 I welcome to the seventh meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee. No apologies have been received this morning. The first agenda item is to agree whether to take item 4 in private, and this is to discuss the evidence that we are about to hear on the Covid recovery and reform bill. Can I also seek agreement that consideration of the evidence heard and draft reports on the bill should be taken in private at future meetings? Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I now refer members to papers 1 to 3, and today the committee is beginning its scrutiny of the justice provisions in the coronavirus recovery and reform bill at stage 1 of the Parliament's legislative process. We will hear from two panels of witnesses, and later in the meeting we'll be joined by representatives of the Howard League and the Scottish Prison Service. However, first I am very pleased to welcome to today's meeting Dr Marcia Croff, chief executive of Scottish Women's Aid, and Kate Wallace, chief executive of Victim Support Scotland. We very much appreciate the time that you have taken to join us this morning. I intend to allow our four questions and answers, and, as usual, I ask members and our witnesses to keep questions and answers as succinct as possible. When we are asking our questions, can I please ask members to indicate which witness you are directing your remarks to? I know that both witnesses are familiar with how our online meetings work. If you would like to speak, you can let us know that you want to come in by typing an R in the chat function. We'll now move directly to questions. If I may, I would like to open up with a general opening question for both Kate Wallace and Dr Marcia Scott. I'll bring in Kate first and then followed by Dr Scott. I note that both Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid are supportive of a permanent change that will expand the use of virtual court proceedings. I would like to ask Kate first if there are any areas that you are concerned about in respect of the use of virtual attendance. For example, I know issues relating to digital access for vulnerable groups or people living with disability have been raised. I'll come to you first, Kate, and I'll ask what your comments and thoughts are on the general provision over to Kate. The feedback that we've had is an overwhelming feedback that vulnerable witnesses, in particular, value being able to give their evidence away from the courtroom. In particular, there's a lot of concerns about potentially seeing the accused or the accused's family. We know from many, many decades of research that attending court is a traumatising situation for victims and witnesses often. Providing evidence and being able to give your best evidence out with a court setting that is a traumatising environment, we feel is an overarching theme. Of course, there are issues around and assessing the suitability of giving evidence remotely to people who may have issues and challenges around access and technology. It is important to note that those provisions are already in the vulnerable witness legislation that we've had in Scotland since 2004. There is the ability to give evidence via a live video link out with a court building, if appropriate. We would like to see a wider use of that, with an assessment of the support that somebody may need. However, the technology has moved on so much that the virtual trials that I've viewed, there are sometimes concerns about being able to use technology, but, quite often, in most of the time that we've been supporting SCTS and others with the virtual trials that have had somebody there with them, with the vulnerable witness that would normally have a supporter there any way through special measures. That has helped to overcome. From our perspective, we want to see a trauma-informed justice system that gives people choice and control, and they can make that decision for themselves if they think that that is the way that they want to do it. It's not everybody that wants to give their evidence in that way, but certainly the overwhelming feedback that we've had is that it has really lessened people's trauma, and that concern that they've got about bumping into the accused or their family has just completely removed from them, which is helpful. Thanks very much, Kate. I'll now bring in Marcia Scott. Would you like to pick up on that question? I would. There's an echo in here. I'm not sure what the—but it's quite distracting—if there's a way to turn off somebody's mic. The first thing I would say is that the legislation is deeply disappointing for us in that a huge amount of work has gone in and victim support was very much involved in this. The trial of a virtual summer trials pilot in Grampian gave us a very robust report evaluation that indicated lots of positive—all the things that Kate said, plus—and we sat on the board for that project—when we heard from victims and survivors in our network, they are overwhelmingly positive about feeling safer, giving better evidence, not having to trail their children all over Scotland in order to go to a court where their trial or hearing is postponed yet again. It's got climate change benefits. The one barrier left in the system that has been mentioned by the board and the Lord President was legislation needing to create, and I quote, in effect a presumption for domestic abuse trials to go ahead in electronic form. I speculate that the reason we don't have that in this bill is that we're concerned about cross-party consensus not being present. I urge the committee to weigh in constructively on this really important piece. I want to point out that the problem in the system at the moment is that defence agents tend to object to virtual trials. Despite the possibility of thousands of trials going forward virtually during the previous two years, eight went ahead. We really need this piece in the legislation. That's helpful and certainly food for thought for members. I would like to ask a quick follow-up question. I will bring in Katie Clark to pick up some questions around time limits and criminal cases. Before I do that, I would like to ask both Kate and Marsha on the perspective of victims. You have touched on this, Marsha, just there. How well do you feel that virtual arrangements are working already? Clearly, they are with some challenges. What in early course needs to change? I will bring in Marsha Kate. Yes, convener. Sorry, I just want to come back on a point as well, if I can be about the earlier question. The point about assessing the suitability of virtual methods of giving evidence is that the same applies to assessing the suitability of a court environment. I just want to remind members that often our courts are not the most accessible of physical buildings as they are, and we often get complaints from victims and witnesses about acoustics in the courtroom, about physical accessibility arrangements. Being able to give your evidence virtually may well provide a much more inclusive approach than a building-based environment at times. I just wanted to say that. On your question about what needs to change, I think that the expansion of what we would describe as a hybrid model, and as Marsha has said, a presumption of vulnerable witnesses being able to give their evidence virtually outwith a court building altogether, if that is what they would prefer, is something that we would like to see happening really quite quickly and across the board. It is our belief that you would have more attendance from witnesses, you would have less attrition, you would have better evidence from those people too, and that would all help with the backlog. The other thing that I think that we need to put in place on other moves being made around it at the moment is a much better system around managing the business of the court. As you are aware, all committee members will be aware of the massive backlog that I have spoken before to the committee about the impact that that has on victims and witnesses' mental health. However, the other thing that is creeping up massively now is the number of adjournments. The amount of fines that witnesses are being asked to go to court and give evidence, and then last minute that is not happening, and then get being asked to go away and come back another day. Marshall will talk in more detail. She has examples, as I do, of people who have been asked to come to court several times. From a witness point of view, that feeling that you have put your life on hold, you have to remember absolutely everything to try and give your best evidence, and then that rub getting pulled from under you last minute and being asked to come back at another, at that point, undisclosed time. Many, many, many cases now of people being asked to come back four, five, six, seven, eight times. That whole process needs to be managed. That is one of my big concerns around coming out of this phase of the pandemic, is that listing a large number of trials for each court per day when only one possible trial can go ahead and citing all of those witnesses to come into that court and then, as I say, these massive numbers of adjournments that are happening are just going to become more and more intolerable for witnesses. For me, something needs to be done really quickly around that to manage that situation as we move out of this phase of the pandemic. I would say that there probably needs quite a robust planning and implementation process that doesn't need assessment for anyone who's participating remotely. I think that Kate would agree with me also that there's a huge opportunity for us to create a user-friendly, victim-friendly court system by creating places like victim support offices or cab offices or women's aid offices that are not more than an hour or two from where women live. Support can be made available there. The technology can be vetted by the court service. I think that there's so many advantages for creating these safe spaces for women and children that wouldn't be difficult, as the pilots have shown. I think that work on that, not rocket science, should happen immediately alongside the setting up of the virtual domestic abuse specialist courts in each sheriffdom. I agree that Covid has shoved Scotland into the 21st century and lots of other places in terms of technology use. There's no going back on this. Let's use it and invest in it for people who have less access. I think that it's not impossible. It just requires political well and a bit of investment. The other thing that I just want to echo is Kate's— I can still hear you, I think, Marcia. Yes. I just got a message saying that I've been—oh, I see. I was probably on two links. Forgive me. I do this all the time. You'd think I'd be better at it. I can see you now, finally, and there's no echo. Just to give you a couple of cases, and I want to thank Barry McGowan for representing SWA on the Virtual Trials Board and also for sourcing these case studies from assist. Just a couple sentences in each one. An incident was reported in May 2020. First trial date was August 2020, adjourned to January 2021, adjourned again to November 2021. At the intermediate diet, the trial was adjourned again as the schedule date fell during COP26. The new trial date is scheduled for April 2022. The child witness was seven years old at the time of the incident, and he will be nearly 10 by the next trial diet, which we hope goes ahead. On just a number, the trial has been adjourned three times, and on the fourth occasion, there was only time to take the mother's evidence. The child is required to come back to give her evidence in a few months' time. The mother broke down crying at this news. If it goes ahead, it will be nearly two and a half years since the incident. I am pleading with the committee to understand the impact on victims and survivors, children and adults of delay. It's one of the elements of our system that existed before Covid, but was greatly exacerbated by Covid. We have something like 40,000 cases in the backlog, and 25 per cent of those will be domestic abuse cases. It really requires some bold action here. All the path has been laid out for us. Let's not balk at the last hurdle. I hate to use those clichés, but I seem to be dropping into them. I wonder whether, on the issue that you are discussing in relation to time limits and delays, I am just watching the time. I know that there are members who would like to ask some questions around that. I will bring in Katie Clark and Jamie Greene, just to keep our discussion moving forward. If I could ask some questions on statutory time limits, and whether you still support the longer criminal procedure time limits that were put in place in response to the pandemic, and whether you have any concerns in relation to them? We do support them. We have obviously mixed feelings about that. In the line of what I have just said about the impact of delays on victims and survivors, the problem is that the system is pretty broken at the moment. That is one of the safeguards that we need to put in to make sure that the cases do not get prompt. Do you have any concerns about them? As you know, the bill that we are considering is suggesting that we extend them, not permanently, but extend them for presumably a considerable further period of time. Do you have concerns, for example, about the period of time that accused can be remanded in custody? As I said, we always have concerns. I think that one of our biggest concerns about the remand problem, and I am very mindful about the data coming out about numbers on remand in prison, is that decisions about remand and about bail seem to be more, in part because of the pressure on the system, driven