Seòmar agus comataidhean

Finally, what would you like to see from the Crown Office? I am not talking about any live proceedings—that would not be appropriate—but five years is clearly an awfully long time to wait for anything to happen. You are not the only family that has been waiting that long. What improvements would you like to see in the Crown Office? What would be your big ask of the new justice minister?

I am going to start with a question for Gerald Michie. Gerald, you said that there are seven children in the prison estate.

Okay, so none of the people that you have in Polmont is there as a result of a lack of capacity in secure accommodation.

Who made the decision to put them in Polmont?

I really appreciate your feedback. All of that will be noted and considered when we look at the implications of the financial memorandum to the bill.

As you might have picked up from my questions to the previous panel, I am trying to get my head round what people believe the role of young offenders institutions is. If there is general agreement that they are not the place for 16 and 17-year-olds—and perhaps not even the place for those who are older, depending on the direction of travel of the bill—what type of people ought to be held in YOIs in Scotland? Is it about age, the nature of the offence or the perceived risk to the public or victims? It is quite hard to get your head round what sort of environment YOIs should be.

That might be a question for the Government because, ultimately, it controls which institutions we have, but do you have any comments?

Okay—that is perfect timing.

Wendy, I was intrigued by a comment that you made at the start of the session. The bill takes quite a prescriptive, black-and-white approach, with age-based parameters. However, I get the impression that other factors could, or should, come into play in determining where the best place for someone might be. Alternatively, is a one-size-fits-all approach, in which people progress from one institution to another and so on as they age, the only way of dealing with the matter?

You painted a scenario in which it would be entirely inappropriate for a 24-year-old with serious developmental issues to be in an adult prison but, equally, it would be entirely inappropriate for a 24-year-old who is of sound mind and who committed a very serious offence of assault, murder or rape to be in a secure environment among children.

Can you expand on that, and say how legislation could perhaps be better used to deal with those scenarios?

You probably listened quite a lot to the work that we did on bail and release from custody—I am sure you followed that. One of the comments that was made was that political decisions often come down to what the public appetite is for risk. Do you think that there is a public appetite for the direction of travel whereby 21, 22 and 23-year-olds who have committed serious offences would be deemed to be children in the eyes of the judicial system?

Okay. That is good to know.

Does the sheriff assign people to specific institutions or just to be held in custody? Who decides where people go?

The reason that I asked the question is that the policy note states specifically that the provision will

“facilitate the transfer of prisoners”—

not necessarily evidence—

“to and from these countries”.

Section 31 of the 2003 act talks about evidence being given digitally or via video or telephone, which might make it easier for someone to participate in legal proceedings in another country—I understand that—but then the policy note goes on to talk about the removal of people.