³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The instrument that we have before us today simply adds an offence where a fixed-penalty notice could be issued, as I understand it, and also increases the levels of fines. I would be minded to support that today.

On the wider issue, including the history and the broader review that has been referred to, many of us were concerned, as has been said, that officials were looking for offences to abolish. The general position is that it is usually helpful to have a range of available offences so that the police and prosecution services have options. It would be helpful if it could be fed back that some of us, at least, do not necessarily expect proposals for abolishing offences.

However, I take on board the wish to review whether the legislative framework works and delivers on the policy objectives. I do not have any questions—I just wanted to put that on the record, so that the minister knows that at least some of us hold that position and that, were the matter to come forward in the next session of Parliament, it might be that others make those points. I hope that that is helpful.

The proposals that are in front of us seem to me to be perfectly acceptable. I am pleased that we have ended up here and that the minister has brought all this information to the committee.

I am minded to support the legislative consent motion that is before us today, given the nature of its content, which seems to relate to the gathering of biometric evidence, legal representation expenses, evidence and records. Those are relatively ancillary matters rather than the principled issues that Mr Mountain has raised with us today.

However, I was surprised when I heard that we will not vote on the motion in this parliamentary session. It would be helpful to hear a bit more about the thinking and reasoning for that. I appreciate that that might not be something that the cabinet secretary has been involved with. I presume that the reason could be that there might not be a committee system up and running when the next parliamentary session begins, and that setting up committees would take some time. I know from our experience at the beginning of this parliamentary session that it took several months to set up the committees. Therefore, in any event, the motion would go straight to the Parliament.

That is the only argument that I can think of for this committee dealing with the legislative consent motion by making a report to members in the next parliamentary session. I would have thought that, ideally, a committee in the next parliamentary session would consider the issue, so that the members who are involved in the scrutiny at that point could take part in the wider parliamentary debate. It would be helpful to get the thinking behind that clarified. I appreciate that the people in this room might not be the ones who have that information.

As I say, I am minded to vote in favour of recommending the legislative consent motion.

I am not sure whether there will be another opportunity to comment, convener. If not, I will come in now.

I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about timescales and whether we need to deal with the issue today.

I thank Mr Mountain for putting his experience on the record, which has helped to put this relatively narrow legislative matter into its wider context. The purpose of the legacy commission is to investigate conduct causing death or serious harm that formed part of the troubles, and to conduct proceedings investigating the circumstances of certain deaths. I support that, but the clarity on the narrow nature of the LCM is helpful.

I am pleased that the issues around the independence of the Lord Advocate have been resolved, because the committee was extremely concerned about those issues when we discussed the matter previously. That was the major focus, so I am pleased that that seems to have been settled in a satisfactory manner.

I ask the cabinet secretary whether we have time to get further information or whether we should deal with the issue now, before the election.

I want to raise the issue of facial recognition, too, but the response could be in writing. There are concerns and controversy around facial recognition, particularly in relation to racial bias and racial discrimination, but also in relation to misidentification. Already, there is extensive use of drones in Scotland—for example, they are used at protests. It would be helpful to get a response in writing that addresses some of those issues. I have absolutely no doubt that you are aware of the concerns and the international controversy around the technology.

Thank you.

The cabinet secretary told us that it was accepted that planning for the first tranche of early-release prisoners was not as good as it could have been, and there was an attempt to learn lessons from that for the next tranche. Have you seen that, and to what extent is planning improving or now in place? Would you look at that, or is that not something that you—

You responded to Sharon Dowey on some points around rehabilitation. Would you look at rehabilitation and the extent to which it is actually available to individual prisoners? The impression that a lot of people have is that if a person is sent to prison, they will get help and there will be attempts to rehabilitate them, but we often hear evidence that that is not the case—the programmes are not in place. To what extent do you look at that, or does another agency focus more on that?

You think that it is both—okay. We have not heard a lot of evidence on the specific point about prisoners not being willing to participate, so that is interesting.

Finally—if we have time, convener—I note that you spoke about prisoners who present the least risk. Many members in the Parliament, over many years, have taken the view that the prison population in Scotland is too high across the board, in particular the population of women prisoners. A lot of politicians would take the view that most women should probably not be in a custodial environment and that the numbers of women in prison in Scotland are unacceptably high, as are the remand levels. Nonetheless, there is a disconnect between policy and implementation.

You may not see this as your direct role, which is interesting in itself. I am thinking about how we, as politicians, try to grapple with how we make legislative changes to enable us to identify the prisoners who have to be in prison—there are clearly many of those—and provide a framework for alternatives. Can you say anything about how we evaluate which prisoners present the least risk? Is there more of a role for prison governors, for example? What is your view on how we assess the risk that is presented by those who are in prison?

You may have a view based on your experience of seeing the system failing, though, and you have spoken about the importance of planning.

I will ask a little bit more about planning for release, which, as you said, happens towards the end of a sentence, and about the impact of the legislative changes that you referred to.

As you said, we have had a number of early‑release programmes, and last week this committee voted to reduce the automatic release point for short‑term prisoners from 40 per cent of the sentence to 30 per cent of the sentence. In many ways, that was a crisis management response, but how much time does the system need to put steps in place to respond to legislative change? The concern is that, given the change from 40 per cent to 30 per cent, planning for release might not take place in the way that it should.