by concerns about prison population, which I share, and a variety of other aspects of court problems, rather than victim safety. We have always had concerns about that, but they are heightened by the situation during Covid. I think that Kate might support that. The issue for us, though, is what is it that can get the system working again, clearly scheduling eight trials a day and then knowing that you are lucky if two are going to go ahead. Those are not good actions. I think that what we have to do is say that we do support it until we see the system readjust and then we would like it reconsidered as soon as possible. Kate, could I ask you similar questions, whether you still support the longer criminal procedure time limits put in place in response to the pandemic and those measures being continued, and whether you have any concerns from a victim's perspective? Yes. It is similar to Marsha. It is sort of with a heavy heart, but because of the delays in the system, our biggest concern would be that cases would be timed out and that victims would not see justice done. Having waited such a significant lengthy time for such a big impact on their mental health, as I have said before, we really think that that is not something that can be tolerated. We would see it as a necessity, an unfortunate necessity at the moment, certainly until, as Marsha says, the system is back under control and the time delays are not what they are at the moment. That was really what was lying behind some of our responses to the earlier consultation. I will bring in Jamie Greene and Rona Mackay to move on to the release of prisoners hourly. My colleague, Kate Clark, has covered off this area quite well already. I get the impression that it is the necessary evil of the two options that we have. No one wants cases to time out, so there must be a mechanism by which they can be extended. As you know historically, they would have to go through an application process to be extended, whereas under the emergency procedure there was an automatic extension. I guess what we are looking at here is a bill to make some of the temporary features of Covid permanent. Therefore, would you have any concern that these extensions to 17 months, 18 months for solemn cases and another extension on summary cases, were time-limited automatic extensions, and you would like to see them revert back to their original 11 and 12 months? At what point in the future do you think that you would like to see that happen? Maybe Kate first, as you are on the screen already. We did not support them being increased permanently, but certainly on a longer temporary basis. The assessment of when they should revert back to keep pandemic timescales would really be about an assessment about the system and how it is coping and how it is working. That would be our view about that. We would not want to see those time extensions, but simply because of the impact that the delay has on victims, I guess the thing that committee members will be aware of is that delay was already a problem in the justice system prior to the pandemic. We already had a large number of victims and witnesses who were really badly affected by the length of time that it took for their case to come to court, and the delay from their perspective about giving evidence an impact that they had on them. For those reasons, we wouldn't be supportive of extending the timescales on a permanent basis, simply because of the detrimental impact on victims and witnesses. I agree with Kate, essentially. That is great. My second question on this is that some people think that even 18 months, albeit an extended time limit, is ambitious for some trials. We have just heard examples that have already taken way beyond 18 months. If we assume that the backlog is going to take four or five perhaps longer years to clear, given the volume, what are the main causes of the delays to trials? Is it capacity in the system? We, as a committee, have asked the SCTS and the Crying Office on numerous occasions as to whether they think that there is capacity in the system to deal with the backlog or what more they might need to get through it more quickly. Or is it simply the nature of the processes by which we work with, i.e. even with all the will in the world, if we doubled the court capacity, if we doubled the amount of defence solicitors, if we doubled the amount of crown agents, we would still not get through it at the same rate as we could because of the inherent nature by which the trials take place. What do you think of the main barriers to reducing the length of time that people are waiting? In other words, how do we clear that backlog quickly but also fairly so that each party is given the absolute right to fairness throughout the process? If I can go first, you have heard some evidence from some earlier round-table sessions. If you remember from, for example, the Faculty Advocates, I know that the committee spoke about some of that as well. For me, a really clear message is that there is going to be a robust approach being taken in Scotland to make sure that cases are dealt with and that prosecutions are pursued. I think that there are a number of things going on at the moment related to the pandemic, which are impacting on both the backlog and what I said at the beginning of this meeting about the adjournment level, which really means that cases are not getting cleared in the way that they would like. For me, it is about a really robust case management system—a very strong message—that cases will be carried through to their conclusion and their outcome in Scotland, and that that is the process. You have got some people who are unable to attend court on the day because of Covid symptoms and the rest of it, but you have got a kind of overriding message that is going through, which is that if you keep delaying and keep delaying and keep delaying, perhaps your case will eventually be dropped. That is what victims really worry about in the whole system over the past two years. That is what they feel has really been going on here. Coupled with that, you have got some case management issues that I have spoken about, which make it really difficult for the seasoned victims to give the best evidence. There has not been the best communication and the best support put in place for people. At the moment, you have got an approach that lists the whole body of trials of waiting to see who turns up in the morning of court to see what ones are going to run. That is not an effective way for us to carry on into the future, particularly not as Covid restrictions start to be removed within court builders. You are going to see anxiety levels from people start to increase. Marta and I have spoken before about our concern that witnesses start to—the process becomes so prolonged and so traumatising for victims and witnesses that they actually start to drop out of the process. We have got witnesses concerns about that. I know that Sandy Brindley over at Rape Crisis Scotland does, too. You have got a problem with people being less likely to report in the future, which is something that we all want to avoid. A co-ordinated message across Scotland is that the justice system is robust, and it will continue. We will not do what we are seeing in other parts of the world, which is dropping of prosecutions and dropping of cases—that kind of thing to try and manage the business. I think that that would really help. I will hand over to Rona Mackay and then I will bring Jamie Greene back in. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Kate. Good morning, Marta. Can I ask you both please about the power to release prisoners early? You both expressed opposition to the provision in the bill, and you highlighted the concern about the safety of victims and so on. I wonder if you could maybe give us some examples of how that might impact on victims, why you are concerned, and if there are any steps that you believe could be taken to allay those concerns. Marta, can I come to you first? I think that we are very pleased that the first presumption or the first action on early release identified domestic abuse cases as an exception, a carve-out not to be included. We have some high degrees of scepticism about how well early release has worked so far, so it would be quite interesting to see the evaluation about whether and how often people who are released early wound up back in prison. What a terrible waste of the system's resources, if that is true, not to mention victim safety. The pressures on the system are pushing both staffs and the court service to think about how to reduce the pressures on the court service and on the courts, rather than protecting the victims in Scotland. I echo what Kate is saying. We have to take action across the system, because unless we relieve the pressures on the courts and the sheriffs, no matter how well intentioned the actions of the Parliament are, the system itself will default to delay because it protects people. It would rather delay something because there is no real consequence or accountability for that rather than wind up in an appeals court being embarrassed and overturned. That is a very much a layperson's assessment of how the system works. I think that it is very real that unless we make this work for multiple players, the delays will continue. The other thing that I need to point out in terms of early release is that, aside from domestic abuse cases, I think that the system needs to take a very close look at why we are remanding, and it should only be about public safety, the safety of victims. I suppose that is not a domestic abuse specialist informed opinion. Going back to the emergency early release that happened during the early stages of the pandemic, what we all saw as victim support organisations was a massive upsurge, and the numbers of victims who were contacting us petrified that the perpetrator in their case was going to be released early. At that point, we were all struggling to try and manage people's anxiety and support them through that. I would be interested to see what has happened to those 348 people who were released early during that wave and what happened afterwards. What I would like to see is that, if we are going to go there again, we have a much more co-ordinated approach. Information sharing agreements are put in place very quickly, so it can be done between the prison service and every local authority in Scotland. I am sure that you will hear later on from Theresa Meathhurst. That was put in place really quickly to make sure that support could be put in place for prisoners once they were released on emergency early release. However, there was no equivalent done for victims in those situations, so there was no information sharing to make sure that there was wraparound for support for victims, who were really traumatised by the thought of perpetrators in their cases being released early from prison. There was no thought or regard given to that whatsoever. Of course, victims' support and others would be happy to work with whoever it is to make sure that adequate support is put in place for people. What I really do want to see as a return to that real anxiety that was around at that time—yes, 348 people were released—was far greater on victims because they did not know who it was that was going to be released. We were all absolutely inundated at that time and reported it then. That would be my plea. We put in place measures to make sure that information is shared around victims and to make sure that there is planning, safety planning and support planning put in place so that victims get the appropriate help that they need when a perpetrator in their case is being released from prison. Thanks, Kate. I think that that is a really important point that you have just raised. I am happy to hand over to my colleague. Before I hand over to Jamie, I think that Marcia, were you wanting to come back in? Yes. Just very briefly, you will be glad to know. Kate can give you a chapter in verse, but there have been huge difficulties with victim notification schemes just to pick up on the issue about how the system responds. Clearly, victims are not the clients of our system, but accused are. I would say that for any releases early or not, we really need to take a quick—we know what the deficits are, and Kate has already referred to them. We know that the system is capable of notifying victims in time, in the family manner, because they have done it to local authorities. How do we set the system up so that nobody is released unless the victim has had a certain amount of notice? Just to pick up on this concept of early release, my question is two parts. The first part is, obviously, as you know, short-term prisoners in Scotland must be released after serving half of their sentence, and long-term prisoners may be released after serving half their sentence, subject to decisions by pro-boards. My first question really is, what do you think about that as a concept? Secondly, what the emergency provisions of the coronavirus legislation did was give the Scottish Government the ability to release them earlier than those mandatory time limits. As I mentioned in the last question, the bill seeks to make those provisions that were temporary more permanent features of the justice system. The main question is, do you think that that is appropriate? Would you prefer that those provisions were not in the permanent legislation? I think that we all agree that there are some good things that have come out of Covid in terms of reform to justice, and we have talked a little bit about those already, but that perhaps is one of those areas that we might not want to see as permanent