Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?