Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate what you, and all the other witnesses, said in relation to sentencing: that it is not your role to set sentencing guidelines. However, you have a role in the consistency of sentencing and, on occasion—I appreciate that this may be rare—you will lodge appeals in relation to sentencing. Is there a consistent approach to coercive control cases across Scotland, or have you had to mark appeals?

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.

Can I interject? You are an experienced witness, and you have appeared in front of the committee on many occasions. We need answers. I am not asking you to talk about individuals. You say that the policy was adhered to.

Given the facts as we understand them, which I think we all agree on, and given the situation on 24 and 25 January—we do not need to talk about the individual—why was that person not transferred into the male estate and held in segregation there pending the multidisciplinary risk assessment?

Are you telling us that the policy from 2014 has been that an operational decision is taken on the basis of how the individual defines themselves at that point, irrespective of whether a multidisciplinary risk assessment has taken place?

The 2014 policy has been under review for a number of years and you have gone through a very quick lessons learned review in relation to this particular incident. Have recommendations been identified in the lessons learned review that were not identified in all the review work that has been happening over the past few years in relation to the 2014 policy?

Convener, given that witnesses have said that they are not aware of concerns that have been raised before, can I briefly ask whether they are aware of some concerns that are currently being raised?

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.