features. That is a two-part question. Maybe I will start with Kate first. I will try to remember all the questions. Victims already struggle with the idea that people can be released after only serving half of their sentence. We do really struggle with that. We are not in agreement that that should be lessened in any way, because, as I say, victims already struggle with that. I guess what we would be asking for is really clear communication with victims around exactly how long someone will be serving in prison and exactly what that looks like and what that means in support being put in place for people, as I have said already, on release now, including victims as well. Marsh has spoken about the deep concern that I have about the victim notification scheme. I have spoken about it before at this committee. Until we solve those issues and solve those problems and get a proper trauma-informed approach to that, we are always going to have a challenge here, because we can be a timeline around that as much as we want, unless victims are given really good information in a supportive way and supported around their own personal safety. One thing that I would bring in here is that, and I have spoken about this before, we extended our victims fund at the very beginning of the pandemic. We are now providing about £300,000 a year to support direct to victims where they have an immediate financial need. Now, looking back at those figures at the beginning of the pandemic, that was more around household essential items. More recently, so certainly in the last year, we are now being inundated with requests for security and safety equipment. That dominates the request for the victims fund by far. That tells me that victims are really concerned about their safety and security in a way that they perhaps were at the start of the pandemic, or certainly not as much. I think that we need to bear that in mind, too, just in terms of the questions that you have just raised. Sorry, I have forgotten the second part. That is okay. The second part was obviously the ability to release people even earlier than halfway through the sentence. It was a temporary measure to deal with the public health emergency in the pandemic, but that now features in the bill to make those permanent powers. What is your view on that? Well, as Martyn and I have said before, it would be really interesting to dig out with the figures of exactly what happened to those people who were released, the emergency early release early, to see what happened with them and making an assessment from there. However, our understanding is that that did not go in the way that perhaps had been intended. From a victim's point of view, we certainly would not be advocating reducing that timeline any further. I think that it would be really challenging and really difficult. In terms of what we have been speaking about around a robust justice system that keeps people safe, and in light of what I have just said, I think that that is a really difficult argument to make. Unfortunately, the bad news is that the numbers speak for themselves. Of the 348 people who were early released under the emergency power, 142 of them were re-offended within six months. I do not know the specifics of each of those cases. I am sure that that is information that we could find, but I do suspect that a chunk of them will have related to domestic abuse or gender-based violence. That is a worry. The reality is that, although there was a public health emergency, we did have to release people from prison. They did go on to re-offend when they normally would have been serving their sentence, so the proof is in the pudding, unfortunately. However, I would be grateful if you come across any anecdotal evidence of those cases to share that with the committee. Dr Scott, perhaps I could ask for your views on the same two questions, the first being the general concept of the very release and the second about the emergency power. I just want to underscore, because women's aid is often painted with an unfortunate picture about our feelings about prison population. We are not in favour of banging up people, and we do not think that it is the only solution in domestic abuse cases. We do think that it is the safest solution at the moment because the other solutions to creating victim safety have not been implemented or invested in. I speak here about robust electronic monitoring and use of GPS, intensive bail supervision and other things that are not on the agenda today. However, I feel like what the system is doing in a desperate attempt to deliver a good thing—which would be to reduce Scotland's prison population—is taking essentially a hammer to what requires a screwdriver. The reality is that a broad early release scheme is only needed because we are putting too many people in jail. In the context of the previous early release, domestic abuse cases were not included in those cases on paper, but we all know that domestic abuse is far more prevalent than is visible in the system. Women and children are very unlikely to disclose and to call the police or to get the system involved, in part because of their treatment in court when they wind up there but also because of delays. I think that there are a couple of things to remember. I would be very interested to find out about the extent to which domestic abuse offenses were part of the re-offending in those 140-plus cases. My conviction is that we still have women being told every day not to mention the domestic abuse in a civil case because they are considered non-compliant or non-cooperative witnesses when they do. I do think that a closer look at what happened in those cases would help us fine-tune the interactions. The real problem is to fix the other delays in the system. That also comes back to the question of how we feel about early release. We feel fine about early release for the people who should not have been put in prison at the first place. Domestic abusers are not those people. Again, it comes down to where is victim safety at risk. My suspicion is that, if we started using that lens for looking at the prison population, we would have a lot easier decisions and a lot more effective interventions. Just to point out, I do know from what our discussions were going on with the problems with delays is that the attrition was already being observed by the Crown Office. I think what we don't want is to reduce the prison population, as Kate said, by just making the process so difficult that people never engage with it. The system had done some really good work at reducing time to court for domestic abuse trials prior to the pandemic. We had lots of research that says, if you get a case to court within eight to ten weeks, then you have worse attrition on the defense side than you do on the complainer side. You have better outcomes for everybody involved. It was around 12 weeks prior to the pandemic, and now it's years. I think that those are the kinds of things we need quick action on. I'm going to bring in Russell Finlay, and then I know Fulton you want to come in on this point. I'm going to get you happy for Fulton to jump in. In respect of the early release of emergency legislation, what we've heard today so far is that victims weren't told that you were left inundated with requests for information from people. We also know that, from what my colleague Jamie Greene said, 40 per cent of those who were released went on to re-offend quite quickly afterwards. We don't know the details of that. To me it looks again like a complete imbalance. It's about a system that has little regard for victims, but I'll go off my soapbox and ask a question. One of the exemptions of those who, those types of prisoners, which that should not apply to, is those who are subject to sex offender notification requirements. I just wonder if that's quite a narrow specific definition of those committed of sexual crimes and whether, in fact, it could have been and may yet be used for prisoners who have been convicted of other crimes of a sexual nature in which the victims are primarily women and girls, and that's open to either of you or both of you. Kate, can I bring you in first? I was going to hand over to Marcia. I think that she might want to respond to this one. I think that, first of all, I would defer to Sandy Burnley at rape crisis Scotland to address the sexual assault figures, but I do think that it's worth pointing out that of the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse also are sexual assault victims and there just may not be a prosecution focused on that element of their experience. I think that's really important and I forgot my other point. Russell, can you remind me what the beginnings of that question were? Sure. I mean it's more quite a specific thing that the exemption is those who are subject to sex offender notification requirements. I just wonder if it means therefore that prisoners who've committed other sexual offences might not be exempt and could be released early if we know that. I think what I was going to point out is that at least in the context of the larger world of victims and who don't fall neatly into categories of sexual assault victim or domestic abuse victim or forced marriage victim, that our system is very much a blunt tool. So the early release of people who are not perhaps on the sexual offender list does not mean that they are not a risk to the safety, which is what I think it comes back to your original point. The other issue from our perspective is that I think the last time I looked at the data, which was prior to implementation of the new domestic abuse law, fewer than 1% of convicted offenders of domestic abuse wound up with a sentence over a year, so fewer than 1%. So what that means then really is that the vast majority of domestic abuse cases aren't going to be a problem with early release because the convicted offenders never wind up in prison, they wind up with community payback orders, which we think there are significant problems with. If she would like to answer, but I have another very quick question that is maybe more directed towards Kate, if I could ask her. If I can just button just very quickly, I am just watching the time. We have just under 10 minutes left, so I would appreciate succinct questions and answers as usual. Yeah, this is more for Kate. It touches on the evidence from earlier on in respect of the applications from victims for security assistance. Can you expand a bit on that? Clearly that wasn't why this fund was created. It was created to compensate people for what they've been through. Well, the victims fund wasn't created as a compensation fund. Where it was created, we've had a victims fund in existence for over a decade. What it was supposed to be about was making sure that people who had no other financial means were not punched into financial hardship as a result of being a victim of crime, so through no fault of their own. The fund was always there. What we did was recognise that the pandemic would have an exacerbating impact, so that's why we increased it quite dramatically at the beginning of the pandemic, April 2020. What we were seeing at the beginning was requests for, for example, food vouchers, clothing, people having to flee their home because of domestic abuse and only having the clothes on their back and their kids' clothes on their back and having nothing else. That was by far the majority of the applications that we saw at that time, but that has changed over time. As I said, the majority of applications have been made for security equipment and safety equipment, so things like CCTV cameras, that kind of thing, and that is dominating applications to the victims fund at the moment and has done for the last year. Yes, you're right, that is quite a different picture than we've seen before. Why is that happening? Suddenly, there's a sense that they're not protected and they need this additional help? It would indicate so, yes. I think that we've got a bit more work to do in terms of trying to get feedback from people around exactly that, but yes, there certainly seems to be a lot more people who are concerned about their own safety. That will be from a number of areas. We reported in terms of the number of anti-social behaviour calls that we were getting from people who were anti-social behaviour hate crime. Obviously, we know that domestic abuse increased during the pandemic and in particular during periods of lockdown, so I think that it's all of that and we're seeing that coming out in the applications that are being made, unfortunately. I've got a couple of members wanting to come in on this, so I'm going to bring in Fulton, followed by Pauline, and then hopefully, if we've got time, we'll move on to our next and final area of questioning, so Fulton. Yes, thanks. I'll pick up actually back to Jamie Greene's point. It's probably a question for Dr Scott. In terms of the domestic abuse offences, for people being released early, that is going to be really worrying for victims in hearing what's been said there, but in terms of domestic abuse sentences anyway, they're not usually, I know that Dr Scott will agree here, they're not usually that lengthy in any case, so for me it's actually about the rehabilitation of these people, and it's a previous field that I worked in. I wonder, for Dr Scott then, if we're talking about early release of specific groups of offenders, like those involved in domestic abuse, would it be helpful if their early release was not only just highlighted so that the victims could be prepared, a point that Kate Wallace has made very well, but also could it be that it was attached to some sort of work programme that's effective