Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to start with the section on Police Scotland. It is a great summary, and I thank the clerks for it.

Page 4 of paper 4 suggests actions, and they seem to be that we ask the SPA to do some work. We first need to take a step back and go straight back to Police Scotland. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of paper 4 show that the committee—I am now putting this on the public record—is unhappy with Police Scotland’s response and we have more than enough opportunity to go back to Police Scotland.

Paragraph 5 states:

“The response does not include an explanation as to why the officers who the Committee spoke to did not receive the expected standard of advice and support.”

In paragraph 6, we complain that Police Scotland’s response does not address key issues that the committee raised. In paragraph 7, we also say that the point about

“the inadequacy of the employee assistance line”

is not addressed. In paragraph 8, the committee requests details about when

“the court scheduling system redesign will be in place”

and say that that information has also not been provided.

Therefore, Police Scotland has not responded to some very specific things, and we should give it a second chance to do so before we escalate the questions. I am happy to include the SPA in our correspondence, but we should go straight to Police Scotland and explain that we are unhappy with its response. Let us be up-front about that, uncomfortable thought it might be.

We could also include the challenges that the SPF has raised. I know that Police Scotland will read the response from the SPF but, if Police Scotland is not asked to answer that, it does not have to and probably will not. I would like Police Scotland to respond directly to the concerns raised by the SPF, such as the one mentioned in paragraph16, which is that

“the SPA bases its oversight on evidence provided by Police Scotland”

but not necessarily by officers directly.

That is a key point. In other words, the SPA seems to be marking its own homework by responding to evidence given to it only by Police Scotland, which is, of course, accountable to it, but not necessarily by going directly to staff associations or organisations to get feedback. We need to sanity check whether what the SPA is hearing from Police Scotland marries up with the truth on the ground. That is perhaps a criticism of the SPA.

Paragraph 17 refers to specific complaints about

“the strategic commitment to wellbeing from Police Scotland”

and the mainstreaming of that policy. It notes that the SPF believes that there is

“either a failure to operationalise the programme or a failure to operationalise the right programme.”

Again, we could invite Police Scotland or the SPA to respond to that.

I do not disagree with what we are asking the SPA to do around data collection and how it could better engage with officers and their representatives from the union or otherwise on whether that could be beefed up, as those are valid points, but they are not necessarily the main criticisms that we want to pose.

Although the paper is quite short, the committee has clearly expressed our unhappiness at the response that we have had from Police Scotland. I think that we need to challenge that. That is my only plea.

There are only five trans women in the women’s estate in total, so you must know.

I do not want to stretch this out too long. I thank those members who have contributed and the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending today and offering their point of view.

I want to comment briefly. On the change to rule 11 on matters that the board may consider, the policy note states:

“the Board may, in applicable cases, take into account amongst other matters, any failure to reveal the location of a victim’s body ... this matter may be considered where relevant, but does not change the underlying test for release applied by the Board.”

To me, that still does not make sense. I wonder whether somebody might provide further information—it could be done in writing after today’s meeting. I still cannot see how that could meaningfully be taken into account or be a factor for consideration if there is no change to the overall test. Essentially, if somebody refuses to reveal the location of a victim’s body and it is evident that they are doing so willingly as opposed to through inability, will that make any material difference in the decision making around whether parole is granted? It seems to me that the answer to that question is no, which is why people are disappointed.

I question how meaningful the change is. I park that here because, through that change, we have given some of those victims’ families a false sense of hope. I cannot see any meaningful application of the provision through which the status quo would change.

My views are on the record. Based on the feedback that I have had, including from my colleague, I will not push the matter to a vote.

Motion, by agreement, withdrawn.

I should declare an interest, in that I have also had a meeting with that group, as have others. It is very effective at lobbying.

I understand that there is a commercial interest behind the campaign. It is entirely appropriate that we note that. Nonetheless, to give it the benefit of the doubt, it has a genuine interest in the issue of transportation. This is certainly not the first time that the committee has raised the issue of the contract involved in that service, and some reservations have been expressed about it. To be fair, I put some questions to the campaign about the scenarios in which it would be entirely appropriate to restrain a young person—for their safety or the safety of staff and others around them—and I think that there is an acceptance that that possibility should remain in place.

Action needs to be based on evidence. If there is genuine evidence of inappropriate behaviour, that should come to our attention, but it should be a matter of public record rather than hearsay and gossip. If there are genuine examples of young people having been inappropriately managed, people should be forthcoming with those so that the Government can address the issue directly rather than it becoming an issue based on hearsay, in which we have no idea of the truth of the matter. However, the campaign made some valid points, which it is important to raise.

