Chamber and committees

I do, in a minute. I am really just trying to get some clarity. That is all that I am trying to do.

In balancing the rights of everyone—and I note what you have said about the importance of balancing the rights of trans people—would you agree that Rhona Hotchkiss is not talking about the possibility that women might be at risk, but that she is saying that the privacy and dignity of women in prisons are also important?

That is at the end of page 4. The policy note covers the preparation of prisoners for parole hearings, which seems a good thing. It says:

“This allows information to be obtained from the person concerned in advance to assess whether they are ready to proceed.”

I do not know whether or not this is relevant, but it has occurred to me that some prisoners will have literacy issues. If a new rule is to be introduced about preparation, it might be worth mentioning that it should include support for any literacy issues.

Yes.

I do not for a minute think that the cabinet secretary intended to mislead the committee. However, I totally agree with what Jamie Greene has said, and I took what the cabinet secretary said to mean the same as what Jamie thought. I was really pleased when the cabinet secretary said that, and what is said in the letter does not make sense to me.

My understanding is that the chief constable said that, if there is a flat cash budget, that will result in about 4,000, or whatever the figure was, people leaving the police force—well, not leaving, but I assumed that that meant people would need to be allowed to leave or that there would be cuts. However, the cabinet secretary rephrased it by writing:

“I said that I had ‘no intention of overseeing a budget for the police force that results in 4,000’”—

that is okay so far—“officers leaving”. Do you see the distinction that I am making? That does not make sense. I thought that the issue was not that 4,000 officers would leave but that we could not fund 4,000 officers.

There is quite a lot contained in the Scottish statutory instrument, and in ploughing our way through it we come across a number of fairly significant issues. We have a very short procedure for commenting on something that could be extremely important.

I wish to highlight two issues. The first is covered on page 4 of our note, which refers to risk management plans and says:

“There is also a new addition to the rule on decision summaries (rule 34) which provides that the Board must give reasons for a decision where it differs from the recommendations in a RMP. These provisions ensure that the most recent assessment of risk is available to the Board in their consideration of such a case and that they articulate their reasoning in reaching their decision.”

When I read that, I thought that that was quite an onerous responsibility for the Parole Board. If we have an authority with expert opinion that makes a recommendation, it will be quite onerous for the Parole Board to set out why it has gone against that. That is just an observation.

The point in the policy note about prisoner preparation says:

“A provision has been added to the rules to assist the person concerned to be better prepared for a parole hearing.”

I do not think that there is any mention about literacy issues. I thought that that should perhaps have been mentioned.

I have one additional point, which goes back to the issue of the police budget. We need to know how the £80 million additional resource squares with the cabinet secretary’s statement that he has

“no intention of overseeing a budget for the police force that results in 4,000 officers leaving.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 23 November 2022; c 12.]

I do not know what £80 million actually means, but I would be concerned if £80 million did not represent a figure that would prevent 4,000 officers from leaving. Should we pursue that with the Scottish Police Authority or with the cabinet secretary?

That is really helpful. The committee would find it helpful to pore over the profile. I note what you said about the upward trend from 2016. It is important for us to know who you have in the prison estate so that we can see what is going on as well as how the proposed legislation would apply. Can we get that data?

Will that show that a high percentage of prisoners who are on remand are involved in solemn proceedings, or is that too general a statement?

Thank you, that is really helpful. I have one other question, which I put to last week’s panel. We attended a custody court—I thank the SCTS again for letting us in on that because it was really helpful—and the evidence that we heard there was that, these days, fiscals do not seem to have the discretion to take a different view from what is marked up on a case. Procurators fiscal who served previously whom I have met said that they would have had more discretion.

I asked last week whether that was because centralisation of marking in the Crown Office has led to a more rigid approach. I am really keen for you to comment on that because it seems to me—correct me if I am wrong—that a procurator fiscal, as a highly trained lawyer, has an individual commission to make decisions on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Why should a procurator fiscal not be able to use their discretion, if they hear, in court, reasons to change how a case is marked?

Good morning. As much as I have read the bill, the policy memorandum and all the evidence, I am still trying—given that we are not practitioners—to get my head around legislation that is quite technical, and around amending the 1995 act, which is quite technical in itself.

To follow on from Katy Clark’s line of questioning, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s submission raises issues around whether we should define public safety tests. I do not take a view on that—I simply want to put an alternative view to you, and you can comment as you wish. I now feel that I would like to ask more people this question, so that I can sort it out in my head.

Others have said that it is incorrect to say that public safety in terms of proposed section 23B(1A)(b)(i) will serve as a sole gatekeeper, which is the matter in question, and the provision in summary procedure to which proposed section 23C(1)(a) would apply.

Some have said that it is more correct to state that, in such cases, the section—namely section 23B(1A)(b)(i) and (ii)—would serve as a separate and distinct ground for refusing bail.

Some witnesses are of the view that it may not be necessary, therefore, to define what is meant by “public safety”.

I am really asking whether there is another way to read it. As previous witnesses have said, it is for politicians and the Government to frame the policy, and the policy is to give sheriffs more discretion not to remand. You can agree or disagree with that, but that is what the policy is designed to do.

The committee has been asked to consider a number of substantial matters, including whether “public safety” requires to be defined; whether it should be left to the courts to define it; or whether Parliament should say, “We want to give the courts more guidance on that.” There is always a balance to be struck.

I am not asking for a really technical answer on that, but is there another reading of that, or could we amend the bill?

What I understand about all of that is that, if public safety is the sole gatekeeper—if it is the only requirement—there could be another provision in the bill. Of the cases that Mr Donnelly has raised, housebreaking and kinds of dishonesty are the obvious ones. They are easy to understand. Housebreakers are not violent criminals, so where is the harm? However, communities might say, “Well, it would be nice if we had some respite from a housebreaker for some time.” Under the current framing of the bill, could sheriffs say, “Okay, we will take a wider view of what the test is.”?

Anything that you want to say on that would be helpful to me.