in works, and we know that recently the Scottish Government did invest further in criminal justice social work services, a very welcome move given the state of the pandemic, but I'm wondering what Dr Scott thinks about that as a way to, if there is going to be an early release of such prisoners? I have to say that I have very little confidence in the ability of a work programme to change the behaviour of a domestic abuse offender. There's really no evidence in the literature that that's going to be an effective intervention. We know we have the Caledonian programme, and as I think we're referencing, it's been expanded to about two thirds of the local authorities in Scotland, but even if every local authority in Scotland had a well-financed, well-operated Caledonian programme, they still only take a certain percentage of the convicted offenders referred to them because of the difficulty of delivering good outcomes with their programme with quite a large number of offenders. Also, I think that it's not the only way to fix the problem. I do think that we need to have legislation that allows for longer sentences in summary cases, and I think that one thing that points, an indicator that points that the system would like that is when we looked at conventions under section 1 of the new domestic abuse bill, so under the course of controlling behaviour section of the bill, we see that it looks like the average sentence coming in under the summary court cases is 364 days. We know that the sheriff and the courts are essentially using the maximum sentence allowed to them in these cases, and I think we need to have better information about what would be the appropriate limit on that. I want to just give a nod to the Parliament for passing that law because I do think that the prosecution of the course of controlling behaviour elements are allowing the courts to see much better the harm and trauma caused by domestic abuse and respond as best they can in that situation. The other thing that I just want to point out is the quality impact assessment and the spice briefing for this COVID bill has failed to identify a number of really critical gender-related issues, but in particular the poor operation of the system, the fact that we have copious amounts of evidence that COVID had a disproportionately negative impact on women, and yet we see nothing in this bill that tries to address the disproportionate harm that they are feeling, and I would guess that the resilience that women are feeling because their employment has been made more precarious because of COVID than men, and economic abuse has always been the single biggest concern for whether women are going to be forced back into abusive relationships, that this bill really needs to reflect what we know and actually deliver on obligations under international agreements to deliver progressive realisation of rights, or even just to protect the existing system where it's working well. I'm going to hand over to Pauline McLean. I think that you would like to come in, and then I'm afraid that we're going to have to bring the session to a close. I just have one question. Good morning, Kate and Martha. The committee has been asked to comment on the extension of court time limits, and we've both expressed concerns about the level of adjournments that we previously had. Are you not more concerned that if the Parliament gives its authority to that, we could end up here again where we've been asked to extend it another six months? Maybe it's time just to say, we need to add some pressure to fix the system. I have to say that I'm deeply concerned about being asked to extend court time limits given the evidence that you and Kate Wallace have given. I'm concerned that we may be back here again if we extend these time limits for six months. I just wondered if you shared my concern. Hi there. Do you want me to come in and see that I've been unmuted? Yes, I can totally understand your concern around it. The reality is that there are so many cases now in the system that my concern around not extending time limits until the system has recovered and we've got it back under control is that cases will end up coming out. That's the very opposite of what we want. Victims are very, very concerned that they will not see just this done. I can completely understand what your concern is. However, I'm not sure that trying to force the system to respond is going to give the effect that you would want. So, yes, I was just to say that. What if we are in the same situation in six months? Will you be saying the same thing that it's so broken that we have to extend it further? I think that the issue, when you look at the backlog figures that speak for themselves, I think in terms of timescales, is that there are no quick, easy solutions to that and some of the solutions that we had submitted, as you probably know, are self-rape cries to the Scottish Women's Aid and Assist all wrote a note letter at the beginning of the pandemic outlining some of the ways that we thought the backlog could be reduced more quickly. Those have not been taken forward. Unfortunately, we are in that for a few years now. There is no quick way out of it, as it stands at the moment. Unfortunately, there is a situation where a temporary continuation of the extension of timescales is required. We've overrun a little bit. While there are a couple of areas of questioning that we would have liked to have covered, times have been against us so, in that respect, we will ask some more questions and follow-up correspondence with the witnesses. Thank you very much for your attendance today. Likewise, if you feel that there are any outstanding matters that you would like to share with the committee, please feel free to do so in writing and we'll take that evidence into account. My thanks to both our witnesses this morning for attending and we'll have a brief suspension for a couple of minutes just to allow our next panel of witnesses to come in. Thank you very much and welcome back everybody. I'd now like to welcome to the meeting Ms Emma Jordan, Policy and Public Affairs Advisor with Howard League Scotland, Theresa Medhurst, interim chief executive and Alistair Pardee, interim director of operations with the Scottish Prison Service. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions and answers. I'd like to move directly on to questions. I'd like to ask the opening question of a May. That is for both Theresa and Emma of a May. It relates to developments around court business being undertaken by electronic means. I'm interested to know what your views are on the specific provisions within the bill that we're discussing this morning in terms of allowing flexibility for people to attend court proceedings remotely. From your perspective, what are your views on the provisions that the bill outlines? I'll come to you first, Emma. Okay, thank you. Good morning to the committee. We have no objections. It's not our area of expertise and we would expect that you would take evidence from the Scottish Courts and Tribunal service, but there's no reason why we shouldn't use some of the technological advances that have been imposed as a result of the pandemic into the future. We need to be careful that, as others have talked about, that this doesn't jeopardise or discriminate against those who find it more difficult to engage with the process by virtual means. Therefore, it's something that should remain under constant monitoring, but we have no objections. Thank you very much. Good morning, convener and members of the committee. There are two areas where there are implications for the Scottish Prison Service. Obviously, the virtual police custody service that is now in place has implications for us in two ways. We operate the escort contract, and so the staffing provision for custody and virtual custodies falls within the management of SPS and, therefore, is our responsibility. Whilst we have been able to manage the levels so far during the pandemic, were there to be any increase to that, clearly there would be resource implications, and we would need to consider what those resource implications would be. Secondly, in relation to the custody courts, because they are the last courts to be heard, it means that we receive people sometimes later in the evening than we would normally expect. That has implications for our staff and NHS staff as well, and ensuring that we admit people safely into our care during and evening. The other implication is that other procedural court hearings have been taken place, and appeals are also regularly heard using virtual courts. That has a positive impact on the number of people who leave prison to go to court. Therefore, the impact on those individuals has been minimised. Clearly, with the anticipation that virtual courts will be used much more readily and frequently, there would be potential resource implications, not just in relation to our staffing and NHS staff, but also in relation to buildings and the virtual capacity in prisons. That is an interesting update to hear. Mr Perr, do you want to come in? Yes, thank you. We have just a couple of points to add to that. Sometimes the workload means that the schedule is sometimes quite difficult, and that leads to pre- and post-difficulties sometimes for individuals to get legal support before and after, so that leads to some difficulty in scheduling and then having legal access to pre- and post-difficulties. Thank you very much. I would like to ask a quick follow-up question before I hand on to other members. The update, in particular that you have spoken about in relation to the positive impact on things such as less movement of prisoners in and out and the resource implications there. Those are clearly proven to be beneficial. What I am interested in is if this is broadly being seen across the prison estate and what more needs to be done to make this opportunity work as effectively as it can. We are still in relation to the pandemic and virtual court business feeling our way along, so there will be some bumps and glitches along the way. I would say to the committee that we have excellent work in relationships with other parts of the criminal justice sector, and we work collaboratively together to iron out any issues or difficulties. The benefits that have been exposed so far have resulted in ensuring that those in our care who are not required to attend court for short hearings has been minimised, and the benefits to those individuals and their wellbeing have been quite palpable. That has been really positive. Sorry, what was the second part of your question? Just really about what more, if anything, you spoke about an early point. Understandably, there will be bumps along the road, but I am just interested in what, in your view, are perhaps priorities for developing and putting this opportunity in place on a more permanent basis. From a prison service perspective, it would be helpful. I know that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is clearly working really hard to better understand where the development of virtual court businesses is likely to land, and that would assist us in planning and preparing, particularly around those resource implications, because it is not clear yet how that is likely to impact in both size and scale and what capacity we would have to be able to support virtual courts. Clearly, prisons have not been built with virtual courts in mind, and, although you might think that you should require less room because of the way that courts need to operate in prisons, there are really strict protocols around that that we need to adhere to. However, it is a welcome step into the world of virtual courts, and I can see many benefits both in terms of minimising disruption to staffing levels and ensuring that people who do not require to leave prison do not do so. I am particularly thinking about distressed women or young people where it is minimising that exposure to that court experience. I do not know, Mr Purdy. Do you want to come in on that? Just to say that that collaborative work is going forward with a sheriff principle for us to try to understand and marry the two services together so that we can understand the planning going forward so that we can make sure that we can maximise that opportunity for virtual courts to happen and minimise the impact on the individual and also help to support the criminal justice system in recovery. That is helpful. I will now hand straight over to Katie Clark, and then I will bring in Jamie Greene to ask some questions around statutory time limits, Katie. Thank you. Good morning. If I could maybe start with Emma. Basically, what would be useful is if you could maybe outline your views on the provisions of the bill that would continue the temporary extension of the various time limits in criminal cases, if you could maybe outline your organisation's response to that? Howard League Scotland would probably describe that as the evidence given by Kate Amarsha as a necessary evil. The numbers on remand, as you know, have increased from 16 per cent of the prison population to the last figures that we have, 27 per cent. As you know, those people have not been convicted of any crime, and that is an important part of what we need to do. It is a necessary evil in that the backlog is not likely to be cleared until 2023 or 24. We agree, however, with colleagues in the Law Society, for example, who have highlighted some safeguarding concerns, and the article 6 of the ECHR. