Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

I will be very brief. There are three issues that I want to put to you about which concerns are being raised. First, in relation to individuals currently in the estate, we understand that individuals will no longer be moved. Where fresh charges are brought, if those charges are of a violent or sexual nature and regardless of whether the charges relate to crimes against boys, men, girls or women, what approach will be taken?

Concerns have been raised with us, as politicians, about searches. For example, there are concerns about women prison officers being asked to conduct searches on individuals with male genitalia and, indeed, male prison officers being asked to conduct searches on trans men with female genitalia. Concerns are also being raised about the safety of trans men on the estate and the duty of care that you have when trans men are being kept on the male estate. Are you aware of those concerns and will you either respond today or get back to us after the meeting on those issues, given that you are saying that you are not aware of them and given the fact that it is people within the system who are raising those concerns with us? Are you aware of those concerns?

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.