³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Okay—thank you.

It is clear that there has been considerable investment in the women’s estate, with the opening of the two new community custody units and the new prison in Stirling, which we are yet to see. Given what we know about women’s offending patterns and the different nature of the women’s prison population compared with that of the male estate, do we need to assess whether those new facilities provide more appropriate facilities for women? I wonder whether we should incorporate their special needs, healthcare issues—which we are aware of—parental responsibilities and medical needs into that assessment. Particularly once Stirling prison is open, I wonder whether we should review whether the women’s estate delivers on the objectives that have been set over many decades.

This is very interesting. With the exception of the use of juries in cinemas, which has been pointed out by Lady Dorrian, and which I had not really thought of as virtual trials, although they obviously are, the main thing that comes through is how few virtual trials are taking place. Lady Dorrian’s comment that there has been no appreciable difference in the figures for conviction, acquittal or plea rates in the cases that had juries in cinemas was interesting. I suspect that we have probably seen that data in a different way in a different place, but we have not necessarily thought about where the juries were.

It is striking how few virtual summary trials have taken place. If any more long-term proposals were made, we would need a far more substantial evidence base. That is the position that the committee should take if any proposals come forward for something more substantial in legislation, which may happen. It is important to put down a marker that it should be evidence led, but at the moment the sample is too small.

I want to pick up on the issue that Fulton MacGregor raised about the use of handcuffs. I suspect that he knows far more than I do about the rules and guidelines that exist in terms of residential care in children’s homes and so on, but as far as I understand the issue, the regulations that exist in some settings do not exist in the transportation setting. It would be useful to have a briefing on that in order to get some detail on the issue before we start taking any evidence on it. I do not have the relevant background and I think that it might be helpful to the committee if, rather than ask witnesses about it, we were given copies of all the regulations that exist in various settings.

I wanted to raise an issue about remand, which comes up on page 13. It relates to some of the evidence that we have seen in relation to the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. The remand rate for women is even higher than that for men—the rate of male unconvicted prisoners approaches 30 per cent of the prison population while, for women, the rate is 35 per cent to 40 per cent. I was quite alarmed when I learned that.

I know that the committee has had difficulty getting data around offending patterns, and I think that it might be useful to incorporate in our work the idea that we need to have a better understanding of who is in the prison population, both on remand and in the general population. It would be good to be able to track the differences that occur over time. My impression is that there are now more violent prisoners and prisoners who have been charged with or convicted of serious sexual offences such as rape and child sexual abuse, including historic cases, but we need to have a better understanding of that. Perhaps that could be incorporated in the work programme, because trying to get that information has been like pulling teeth. I know that the Scottish Parliament information centre has tried to provide what is available but, without more information, it is difficult for us to scrutinise the situation.

I also want to highlight the differences between the male estate and the female estate. We need to have an understanding of both.

I will be brief. I find it bizarre that we have discussed this so many times but are none the wiser about what the issues are. As I have said before, I suspect that the issues are about substantial cost. I used to work in the courts, so I know that getting transcripts was very expensive, although that was a long time ago. I suspect that very substantial costs are involved and that is why it has been difficult to get progress. I do not understand why the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government are not sharing that information with us, so that we could have an informed discussion and debate. I do not understand why there is not more straight talking and transparency. I am guessing what the issues are, because that information is not being provided to us, and we are getting meaningless correspondence from the Scottish Government.

I will keep my contribution relatively short. I do not have any objection to the rules that the cabinet secretary is proposing. However, I welcome the fact that Jamie Greene has lodged a motion to annul the instrument. As the committee has discussed on previous occasions, many of us feel that this is a missed opportunity. The committee would have liked to have been involved in the discussion at an earlier stage and we felt that we came to the matter quite late, because the process and the procedure are such that we, as the Parliament, are not able to amend the rules.

I do not have any objection to any of the rules that are being put before us. Although I welcome Jamie Greene’s motion, I am not minded to vote for it. It has given us the opportunity to highlight some of the issues. Indeed, as Jamie Greene said, as a result, the committee has been furnished with considerable extra information, which is very useful.

A far wider debate about the role of victims needs to take place. That means a debate not only about their meaningful role in parole hearings—as Jamie Greene suggested—but about the experience that victims have had for generations: they receive a lack of information, feel excluded from the process and find out about issues accidentally and at a later stage than they would wish. Collectively, the Parliament is aware of those issues; yesterday, there was a debate on victims’ rights.

Although I am not minded to vote for Jamie Greene’s motion, the fact that it has been lodged is welcome. As he said, the committee and the Parliament often look at enabling legislation and we are asked to vote for it on trust that the regulations that come thereafter will be acceptable. However, there is not really a proper process for scrutiny of the subordinate legislation that follows.

I do not want to give the impression that I think time has been wasted by this motion having been lodged, because even if there are not significant problems with the specific rules, they represent a missed opportunity, and it is important that the committee puts on record that we want more to be done in relation to the issues that they raise.

I have a point about youth offending and community justice solutions. We will probably discuss this in more detail when we talk about the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. The intention on the shift towards community justice under that bill is clear but those budgets are getting cut for the year starting in April.

The committee needs to examine how that money is spent and how even a relatively modest increase might reap rewards. I wonder whether we should consider incorporating that into the action plan. It is likely that the bill will be passed, but there is a risk that nothing will change unless there is a structural shift in where the money goes. We might want to monitor that more heavily than other areas that we are considering, particularly given that we have spent so much time scrutinising the bill.

What factors would be taken into account? We know that, on this occasion, it was not somebody who had lived as a woman for many years because, at the time of the offence, they had not self-defined. At some point during the legal process, did their status change? Do you know that? Was that fact available at the time and were the offence and the conviction taken into account in the operational decision that was taken?

I am not asking you to focus on the individual; I am asking you to focus on how those issues are dealt with and what factors would be taken into account, given that you would not have all the facts, as you would not have had the multidisciplinary assessment.

I am not asking you to refer to individuals, but at what level within the service would that decision be taken? Who would take that decision?

We do not have a lot of time, so maybe you could answer the question, which is about whether recommendations were identified in the lessons learned review that were not recognised in that very long process.