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time, and that is something we need to be mindful of. Clearly, the levels of remand in Scotland are very high, higher than the rest of the UK and higher than other comparable countries around Europe, etc. Can you suggest any alternatives to how we deal with those cases and alternatives to remand? Part of that overlaps with the bail and release from custody consultation at the moment. It has already been acknowledged that we need to do something about this quickly, and it needs to be something of significance. It is unfathomable that the remand rates are so high compared to England and Wales, as you point out. We need to mark cases more quickly. We should not be remanding anyone who is unlikely to receive a custodial sentence. We need to make better use of non-custodial bail options. They need to be adequately source funded. We know the answers to those things, and I think that the committee knows the answers to those things. It is a case of bold actions rather than bold visions. Do you think that the alternatives are adequately resourced at the moment? Evidence suggests that they are not. We are aware of the fact that criminal justice social work is under huge pressure here. If you were able to provide the committee with any further evidence in relation to that in writing, that would be useful. However, if I can move on to the Scottish Prison Service and ask very similar questions about what your views are on the provisions of the bill that are being suggested should allow for the continuation of extensions of the various time limits in criminal cases and how that would impact on your organisation. I think that Emma already outlined that we are now sitting at just over 30 per cent of our population are on remand, and that includes those who are convicted of eating sentence. That is a significant shift from 2020 when the pandemic first hit. We were sitting between 15 and 17 per cent. That means obviously that how prisons operate is impacted on because you have a more significant reduction in the short-term population. At the same time as the remand population has risen, the short-term population has reduced. It means that in terms of how we respond to the needs of the different elements of our population, whether that be long-term or short-term, it means that we have to pivot to provide services to a bigger remand cohort than we would have done previously. Although people are spending longer periods of time on remand, and I had anticipated that we might experience some either disruption or unrest as a consequence, that has not actually proven to be the case. To be honest, I am not sure why, but there has not been any kind of pushback from those who are affected in any way that has created concerns certainly from operational stability. Clearly, where people are on remand and the timescales in which they are likely to attend court are uncertain. That has an impact on their mental wellbeing and their health, and we are very mindful of that. We have tried to put in place additional supportive measures in order to ensure that they are able to access either self-help or help through specialist support such as our NHS colleagues. The issues are more to do with the numbers in prison rather than necessarily the time limits. The time limits being extended may have an impact on numbers. The time limits are definitely having an impact on numbers. I understand. Alistair, is there any further points that you would want to make? Sorry, it just leads to that uncertainty in an individual's mind about how long the remand period is going to be, and that requires more support to be put in place at times as well, just working through that anxiety. I understand. I could pass on to a colleague. I'll bring in Jamie Greene now, and then we'll move on to some questioning around early release of prisoners. Jamie, over to you. My first question is to the Howard League. Do you feel like your organisation and any of the people that your organisation assists or represents have been adequately consulted in the process and passage of the bill? I think that we have had adequate time to respond in terms of consultation. However, I would make the point that, until recently, victims or organisations have often been at the table in terms of the formulation of legislation that has not been afforded to organisations such as ourselves. I have personally written to the committee on a number of occasions to highlight things that, otherwise, I do not think would have been brought to your attention. We are always careful to ensure that we are not talking about victims versus perpetrators. We all know that there is a huge degree of overlap between the two. However, until recently, I would suggest that perhaps we have not had as loud a voice as we could have had in those types of discussions and in the formulation of legislation. What are your main concerns about the bill, if any? I think that I am probably jumping ahead a little bit. However, in particular, regarding emergency release, the original legislation was drafted in a very short period of time. We are now in a position where we are being asked to extend that legislation without going back through it to correct some of the things that we believe are of concern. So, for example, and in the evidence that you took in the session prior, there were questions around exemptions and so on, whereby nobody has raised the issue of why was the legislation not drafted on a vulnerability-based model. I think that we forget here that the 348 prisoners who were released early, were people who were nearing the end of their sentences. They had only been short-term sentence prisoners within three months of their release date, and there were the exemptions that we know of. Therefore, all that happened in reality was that people who were already going to be released were released a little earlier, some only by a day or two in the three tranches of release. We question why does the legislation not include children? Why does it not include the most vulnerable, the disabled, pregnant women, for example? We question whether the scrutiny is not necessarily appropriate, and we are talking about using coronavirus as a means of talking about time limits for existing legislation, rather than giving ourselves the breadth of time to re-examine some of that legislation if it was not drafted in a way that suits today's environment. We will come back to the issue of prisoner release and other members of questions, but coming back to time limits because it is a technical matter and the bill deals with it on a technical level, perhaps I can ask both of you if necessary. I think that there is a general understanding of why there was an extension of statutory time limits, both for trials and in the more direct case for a man, which has direct effect on the prison estate, but they are quite stark extensions. The jump from 80 days to 260 days to 110 days to 290 days to 140 days to 320 days is nearly a year. Those are marked differences, and they were emergency and temporary. Of course, the bill seeks to retain the power to make them more on-going features of the justice system. Is it right that they are in here? Do we still need them? Given that the First Minister announced yesterday that the majority of Covid restrictions will be dropped next month, why should those become permanent features of our justice system? I do not think that they should be made permanent. It is probably worth pointing out that there was already a backlog. It is not just as a result of coronavirus. It is probably an opportune moment to remind us what the conditions of those held on remand are. You correctly pointed out that this is a big jump in terms of number of days. Remand prisoners, despite the best intentions of the Scottish Prison Service, are in an incredibly difficult position. We are at 94 per cent of pre-pandemic levels in terms of prison population. Those on remand, as we know, are not—there is no requirement for them to attend work parties, for example the uncertainty that has already been pointed out, means that we are at a point where the Committee for the Prevention of Torture is at that stage. We are at a legal solitary confinement stage for some remand prisoners when they can be kept in their cells for 22 plus hours a day. That is something that we must be very mindful of. Can I ask the prison service what effect this rather elongated extension to remand time has had on you? Do you have a view as to whether those seem proportionate and necessary measures to make permanent features? As I mentioned earlier, as part of the justice sector response to the pandemic, we have been working very closely with colleagues across the justice system to better understand the pressures and the impact of the restrictions as we have worked through the different phases of the pandemic. While I understand why my senior should not be the case, clearly we are in quite unprecedented circumstances, so I can understand the pressures on the system or such that that has been implemented initially and then moves now to more permanence around those arrangements. The impact and implications for us are really around the population profile and how we manage it. Remand prisoners are to be kept separate from other cohorts of prisoners. Our buildings are quite fixed assets, as I am sure that you will understand. I am trying to adhere to that separation and the legal requirements for that, while supporting increasing numbers present challenges both in terms of access to services and support, as well as ensuring that people are given the right support at the right time. They are not just challenges, it sounds like they are almost reaching international law here. For example, I refer to the paper from HMIPS, who stated that whilst staff prisoner relations and the tolerance of prisoners to a very restrictive regime have been positive to date, perhaps not in every case but overarching, but the continuation of heavy restrictions risks an adverse reaction. That is a very real reaction. We have already seen the consequence of that. We already know of the incidence of attacks on prison officers, for example, so the levels of tension are a distinct possibility that these could rise. Do you think that there is any sense amongst the prison population that why is the wider public and the wider world moving forward but we are still being imposed restrictive measures that were under the emergency? So, Mr Greene, can I just ask in relation to the attacks on prison officers, which what are you referring to? What have there been any? Sorry? What have there been any? Right, so you're asking me, right? Yeah, sure, sure, I should have made that clear. We do have assaults on staff, but the reasons for that are complex. I don't have that information to hand, but I can certainly provide that to the committee if you so wish. In relation to the response from our population, it has been absolutely incredible. The co-operation and collaboration in respect of moving through the different phases of the pandemic has been outstanding, both from our staff and those in our care, and they have welcomed the fact and positively commented on the fact that we have made every effort to try and keep them safe. Would we want to operate in such restricted conditions on an ongoing basis? Absolutely not, but as we move through the different phases of the pandemic, we have been able to reinstate and realise more access to purposeful activity. And hopefully this year looks like it's going to be more positive. We should be able to do even more this year in terms of restoring what would be akin to a normal regime. Okay, thanks very much. I'll hand over to Rona Mackay now, and then I'll bring in Russell Finlay. And if I can just remind members, I know that everything that we're discussing is important and relevant, but if we can just keep our lines of questioning to the provisions in the bill, I'd be appreciate that. Rona. Thank you, thank you, convener. Yes, good morning. Can I ask Emma Firstley? It's about the power to release prisoners early. Are you in favour of continuing on a temporary basis the current additional powers to release prisoners early? And if so, what are your reasons? Yes, we do ask that these are extended but not on a permanent basis, because at the moment, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think they are broad enough, I think, they require further scrutiny. We should be looking at it from a vulnerability human rights based model and therefore until the legislation is looked at again, we would not want this to be made permanent. However, there is one other important point to raise, which is that the idea of early release of prisoners is also something that occurs in other legislation. In the bail and early release consultation, there is the proposal made that there could be an early release of prisoners on the basis of flood or infrastructure problems within a prison. I think that it's probably worth pointing out here that we're beginning to use legislation. We are potentially at the point where we're using legislation in a way that was perhaps not expected and that is incorrect. What I mean by that is that the lack of capital expenditure funding for the prison estate, we're now using legislation on the basis of, for example, should part of HMP Barlinny be ruled to be inhabitable, then we can use the legislation to release people on that basis, and that's a very slippery slope. I was really interested in your points about human rights and vulnerability based modelling your letter. You're concerned about the conflict between the UN Convention of Rights of the Child and articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, and HMIPs are concerned about children and young people as well. Can you reiterate that you've said that you wouldn't be in favour of the powers being