that prisons remain severely overcrowded, with prisons operating above capacity even after the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration’s emergency early release of prisoners, impacting on the ability to rehabilitate offenders; is concerned by the high numbers of women in prisons; condemns the SNP administration’s failure to tackle high reoffending rates, which result in offenders returning to custody due to the lack of robust alternatives; agrees that the third sector can play a significant role in the effective delivery of justice services that reduce reoffending, and support reintegration into society; calls on the Scottish Government to urgently increase the availability of robust community payback orders, and invest in safe and secure GPS electronic monitoring to drive down the remand population and give more public confidence to non-custodial sentencing; further calls on the Scottish Government to expand access to throughcare services, which are essential in assisting offenders to reintegrate into society and to stop offending; believes that a review of sentencing and penal policy will not address the urgent crisis in Scotland’s justice system, and resolves that the SNP administration should take immediate action based on parameters set by the Parliament to address these concerns, rather than focus on a review that will not take the prompt action needed to fix the justice system and keep Scotland’s communities safe.” 15:40”
“I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of this, but the Wise Group has told me that one of the things that happens when someone goes to prison is that, along with losing their home and job, they are removed from the register of their general practitioner’s surgery—and that seems to be the case even when someone is in prison on remand. One small change that could be made would be not to do that. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Committee has successfully argued for prescriptions in the prison system to make that more joined up; small things can be done that will make a difference to prisoners, and that is one that the Government should look at. I will listen carefully to what the Government has to say. However, at the moment, our position is this: let us get on with the job. We know where the answers lie.”
“If the Government wants cross-party support on sentencing, it follows that we need to know exactly where the Government is heading on that, and we need to discuss what the alternatives will be. We believe that the job of the Government is to get on with it and not kick it into the long grass with a review. In many debates, we have noted that 2,000 people are on remand in Scotland, which is a problem that needs to be discussed. We need answers on how to deal with remand prisoners in overcrowded jails, where, for obvious reasons, there are no programmes, and we need to think more about the conditions in which we hold remand prisoners. People on remand suffer some of the same issues as convicted prisoners.”
“There is lengthy guidance, as Liam Kerr has already said, which has been quite controversial, and there is a case to be made for the Criminal Justice Committee to look at sentencing, too. The point that I want to make to the cabinet secretary is that there must be transparency around this important debate. One of my concerns about another review on sentencing is that it will put it behind closed doors, but the Parliament needs more transparency in the discussion. I do not fully understand what approach the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is taking, for example, although it seems to be using its discretion more often not to take young offenders to court. I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of that, but there should be more up-front openness about what is happening.”
“Angela Constance: I wonder whether Ms McNeill welcomes the fact that the new throughcare contract has been agreed and will be in force for the next financial year, with increased investment now reaching £5.3 million. Pauline McNeill: I absolutely do welcome it, but the two points are not mutually exclusive. I would like it to be visible, but of course I welcome the commitment. What I have been demonstrating is that a lot of the answers to the problems are already known. There was confusion over the sentencing policy for under-25s, partly because the Scottish Sentencing Council did not seem to take any soundings from the Parliament before it arrived at it. However, there has not been a lot of discussion in the Parliament about that.”
“I have to say that this is the first time that I have heard the cabinet secretary’s intentions. I will reconsider, but that is our position at the moment. Liam Kerr: Does it concern Pauline McNeill that there is no specific budget line in next year’s budget for throughcare? Pauline McNeill: It dumbfounds me at times. I have been taking part in debates on this issue for two decades now—indeed I have—and we know that the answers lie in throughcare and supporting prisoners. However, we are nowhere near doing that. A budget line that demonstrated the Government’s commitment to throughcare would definitely be appropriate. I want to set out why we are not convinced by the policy review.”
“I have had many letters from constituents who have written to me from prison, frustrated that they cannot get on to the courses that they are willing to go on to demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated. I confess that I do not have the data, so this is somewhat anecdotal, but the suggestion is that there are long waiting lists in prison for people who want to go on rehabilitation courses, and it has also been suggested that someone could be waiting on the list, but someone else could go above them. It seems a bit unfortunate that there are issues inside prisons with trying to do that kind of work, and it would be helpful to get more data on that. At the moment, the Scottish Labour position is that we are not in favour of a sentencing policy review.”
“People enter our justice system with mental health issues, addiction problems, homeless, from the care system and many who’ve been victimised as children.” However, for those who receive a jail term, we need to improve access to throughcare services. Such services involve trying to get people who are coming out of prison back into their homes and communities, something that many third sector organisations such as the Wise Group are, as we all know, brilliant at. The throughcare budget is around £5 million, but it has been estimated that providing throughcare for everyone who comes out of prison will cost nearly £19 million. Given that the majority of sentences are short term, and that many people with addiction issues cycle through the system time and again, it is a false economy not to invest more in those systems.”