Chamber and committees

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.

I do not want to carry on too long on the subject but, yes, you are right that we should ask those questions, and you can copy my comments from the Official Report and stick them in a letter to the cabinet secretary. I know that the clerks will cover all those issues in the questions that we ask, in order to get the answers that we need. Whether or not we get a response is another matter.

However, if we are where we are and it transpires that, because the contract has been renewed or extended, the status quo remains for a period of years and not months, can the Government do anything in the meantime? I am quite keen to probe that, perhaps in the same letter. I do not think that the numbers are huge, so I am not asking for millions of pounds. Is there an interim solution or mechanism whereby the Government could make funds available to support victims who require access to transcripts? That fund could be delivered or administered by a third party, such as one of the charitable organisations or other publicly funded organisations that work with victims. The funding could come from the proceeds of crime money, which is often hotly disputed. That would be a perfect way to spend that kind of money. In future, no one should have to crowdfund in order to get a transcript. We are talking about peanuts. I know that it is still thousands of pounds but, if we are stuck with the contract that we have, surely the Government could find a few bob from somewhere to create a fund to support those individuals in quite stressful situations. In the future, if the cost comes down and the service becomes cheaper, that will be super and the Government will have done a good job in changing that. However, in the meantime, we still need to do something.

Only if members are minded to do so; that takes us back to the possibility of a ping-pong scenario. The SCTS has tried to respond to us with a lot of information, but it has not fully answered the question—it is perhaps a question of perception—as to whether the trials have been successful and what challenges it faced in trying to implement those trials.

As other members have mentioned, we do not know what the experiences were in other parts of the judiciary, and whether those were positive or otherwise. That is what I want to unearth.

We do not need to write to the SCTS, so members are welcome to agree.

On that point, I agree that there is a contradiction in saying that remand numbers are not falling and then saying that they have reduced by 10 per cent. I appreciate what you say about fluctuations, but 10 per cent is quite meaty. I know that, if the Government were using that statistic, it would hail the reduction as a success and would not say that the numbers were constant.

The wider point that Katy Clark is making is that the information that is set out needs to be seen in context. That is, what is important is not just the fact that the numbers are falling but what is happening as a percentage of the overall prison population—that is an important measurement.

However, that does not really take into account two factors. The first is the crime profile of those who are being held on remand, given that the lion’s share of them are remanded on charges that would require solemn proceedings and are therefore more serious. It also does not take into account how many of the remand population of 25 to 29 per cent—the numbers fluctuate—are on remand because of delays to trials. I do not know whether it is 10 per cent, all of them, some of them or half of them. There may be a cohort of people who are held on remand but would not be had their trials come to pass. We need to be cognisant of that as well.

Good morning. I will open my questioning with some consensus on what the cabinet secretary said about the fact that we need to be careful not to stigmatise an entire community for the actions of a small group within that community. However, we are perfectly entitled, and it is entirely appropriate, to ask specific questions about what has happened, given the very understandable public interest in the matter.

I might be a bit more simple and direct in my line of questioning in the hope that we get through this more easily. I ask quite straightforwardly: who made the decision to house Isla Bryson in the female estate?

At what point in the decision-making process did it ever seem appropriate to house a rapist in the women’s estate, and has that ever happened before?

It is a wider point. As we look to move forward and offer some clarity to the public on the issue, at what point—at any stage of proceedings—was it ever felt or deemed to be appropriate to house someone who had been convicted of the crime of rape in the women’s prison estate? Why, in anyone’s logical thinking, would that ever be appropriate?

That in itself is a problem. What do you mean by “limited information”? Surely, you should have access to fulsome information about that individual. That person has gone through quite a lengthy court process and there was undoubtedly an element of public interest in the case. At what point does the nature of the crime for which someone has been convicted become a primary factor in decision making? Clearly, it sounds as though it was not in this case.

So, the answer is that there are none. That is reassuring.

Finally, what effect does the possession of a gender recognition certificate have on your decision making? There is still a bit of ambiguity as to what the decision-making process looks and feels like. I know that you have spoken about it, I understand the rationale and I know that you have been doing it for a very long time. The actions of prison staff in handling such sensitive issues are to be commended. That is all a matter of public record. However, it is still unclear how you go about taking such decisions. I am intrigued by the effect that a legal document such as a GRC would have on your decision making, compared to the effect of someone making a different kind of declaration that does not have that legal recognition—that might include those who have gone through some form of transition.