permanent? Would you be in favour of them being permanent if enough scrutiny was done in this regard? In honest, it's too early to know, because we wouldn't know what legislation we were expecting to be made permanent, but at the moment there are significant flaws. There hasn't been children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment. Oddly, with regard to the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Scotland Bill, the reason for that not having taken place was because it should be covered by other legislation, the emergency release legislation, but children are not included in that legislation. Therefore, there is no impact assessment having been done. Again, I remind the committee that I expect you to already know that we are holding 14, 16 and 17-year-olds. In prison, 11 of those are on remand, so 79 per cent of children held in young offenders' institutes at the moment are on remand. I think that that's a really important point, thank you. Can I move to Theresa Metters, please, and ask you on that issue, maybe your thoughts on it, on the vulnerability of human rights issue. How would you respond to general concerns that the use of early release can threaten the safety of the public and the general unease of the public at the thought of this happening on a permanent basis? The regulations around early release were obviously developed by the Scottish Government, and they were in response to the effect of the pandemic and the challenges that we were facing at that particular time. I think that our single-cell occupancy was as low as just over 60 per cent because of the population pressures. Clearly, when we were enforcing restrictions on outbreaks and isolation, the smaller the number of people who are affected by that, the better. We had moved to what we called household bubbles. We were trying to cohort individuals together in smaller groups to keep them safer and minimise the likely impact of the spread of the virus in prisons. However, in order to do that more effectively, single-cell occupancy was a premium. For those reasons, it was decided to invoke the emergency early release arrangements and release a number of people back into the community. That resulted in our single-cell occupancy moving up to around 84 per cent, so it was much easier for us to manage the risk of infection and the spread of infection within prisons at that time. I understand the concerns of the public about people being released. As I recall at that time, around the emergency release arrangements, the concerns that we were receiving from the public were mainly around people moving from prisons into the community and taking the virus with them. It was not about other types of offending that might occur. At that time, although we had outbreaks, all of our processes and protocols would manage and mitigate any risks of anyone who was infectious at the time of release. Can you address the point that the herd league makes about the vulnerability of children and young people? Are you happy that more scrutiny should be done on that? Are you happy that it is not being done? What are your thoughts on that? It is really a matter for Government to respond to it, because it is Government legislation rather than SPS. We apply the legislation as it is designed and indicated. In response to having young people, children in custody and other groups' vulnerabilities, what we did particularly around virtual visits and mobile phones was to prioritise those establishments with those individuals in custody in order to better support them, recognising those vulnerabilities within those populations. Before I bring in Russell, Pauline, do you want to come in with a follow-up question on that? It is just on remand accommodation. First of all, I just wanted to confirm that you said that remand population is now 30 per cent, where the figure that we previously used was 27 per cent. I appreciate that the prison environment is just to manage the situation that you are given in relation to the legislation, but do you not think that it is inevitable that, if those are now the figures, remand prisoners will be held in more difficult conditions if we extend the legislation? As I said earlier, what we have seen is a reduction in the short-term population. We are 7,550, which is still above our design capacity, but it means that, as we reinstate services and support, we will be able to pivot more to those on remand because we have a reduction in our short-term prisoner population, so we can look at the kind of facilities and support arrangements. Some establishments already have those on remand offered work placements. It is not consistent across the board, but some do. Some are also able to offer education, but Linnie, for example, offers education to those on remand. What we need to do is look at a consistent offer to those on remand, particularly if they are going to be a larger feature of our population. I would certainly appreciate if the committee could be kept in touch with that, if indeed the Parliament does extend those regulations. Emma Jordan, as I wanted to ask you further to what you have said already to the committee, you will be aware—I just wanted to put on the record—that the time limits on remand now, if we extend it, will be from. Enditement in the 80 days will be extended to 260 days. Time on remand for pre-trial hearings will be 110 days to 290 days, and time on remand until trial will be 140 days to 320 days. I wonder if you would agree that those figures are pretty stark for any Parliament to be asked to extend powers further, given that those will be the minimum in which they are. The rationale for that is that conducting large numbers of individual hearings on applications to extend time limits or renew adjournments on a case-by-case basis. The reason why we have been asked to consider that is to rent the Crown or perhaps defences, while asking for extension and time limits on a case-by-case basis, so that it will all be automatic. How concerned are you or not about what the Parliament might be asked to do here? On the impact that that will have on the—would it not be better, for example, just to do it on a case-by-case basis and then it will be less people impacted? I am not sure that this is my area of expertise, and I think, with respect, that this is probably a question better posed to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service than myself. You do not think that there would be some human rights. You have already said to the committee that you think that we are in danger of perhaps not complying with the committee on talk of punishment and torture. I am so sorry. We are in danger of reaching article 6. I repeat that everyone is entitled to fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. In terms of what those time limits are, that is probably a little bit outwith my area of expertise. However, you are absolutely right to point out that there are serious human rights safeguards being called into question by this. I do not envy your position in being asked to pass this. Thank you. It is a question for Theresa. You touched on this earlier on. Many people will be concerned about the ability of a Government to release people early from prison, and we have heard all sorts of evidence about what happened. Given that this is a coronavirus public health requirement, this is the whole purpose of it, you talked earlier about mitigation in respect of prisoners who have been released. Were they all tested for Covid prior to their release? The testing regime was not in place at that time, Mr Finlay. Testing was not available, I looked to Ali, but no, I do not think. Testing was not available. Clearly, people were asked questions prior to release about their health. That happens regardless of whether they are going out for early release or not. Where there was an indication that somebody may have had Covid, we would have tested that individual, but we also put in place the mitigations to ensure safe movement outwith custody. At the height of the pandemic, you are being asked by the Government to release prisoners. They are not giving you the means in which to test them for Covid. We know that 40 per cent of those release went on to commit further crime, and it is probably a safe assumption that some of them went on to infect people with Covid. We just do not know. Is that true? I am not a public health professional. We could only manage the conditions that we were faced with at that time. We worked very closely with public health consultants and experts to put in place protocols that would protect as far as possible, but at that time, in reality, the numbers that we are talking about were still fairly low within custody. I am going to ask Ali to come in at that point. Just to answer that, the testing regimes and pathways were not in place across the country at that time, but what we did to try to mitigate against it was to make sure that if the 348 people back to local authorities had information regarding the pandemic knew where to go in terms of the symptoms if they had that at the time and how to approach that and make sure that the public health message was carried with the 348 people into the community and making sure that the links were there and they knew where to go within their local authority area should they have any health concerns, but the extent of the infection within the establishments at that time was not known. Going forward, have you had discussions with the Government about if this is an actor again that testing would take place? I do not think that we have at the moment. We have, but just for the committee's information, we have several testing pathways already on-going within establishments just now. That is from day 1 on admission and day 7 and 8 after that. We have universal lateral flow testing available for our population. We have PCR testing for our staff. We have lateral flow testing for our GUAMY contractor and our private prisons. We have a pathway for testing for visitors coming into the establishments as well, from our visitor centres and from our reception areas. As well as anyone who is symptomatic or automatically go under a PCR testing regime in isolation. We have several pathways now across the prison and outwith the prison that we would utilise should it be enacted again. If that is all the questions that members would like to ask on the bill, I would like to thank you for your—oh, sorry, do you want to come in? Apologies, I was looking at our schedule of questions and I was on prisoner release. That is what you have said is very welcome, Mr Parry. Can I just double check that all prisoners, irrespective of whether it is early or planned or due, all prisoners that are tested before release from prison, is that a matter of course or are they then tested when they go into the community as a matter of general public health? Similar to community, testing is voluntary, so we cannot compulsory test everybody on release, Mr Greene, but the testing is offered. Universal lateral flow testing is there seven days a week for people, so we encourage those who are either on transfer or on release to participate in that lateral flow programme that we have in place, but it is not mandatory, so we cannot compel people to do that, go back into the community. No, I do not understand the implications of that. Ms Meiter is just on the point, because obviously the criteria—can I ask what the criteria was for coming to the decision about air release, and I am not asking that just for the sake of looking backwards, but because the barrel before us that we were talking about in this session means that it could happen again, would you assume that the criteria that you used last time, which seemed to be in one of your early answers largely around the ability to confine people in single occupancy spaces, which was as a result of population versus capacity? What criteria did you use for the people that were air released, and would you use the same criteria again, if not what would be different? The criteria that was used for air release was set by the Scottish Government because it is their policy, and as I said earlier, it really focused on trying to reduce the population at a time when we had people having no access to physical visits, we had reduced the cohorts that people were able to associate into numbers between 12 and 30. Individuals in custody were getting limited access to services and supports, because we had responded in the same way to the pandemic as was expected in communities, so most services were down or being delivered in alternative ways. Therefore, knowing and understanding those pressures on individuals and the requirement for us to ensure that we responded in a measured way to the mitigations that were required to stop the spread of infection in prisons, and the predictions had been that people would die from Covid in prisons, not in tens, but in hundreds, and that has not happened. I think that the purpose of it was to alleviate the pressures on the system and ensure that we could apply the measures and the mitigations that public health colleagues were putting in place, along with governors, to manage the pandemic in a proportionate and justifiable way in order to ensure that we kept the legitimacy of what we were doing with our population. I guess my only question is that that was a reactive measure to an emergency. As we talked, there was not even a testing regime in place, so you were dealing with what you had within just months of the pandemic starting. We are two years on from that now, of course, in a very different world, and those are measures that are being proposed for the future, not for the today. My