I know that you always cover what you plan to do next at the end of the discussion, so I may be pre-empting you, but I feel, given what we have heard, that it is entirely appropriate for us to go back to the SCTS. I do not see the point of writing to the cabinet secretary, because his short response says that it is an operational matter and that it is not for him to comment on it. Therefore, let us go straight to the heart of the matter and hear from the horse’s mouth what the difficulties are and what the general feeling is. I would like to hear more about opinions rather than just the facts from the SCTS.

Equally, I am not convinced that we have enough information on the outcomes of virtual trials—I know that the numbers were limited, but if you were a research data analyst trying to work out whether virtual trials produce different outcomes, I am pretty sure that you would not be able to come to a conclusion based on what we have received; from an academic point of view, it is impossible to say whether virtual trials have been successful.

We are heavily skipping pages now, but I wanted to raise the issue of access to court transcripts. I do not know where that fits in.

Thank you, convener, for allowing me the chance to raise this point. I put on record my thanks to Ellie, who contacted me as well on the matter, for the very public work that she is doing. It cannot be easy for her, as a survivor of a crime of that nature, to talk about it in the public domain and in the media. It is important, because when people do that, others listen.

The issue that I have with that letter is that, at the end, it says:

“In a proactive effort to improve transparency”,

the SCTS will publish information, including costs, depending on

“what type of transcript is required.”

The only thing that is becoming more transparent is how onerous and expensive the process is. If nothing else, that ambition has been fulfilled.

However, I have a question, which the letter does not answer, about the contract and tender, and I take real issue with the second paragraph of the letter. We have been raising this issue since this committee was set up after the most recent election. It came on to the agenda quite early and we have raised it numerous times. The letter says:

“The current contract is due for renewal imminently and ... the procurement timescales do not allow for adjustments to be made to the tender on this occasion”.

How on earth did we get into that scenario? We have been flagging this issue with the cabinet secretary for more than a year. We have now discovered that the contract is being renewed, presumably on the same terms and at the same costs. Nobody knows what those costs are, we do not know what the tender is valued at, we do not know who operates the tender and we do not know what the procurement process was. Had that been identified to us a year ago, perhaps we could have asked the Government to change the criteria of the tender or to be a little more transparent about the process. All that the letter says to me is that either the contract has been extended or renewed without any due tender process, or, if there has been a tender process, it has been on the same terms as the last one, which is completely unacceptable.

The letter says:

“The product of this work will then be reflected when the contract is next out for tender.”

When is that? How long is the contract? Is it for one, two, three or five years? Will we have to wait until the next session of Parliament to revisit the issue that we have been banging on about, simply because the Government has shooed through another contract with no questions answered? I find that unacceptable. The letter raises more questions than answers. It is a shame that the cabinet secretary is no longer here to answer the questions, because I would like some answers about how on earth we are in a situation where the contract has been renewed at exactly the same onerous costs, so that we are back to square 1 and we have kicked the issue back into the long grass. That is all that we are going to get any time that we raise the issue again. It is unacceptable.

I understand. Ms Medhurst, are there currently any trans women prisoners in the women’s estate who have been convicted of crimes of violence against women?

Thank you.

I do not disagree with any of that.

I have a further point, which is about an update on the issue of young people being held in adult institutions. I am not sure what the current number is. I know that the number is always quite low, but it might be helpful to get an up-to-date number.

I recall that a commitment was made—I think that it was after I raised the issue in the chamber—to provide more analysis on the future of the barnahus model and the volume or capacity that might be required. That would perhaps kick off capital investment projects quite early on, which would be helpful given the timescales for that sort of thing. My understanding is that work is being done to provide some forecasting on that, which would inform decision making. At the moment, we have one barnahus, but I do not know whether that is one of three, five or 12, or whether that is it. That issue is not necessarily relevant to this year’s cash flow, but it is relevant to future years.

It is valid to raise the issue of secure care and secure accommodation. I have recently had some local casework on the issue. There still seems to be disparity around how many places are available, who is filling those places and where the funding for them is coming from. Anecdotally, I know of providers of such services who claim that there is capacity in the system and do not understand why there are young people in the adult prison system. It seems to be a funding issue and a follow-the-money situation, so much so that they are taking people from south of the border to keep their head above water financially. That does not seem to make much sense. When we write to the Government, perhaps we could chuck that point in.