Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have just spent 20 minutes talking about a letter. If the minister was sitting here, we probably could have resolved all the issues without the need for further communication. If the minister feels the need to come and talk to us, she would be very welcome to do so. It would save the need for a game of ping-pong, with letters going back and forth, in which people can hide behind niceties that do not mean anything, as we often see in these letters that are drafted by civil servants. I mean no disrespect to the civil service, but we could just ask the minister some direct questions—she is welcome to be accompanied by advisers if need be. We could probably settle the matters quite easily with an appearance from the minister on the subject, perhaps tied in with some other issues.

I thank the Minister for Community Safety for the update on Valentine’s day—it was a welcome gift.

I did not spot this until the committee papers came out, but I want to comment on the content of the letter and pose a few questions for the minister to address. There is a lot in her letter.

My first point relates to the first main paragraph, on what appears to be the only bit of the act that has come into force: proxy purchase provisions, and the emergency worker aggravation measures, which we proposed—to be fair to the former minister, I am grateful to the Government for including those at our request. It would perhaps have been helpful to have some data on whether that was a worthwhile exercise.

I have chucked a few questions into the system, but perhaps the minister could make it easier for us by enlightening us as to whether there have been any offences relating to proxy purchase or attacks on emergency service workers. At the time of bonfire night—the tail end of last year—there were some high-profile incidents. We know that because we discussed them in the chamber and they were reported widely in the media. I appreciate that that was only a few months ago and that such cases take time to come through the justice system, but what is unclear, and what I am intrigued to know, is whether any of the emergency worker aggravation measures will come into play in any of the cases.

In preparing our report, and during the passage of the bill, we talked a lot about how many incidents were reported, the conversion rate from charges to prosecutions and convictions, and what the sentences looked like. I would be interested in seeing a piece of work on that at some point this year.

My second point relates to the next paragraph of the letter. The minister states:

“The ongoing unprecedented challenging financial context is impacting our ability to implement the remaining measures”

of the bill. I want to dig a little bit further. What is the

“ongoing unprecedented challenging financial context”?

What, specifically, is the minister talking about? If the answer is inflation, I think that that is a bit too generic. If it is a freeze on the directorate’s budget or a reduction in the amount of money that is available, that comes back to the financial memorandum.

During the passage of the bill, many of us raised the point that—as always seems to be the case with such things—the financial memorandum seemed to underestimate the overall potential financial ramifications of the bill. It seems that that is perhaps coming to pass. There might be a valid defence, but the letter does not say what it is. I would therefore like some more information from the minister on what, exactly, the challenges are, and on why the original anticipated timescales are being stretched.

My next point relates to what has been delayed. Indeed, it is clear that quite a few things have been delayed now. The firework control zones will apparently commence this year, but we were promised that there would be both guidance and a framework around those. I think that we need those in quite a timely manner in order to interrogate the Government on them and perhaps even speak to stakeholders. Some of us tried to include in the bill a requirement for that to be part of valid scrutiny. I do not want such provisions just to get chucked in as part of Scottish statutory instruments at the last minute when we have not had any time to scrutinise them properly. Firework control zones are quite a big part of the legislation.

I note the delay to the licensing system, which is not a huge surprise to me. Again, the reason for the delay is unclear. Is it related to financial matters or to disagreements with local authorities? Are there technical or information technology issues? Have any concerns been raised by anyone? Are things just taking longer than the Government thought they would? If so, that is a valid reason.

The final issue that I wish to raise concerns the restricted days of supply and use. That was another controversial element of the bill, which we discussed at great length. There were very mixed views on those provisions and on their effect on both online retailers and physical retailers. The letter just says that they have been

“paused to a future financial year.”

That sounds very much to me as though they have been kicked into the long grass. It is a polite way of saying, “We’re not doing it at the moment and I’m not sure when we’re going to do it.” Perhaps the minister could provide a little bit more information about what is meant by

“paused to a future financial year.”

That could be any time this century. Is there a bit of backtracking going on? Are there some issues? Have there been any legal challenges? Some of us warned that there might be. I hope that there is nothing untoward happening that would cause issues for the Government.

The letter is helpful, but it raises more questions than answers.

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.

Therefore, given the current policy and any future changes, as that individual is no longer in that location, were you in effect overruled by Scottish ministers on a decision that you were ultimately in charge of?

I am looking for clarity on funding and on whether they would be a feature of every institution.