original question is that, in that respect, what should be the criteria that is used, because if it is only about the pandemic or the health situation for the prisoner or the population or how many people are in a cell, and less about the type of prisoner or how long is left in their sentence? When we have to go back to the Government and say what we think is right or wrong, from your point of view, what sort of people were being released and was it entirely appropriate that they were released early, would we do something differently next time? Ultimately, the Government will have to rewrite the rules for future pandemics or variations of this one. On the release mechanism that was applied in 2020, it alleviated the pressure on the prison service, and we had not experienced population levels similar to that since 2006. It allowed us the space and time to develop our response, to make it more sophisticated and to put in place mitigations that supported people in a measured and proportionate way. Where emergency release to be applied again, that would be a matter for the Scottish Government to determine, depending on which circumstances arose at the time. I would like to move on to the final part of the evidence session to the forthcoming SSI that is coming forward this coming Friday. We understand that the Scottish Prison Service intends to seek a further six-month extension to powers for governors to respond to the coronavirus pandemic in prisons and young offenders institutions. Obviously, that is not something that we have just been covering off in the Covid recovery and reform bill session, which was the main subject of today's session. However, the committee would like to take the opportunity to ask some questions about the proposed extension, if we may. It is very helpful that we have had sight of copies of correspondence from the HMI for prisons, Howard League and the Scottish Prison Service in relation to the SSI. If we may spend about 20 minutes or so just asking some questions about the SSI, and if I could maybe just start with a general question for you, Ms Medhurst, just to outline why you feel the extension is necessary and does the extension reflect the latest public health advice that we are being given, so maybe direct that initially to yourself, Ms Medhurst. Thank you very much, convener. In relation to the public health advice, there is a set of guidance that is bespoke for prisons that we follow in addition to the changes that take place through Scottish Government announcements. We have complied with that guidance because we have been designated as complex residential setting, which is not the same, obviously, as hospitals and care homes, but not the same as other types of settings either. We are closed, obviously closed institutions, and therefore in 2020, in particular, when we were moving through the initial stages of the pandemic, it became very clear that what was required was bespoke advice and guidance for prisons. We have continued to follow that guidance. We do so still today, and that is why we consider that in relation to managing both the risks, the wellbeing, the safety and health of those in our care and our staff, the measures that we wish to continue are proportionate. I would hope that, as we move through this year, the requirement to impose any of those restrictions is minimal at most. However, we are still experiencing outbreaks in prisons, and we are still experiencing impact on our staffing levels. As we have moved through the pandemic in relation to both the public health advice and the guidance and our ability to operate as effectively as we can, those restrictions are those that we consider are proportionate to retain. I do not know if you want to come in at all, Mr Purdy, with anything to add? Yes, convener. Just to say that we have used really sparingly, but at times through the three variants that we have really seen from Kent and then we went through to the last one, Omicron, we found that to use the measures allowed us to keep the population safe, the visitor safe, and try to get that balance between public health, human rights and moving our prisons through the recovery. It is really useful. It was a tool that Governors and teams were able to use very sparingly since the last time the SSI was extended. I will open up questioning to members. I will bring in Collette Stevenson. You have been waiting patiently online, so I will hand over to Collette. I will work around the room and ask members if they would like to ask anything. Collette, over to you. Okay. Thanks, convener. It was really just to touch upon the SSI in terms of what Wendy Sinclair-Gibbon had raised as well and the concerns that they have got from the inspectorate of prisons. One of the things that was raised was that it was not the amendments to not provide clarity on where decisions are taken in terms of the impact that it has had on prisoners, such as access and visits, purposeful activity and recreation, which could have a huge impact. The communication is well in how that is implemented. One of the suggestions was that, rather than having a central oversight care, there should be individual Governors in charge to put more planning and decision making in there. Is that something that you have considered? Is that something that we could put in the SSI? My concern again—I have raised this before, when this has come up before, about the human rights under opcat for the people in prison as well. Who would you like to address to Collette? Oh, sorry. I could put it to Howard Leake and also to Theresa as well. Howard Leake Scotland has concerns over human rights legislation. We concur with Wendy Sinclair-Gibbon as the Chief Magistrate and Chief Inspector of Prison with that regard. It has been euphemistically put that there are tensions with articles 2, 3 and 8. We would support that perhaps less euphemistically than that. We do not have transparent, clear reporting, as you point out. There are other jurisdictions where time out of cell is measured and reported on. The process itself has not allowed for much scrutiny. In that consultation response, we were asked not to reiterate things that we had brought up in the previous consultation response. In that consultation response, it asked for gaps in provision, which we identified and now are not able to question. There are Council of Europe principles that we are not necessarily adhering to. What we are asking is that anything that a governor in charge should be reported on by some independent means, so that we know when the proportionate measures are introduced, why they are being introduced, how long they are being introduced for and who has central oversight of that. We very much agree with Wendy Sinclair-Gibbon on that matter. I think that with regard to the question around independence, the chief inspector of prisons clearly is an independent body and they provide scrutiny and oversight across all Scotland's prisons. The chief inspector can appear at the door of a prison at any time and ask for access to anywhere in the prison, so that is within her role and remit. There are independent prison monitors who are also allocated to different prisons who work and are within the banner of the chief inspector, and again they provide on-site scrutiny of the conditions that are being applied at any given time. The reporting arrangements for governors, so it is only within the prison rules, it is only a governor who can apply those restrictions, but there is oversight from a headquarters position, and that reports directly into Alistair. Do you want to say a bit more about that, Allie? Anyone with an individual decision if the SSI was applied to impact on larger parts of the prison does come through and seeks permission from myself to be able to do that, and it has the justification on it. It is usually backed up by IMT case conferences that would make public health recommendations for that to be followed. It will also state on it the length of time that is proposed, and it has to be actively reviewed on a daily basis. That has happened on all the occasions since we renewed it since October last year, so we would look at that. On all the occasions, the measures have been stepped down and set aside quicker than we expected them to be, but we also have a national coronavirus response group that governors are linked into, and that is the national body that takes public health advice, it takes NHS colleagues advice, and it is a multidisciplinary team that is linked into local coronavirus groups within establishments again to replicate that, so they have the information, the infection rates, the key picture that allows the governor to be able to take those decisions, and that, in effect, gives the governor that position to then make that recommendation through myself to authorise the SSI. Thank you very much, that is helpful. Collette, do you want to come back in at all? Just quickly ask Alistair really, so there obviously, as you are saying, there is a good flow of communication in terms of when any governor chooses to implement that. Have you looked at, when you have implemented it in the past, the impact that it has had particularly on young people, remand prisoners as well? What is the longest, and is there any particular estate that has been prevalent more so than others? Just to pick that up, it has actually been spread right across the estate, so there hasn't been specific pockets. To give you an example of some of the recent ones, some of the restrictions were placed on visits and recreations for three days within one of our establishments, and that is because the four wings within the area had been deemed by our public health colleagues to have to be mass-tested, so we had to do that. Other areas have extended for two weeks over the last Omicron in terms of visits, so that was a significant staffing reduction level, so it has varied from two or three days to a month at times, in recent times, that those measures would have to stay in place. Collette, are you happy with that? Any final follow-up questions? Just quickly, sorry, convener. It was just on the fact that, as well, there has been challenges within the prison estate in terms of staff absences. I was just wondering if maybe Alistair or Theresa wanted to come in here as to what is the current level of staff absences at the moment, and is there anything that is being done in terms of recruitment or what you can do to rectify that? Thank you very much, Ms Stevenson. We monitor our absence levels on a daily basis, and we disaggregate the absence levels by Covid and non-Covid absence. As of yesterday, I think that we had seen a slight increase again just over 12 per cent, but, as I say, we monitor that on a daily basis. We have it across, so you can have disproportionate impacts depending on outbreaks in different prisons, so you might have much lower levels of Covid-related absence in a few prisons and much higher in others, just depending on what is happening in the localities and what is happening in those establishments at that time. With regard to our staffing levels, we are sitting because we continued our recruitment practice, and that was moved to online recruitment. We have been able to maintain quite a positive staffing position. At the most recent figures that I received, I think that we were just slightly above what our normal staffing level should sit at, certainly for operational staff. Thank you very much for that. I am going to bring in Rona Mackay to ask a quick supplementary question on the earlier part of my colleague's question to Alistair Purdy. The request that you get from governors to implement measures and then your subsequent permission, if that is what has happened. Is all that made public? No, at this point it is not. It is held within the Scottish Prison Service. So the committee would not know what measures were being implemented in any particular prison? No, but the independent prison monitors have access to that within the prison, as well as the Wendy Sinclair Givens team would have access to that at any time about how many people were in isolation and what restrictions had been applied by specific governors or establishments? Is that something that the committee could find out if we wrote to prisons and asked them? It does not automatically come from yourself to be in the public realm? No, not at this point, no. Precisely as it is a follow-up to Rona Mackay's question, the emergency inspectorate is quoted saying that this has been a long-term pandemic and HMIPS would like to see those powers were used reported on transparently and regularly with clear and sufficient justification. The inspectorate is asking for more transparency in reporting. We are clearly asking for it as well, but I get the impression that your response is that all that information is there if somebody wants it. It does not seem like a joined-up approach in terms of how we can make that a much more proactive issue. They might address the needs of everyone. So there has been information, Mr Greene, that we have published on our website. I think that we are publishing it on a weekly basis. Clearly, as with everything, as you move through different circumstances and different arrangements, you start to refine and hone what you are able to provide. Our prisoner record systems do not allow us to look historically back at cases necessarily, so it would be quite high-level information that we would be able to provide. But certainly, if the committee wanted us to write and provide you with information, then we can do that. On the point that Emma made earlier about the transparency, we are looking at our management information and how much we provide on our