Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is data protection. We have obligations under data protection and information governance.

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.

I stress to Ms McNeill that I would not narrate this as an SPS decision as such, and I would not narrate it as a position that anybody is comfortable with, necessarily. Sometimes, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I feel the frustration of not being able to talk in a more free and frank manner. However, the reality is that, as justice secretary and as a minister in the Government, I have to uphold the law and, if I get advice on information governance or data protection, I have to comply with that, as do public bodies.

I appreciate some of the frustrations around this issue. In many circumstances, it would be far easier, if it was desirable, appropriate or, indeed, legal, to discuss individuals—

Until the statistical release—

Again, we have carefully looked at that, bearing in mind the operational independence of our courts and prosecutors, and that it is not in anybody’s interest for those processes to be interfered with. Ultimately, the victims and witnesses commissioner is about amplifying the voices of victims and witnesses to ensure better and consistent system-level change.

The commissioner can engage with individuals and can consider the individual experiences of people, but that is to improve understanding of the national picture. Bearing in mind the discussions that we have had so far about concerns about duplication and costs, I am satisfied that the commissioner, as is the case with other commissioners, will not take on or intervene in individual cases.

Thank you, convener, and good morning.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill puts victims at the heart of the justice system. Parts 1 to 3 of the bill are essential to the delivery of that ambition. I will briefly go over the aims of those parts.

Part 1 of the bill, on establishing an independent victims and witnesses commissioner, will give victims an independent voice to champion their views and hold justice agencies to account. Part of the commissioner’s role will be to monitor how agencies are complying with the standards of service and the victims code.

There is long-standing and clear demand for the role from victims. The issue has been discussed at the victims task force for a number of years, and our public consultation revealed that there is strong support for the role. The bill delivers on a commitment that was made to victims and the wider public via our manifesto and our programme for government to establish such a post. The role will benefit victims and witnesses of crime by providing a statutory mechanism for their voices and experiences to be heard.

Part 2 of the bill aims to put trauma-informed practice at the heart of decision making in the justice system, to improve people’s experiences of justice, and to help them to participate effectively.

I have followed the committee’s scrutiny of those parts of the bill with interest, and I am pleased that there has been universal agreement among the committee’s witnesses that the justice system must operate in a trauma-informed way.

The committee has heard from experts about the ways in which trauma can affect people, and victims and survivors have spoken powerfully about the lasting impacts of trauma and how the justice process itself can be retraumatising. We cannot remove all risk of traumatisation from the justice system, but the bill will put in place measures that aim to minimise that risk. If people are treated in trauma-informed ways, that can help to keep them engaged with the justice process, help to ensure that trauma does not prevent them from participating effectively, and help them to give their best evidence. As well as significantly improving the experiences of witnesses, that can improve the quality of the justice process for everyone involved.

The bill builds on work that is already being done by justice partners, and it aims to embed the principles of trauma-informed practice within our justice system. It includes a definition of trauma-informed practice to help to ensure a consistent understanding and a consistent approach. It requires justice agencies to make efforts to reduce retraumatisation and to publish standards on trauma-informed practice.

The bill also requires the judiciary to take trauma-informed practice into account when scheduling court business, and it empowers the courts to set rules that are designed to ensure that proceedings are conducted in trauma-informed ways.

Part 3 of the bill covers special measures in civil cases. Special measures protect people in court who might be vulnerable. The provisions are a reflection that domestic abuse can arise in civil cases as well as in criminal cases. The existing legislation on special measures covers civil cases as well as criminal cases, but there have been requests over the years to improve the legislation on special measures in relation to civil cases. The Children (Scotland) Act 2020 includes provisions to enhance special measures in some cases. That act was, of course, about just family cases. The bill is an opportunity to extend the provisions to cases generally.

The bill is central to the delivery of our vision for justice. It brings forward proposals for transformational change to the system, which have emerged from respected review processes and directly from victims. The Government is acting on the evidence and on what we have heard from people with experience of the system. It is important that the bill is the Government’s response to what we have heard from victims.

I look forward to the committee’s questions.

When a financial memorandum is produced, it is based on the detailed evidence that is available at the time. I stress that we have engaged extensively with our stakeholders and partners, who will ultimately have operational responsibility to deliver many aspects of the bill.

We were very transparent and up front about the financial memorandum. The costs are far easier to define for parts 1, 2 and 3, which we are discussing this morning. There are other parts of the bill—Mr Findlay is right to point to that—for which estimates and minimum costs have been given. That is in recognition of variables and operational decisions that have yet to be made.