Chamber and committees

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.

Thank you, Dr Scott. I add my congratulations on your organisation’s birthday, and as one of the token men on the committee, I say happy international women’s day to you. Fist bumps all the way.

You have raised a few interesting points that I will not labour with the panel, because we do not have time.

The last point that I do want to discuss, although it is probably bad timing because it is international women’s day, is that domestic abuse is also suffered by men. There are male victims of domestic abuse, and they can suffer at the hands of either female or male abusers. I find it very hard to get statistical data on that, although I know that a witness from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland who will be in the next panel has some.

A couple of years ago, there was a concerted campaign by charities, the Scottish Government and some organisations in London to offer more support to deal with the stigma around male domestic abuse. You are nodding your head, Claire Houghton; do you want to come in on that?

Before I go back down the line of witnesses, I will add in the issue of sentencing, because Dr Scott was clear that sentencing could be tougher. It is all very well to pass it on to another element of the judiciary who are not here to defend themselves, but it is not just down to decisions by individual judges and sheriffs. The Scottish Sentencing Council is also involved, and that is often underpinned by legislation, which dictates the direction of travel. Perhaps in your answers you could respond to the school of thought that the current sentences are not proving to be a deterrent at all to some individuals.

Thank you.