website, because we know that we need to improve. We need to become much more transparent around the types of information that people frequently request and is of interest, but it is work in progress, as we speak. I guess that from a practical point of view, most likely for the families of those who are in specific prisons, we would want to know what the current status is, which would be helpful for them. However, my other question seems to be from the response that we have had, support for an extension for six months to the temporary SSI to be extended. Why six months? Is that just in keeping with what Parliament is doing with coronavirus measures? It seems to be that, for example, if the Parliament is legislating to end coronavirus, measures for the wider public, why there is still a need for them to be extended, what is so different about the prison environment where you need to keep extending them by six months when we, for example, are ending them? We do not really see the need to extend them for that long. Do you think that you will be coming back in another six months asking for them again? I know that we do not know what is happening with the virus, but it seems like an endless iteration of what we are only just temporary powers two years ago. I understand the concerns that you have raised. If we go back to March 2020, when we first went into lockdown, most of us probably hoped that it was going to be for a few weeks and two years later almost we are still experiencing the effects of the pandemic. The main crux of the response to your question has to be around the uniqueness of our environments and the nature of the potential for infection spread. The health vulnerabilities of those in our care come from some of the most deprived areas in Scotland, and we are particularly and acutely aware of the vulnerabilities in our population. We do not have the information around, because it is such a transient population, then vaccination status, etc. It would be really difficult to collate any kind of data that would be helpful in determining how and when we would lift completely restrictions in prisons, but we have applied learning from each phase of the pandemic to try and make improvements as we have moved along. The intention would be yet again to look to see what learning can we take from the recent outbreaks and what is likely to be a steady state for prisons going forward, because that is where I would like to be as well. Russell, I will bring you in now. Thank you. It is a message for Emma, and it is going back to what you were talking about earlier on. I appreciate your diplomatic language of euphemisms and words like tensions and so on. In respect of your concerns about the consultation process in the letter that we have in front of us, you say that the concern is that this might be more of an administrative than a truly consultative exercise. Is that a one-off frustration, or is this a more general cultural issue with some Government agencies that you encounter? In this instance, I think that there has been a worry that it has been an administrative exercise right from the start of the pandemic with regard to the prison rules. We have written to the committee on three different occasions, highlighting the fact that we did not—first of all, nobody was consulted on the prison rules. Then there was a limited consultation of nine organisations of which three ourselves included submitted a response. Due to some administrative oversight, you as a committee did not see our full consultation response. This time, we have had a matter of days in order to respond to that. The SSI that we now find out is going to be laid on Friday. It feels as if the consultation is not as open as it should be. The previous consultation request SPS responded to it, saying that no action would be taken on any of the points made by any of the organisations that had submitted responses. I hesitate to use this phrase because it sounds a little heavy-handed, but there has been a criticism that SPS has been allowed to market its own homework. That concerns us. Teresa, you say that you have limited historical records and limited records in relation to individuals, but in the letter from the Howard League it says that, in other prison services, for example, Ireland, figures are provided for numbers of hours out of cell each day. For example, going forward, what would you need to do to be able to provide the public and this committee with the kind of data that we probably would find very helpful for us to be able to make informed decisions? Thank you very much for that, Ms Clark. The data that I said was limited is in relation to historic data on individual cases, and it is hard to aggregate that, but we collate data on purposeful activity hours, and that is published as part of our annual report and accounts, because that is something that we are scrutinised for as an organisation. There is data and information that we have and that we can provide and we can publish. There is more that we need to do around management information and provide assurances around our management information, so we need to become more sophisticated. As I said earlier to Mr Greene, this is a journey that we are on at the moment as an organisation, because I would want to seem to be transparent and open to scrutiny, rather than closed. What do you need to do to be able to do that? Is it resources? Is it the erot of the resources? Is it the erot of the systems? Partly it is systems and we are updating our systems as we are going through the current pandemic, but part of it as well is becoming more sophisticated around data capture and utilising better platforms to do that. That is why, in terms of management information, identifying how best to capture that without it being resource intensive, which is at the moment, but we do still capture a lot of data and a lot of information that is published, probably not as much as people would either want or expect. Okay, thanks Katie. Pauline, would you like to come in with anything? Okay, thanks very much. There's just one follow-up final question that I would like to ask. It just came into my mind when we've been asking questions. It's probably one for Theresa and Alistair and it's just about whether or not there is scope within a prison setting for there to be different levels of restrictions imposed in different parts of the prison. Forgive me if that's already been covered off and perhaps I missed it. Rather than just having a blanket imposition of restrictions depending on the circumstances at that point in time, is there scope for different levels to be applied or is that overly complicated? In order to ensure that it is proportionate, it is only applied in the way in which it's necessary to limit the risk of the spread of an infection. It can be applied to one cohort of individuals and it would be quite unusual for it to be applied across a whole prison. So, yes, there are flexibilities within that and it would be expected that any governor who recommends restrictions are imposed does so by assessing the impact and doing so in conjunction with advice from the IMT. I don't know if you want to add anything. Just to concur with what we do, we control it by households and make sure that it's proportionate and there's no other impact in the establishment whether it's not unnecessary. That concludes our session. Again, thank you very much indeed for attending. Of course, if there are any outstanding points that you maybe want to share with the committee in writing, please feel free to do so and we'll take that into account. Many thanks again for attending and we'll just take a very short pause to allow you to leave the committee room. Our next item of business is consideration of correspondence on the photocopying of prisoners mail and I refer members to paper 4. Members will recall that back in January we considered a statutory instrument to change prison rules to allow for the photocopying of prisoners mail in order to mitigate against the risk of illicit substances being introduced via the mail system and we subsequently wrote to Police Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service requesting additional information. Responses have now been received and they have been circulated with this week's committee papers. The committees invited to consider what if any follow-up action is required and members will recall that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans indicated that he would update the committee about the on-going review of the regulations after a period of three months, so I'm happy to open up for members' views on this matter and I'll hand straight over to Russell. First of all, I think the letter from the police is very reassuring. It answers the unanswered question about stuff that might be contaminated, being returned to prisoners and they're saying quite clearly that will no longer happen. Obviously we can't really measure very much until we've heard back from the Cabinet Secretary after three months, but this MOU is still a bit unclear as to when it was introduced, there's no date on it, there's no crown signatory on it and I think it's probably just worth asking the crown did they indeed ever sign it and if so when and I find it slightly odd that even if they did it's at least nine years old and in that time we've seen the rise of psychoactive substances, we've seen drones come along, we've seen the impregnating of mail with these substances so the whole world and the whole landscape have changed and this document is very much written predating all that stuff so if it was it implemented and if so why has it not been looked at for the best part of a decade? I'm quite happy with what's been said, I think what we need to do is bring in the Cabinet Secretary and they get his update after three months when it's in such a time to be in place so I'm quite happy with that time scan. Okay, thank you. Jamie? Just the correspondence from the SPS in response to our questions to them. The figures, my understanding is the only givers figures for the four weeks following the changes to the rules in the 13th of December so obviously we requested ongoing updates that's just one month of data and also that would have been a month of data through the Christmas period as well whether there's abnormal volumes but it is quite notable that 48% of correspondence was photocopied and passed on now I don't know if that's good or bad actually because I guess there was an understanding that all mail would have been photocopied then others thought it would have been selective depending on risk evaluation so it's just hard to gauge whether that's a good, bad or indifferent and maybe some context around that would be helpful. More interestingly though is the figures of how many of those were actually tested positive and 12% of mail that went through the rapid scan machine actually did test positive so it sounds like a wise move on all our parts to push for this but I'd also really be keen to see as we move forward over the months as to the effect that it's having on the number of items which are testing positive whether that's going down as people are reducing the risk taking of sending substances in that way but equally safe to say and I think we'd be naive to think that that means that drugs are being eliminated from prisons so in that case will there be a substantive change to the type of drug or the method of getting the drugs into prison and that's something I think it's probably too early to say so I appreciate the government needs more time on that but when we do hear from them perhaps before summer recess it'd be interesting to see if those in the illicit sector have found new and innovative ways of getting drugs into prisons and indeed what those drugs are because as we know over the years Russell said that has changed by method and product and it's fair to say that that will continue to be the case so it's something I think we should keep out of watching eye on thereof. Collette, would you like to come in? I'll go with reviewing it again in three months time to get a full idea of the impact that's had that said we did discuss and I'm not sure if it's been addressed or not it's not with standing in the mail been you know photocopied but was delivery of personal items as well and if that has had any if there's been a review on that really and is there any suggestion that there is stuff coming in there like a footwear and whatnot as well so yeah but I am very much comfortable with the three-month review okay thank you very much Collette Katie and to ask I'm quite happy with review in three months okay thank you Pauline okay thanks very much for that I mean a few I think we're probably agreed that broadly the direction of travel looks reasonably positive but it is it's very early days in terms of assessing or evaluating success or otherwise the issues with the MOU I think we can certainly follow that up in writing with Police Scotland Fulton you mentioned bringing the cabinet secretary back in which we will do obviously in in the three-month timescale that we that we agreed or that he offered yeah I think perhaps continued monitoring some evaluation of the of the process and how it's working and Collette raised an interesting point about personal items so I think it seems so worse I've agreed that broadly the that this has been a positive development and a positive piece of work so if members are happy with that our clerks can pick up some of those actions and take them away so that thanks thanks very much for that and that now concludes the public part of the meeting and we'll now move into private session for the other items on our agenda thank you