Seòmar agus comataidhean

The proposed new sexual offences court is separate from the pilot. We still have to make a decision about whether the pilot will take place in the sexual offences court or in the High Court. I can talk about the thinking on that if time permits.

I deeply regret that some criminal defence lawyers feel so strongly that, at this time, they are talking about a boycott. I will continue to seek to engage as much as possible, and I will seek to work with people on the detail. However, with respect, Mr Findlay, a parliamentary process is going on, which, in my view, should be respected. A process of inquiry and scrutiny is taking place. I will not box myself or anybody else into a corner at this stage.

I suppose that I am looking at the mountain from a different side. I will come to my officials in a moment. Although we have taken the spirit and the majority of the detail of Lady Dorrian’s report, I contend that some of the changes around unlimited sentencing power enhance the status of the court. I am genuinely struggling to see why it would not be seen as a court of equal status.

It is quite correct that that is a point of divergence from the original report. I accept that there were points raised by the Crown—by the Lord Advocate, in particular—about that, and we have sought to take them on board.

The discretion in deciding what offence goes where for murder cases in which there is a sexual element would, ultimately, remain with prosecutors. They would decide whether a case went to the sexual offences court or the High Court.

I will try to be brief, convener. The rationale is that, quite often in a sexualised murder case, there are surviving witnesses—people who will be called to give evidence on the offence that is being tried.

I appreciate that there is a range of views, but I have pointed to substantive bits of research. I know that time is short, convener, and we can certainly follow this up in writing, but Nicola Guild might be able to add something.

My understanding—and I stand to be corrected—is that although there is research south of the border in relation to people who have served on a jury, there are still limitations. We cannot ask them about their deliberations on a particular jury.

Yes, I would and, with regard to due process—and with respect to you, Mr Findlay, and to the committee—I would, before I lay out responses to Parliament on our intentions for stages 2 and 3, like to see the committee’s stage 1 report.

Of course, everyone is free to speak as they wish. However, as you would expect me to say—you would, of course, expect this to be reflected in practice in the SPS—we endeavour, where appropriate and where circumstances necessitate, to respect people’s identities.

I will explain my view on that. Given my exposure and visits to, and involvement with, prisons, I know that people wish to live and work in an environment in which people are respectful to one another. That helps to create a more secure and safer environment for everyone, as it helps relationships.

I will give one example from my contact with prisoners and ex-prisoners. They say that, when they are referred to by their name as opposed to by their number, that small measure—or measure that might seem small—is very helpful in securing and establishing relationships.

I am happy to take that question, convener, if Ms Regan is content with that.

It is vitally important to me, personally and politically, and as a Scottish Government minister, that we view the policy on managing the risks that some transgender prisoners present through the whole lens of the violence against women and girls policy, which is now mainstreamed. A ream of policies, past and present, have informed the underpinnings of the work that has been undertaken.

As a minister, I am always particularly interested in understanding lived experience. The committee might be interested to know that every female prisoner was surveyed on the policy. The survey had a high return rate—around 40 per cent—and there were a number of in-depth semi-structured interviews. What that work said to me was that women in custody were less concerned about living among transgender prisoners where it was safe to do so.

However, what really spoke to me was the fact that the women were more concerned about the Prison Service, as the executive agency, and the Government getting our risk assessment processes right and being alert to, and rigorous about, people who pose a risk. They did not want a blanket policy in that respect, either. I should point out that there is no blanket policy in the UK, by the way; the policy south of the border includes both a strong presumption in favour of the measures that it wants to achieve and measures for exceptional cases.

We must also bear in mind the learning from the report that was published last February, which sets out the challenge in terms of our needing to rebalance the focus on risk. I therefore think it imperative that the focus of the policy, which seeks to prevent people who will harm women from ever accessing the women’s estate, be that we look case by case at everybody who comes through the door and ensure that they are thoroughly and appropriately risk assessed. That is at the heart of the policy, convener: it is about ensuring that people who are at risk of harming, or who want to harm, the women who are in our care are unable to do so.

I should also make a point about the expertise of the Scottish Prison Service in the matter. It was Teresa Medhurst who developed the women’s strategy and the work on pursuing a trauma-informed approach in the women’s estate. By the way, that approach applies to prison staff, too, so we should recognise the expertise that exists not only at officer level but at senior operational level in the Scottish Prison Service. After all, for over 20 years now the service has been caring for transgender prisoners and managing the risks, where they present themselves.

The thing about the new policy that has just been published is that it retains and builds on the core protections that are in the interim policy. The purpose of the policy is to strengthen arrangements by ensuring that the risk management teams within the prison establishment—those multidisciplinary teams—are well supported. As a result of the policy, there is now a very clear and considered approach for exceptional cases.

I know that it is difficult for us all to hypothesise about such exceptional cases, but every policy—even the policy south of the border—has to acknowledge that we have to expect the unexpected and to plan and have a process for dealing with cases that fling up concerns and circumstances that have perhaps not emerged before, or where risk is very low but vulnerability is high. Any policy should have a very clear and rigorous process in respect of exceptional cases.

The policy that we now have includes a very strong presumption to prevent those who want to harm women, or have a history of harming women, from accessing the women’s estate, so we have moved forward.

That was based on advice on information governance and advice on data protection, but I am happy to check whether my colleague from the legal directorate has anything to add that would assist Ms McNeill.