 I'm a very good morning and welcome members to the 25th meeting of the criminal justice committee. There are no apologies this morning and our first item of business is to agree to take item 3 in private. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Our next item of business is to discuss recent correspondence received by the committee and I refer members to paper number 1. You'll see in the paper that the clerks have suggested some ideas on how we may want to take some of the issues highlighted forward. However, I'm happy for members to raise any points they wish to follow up. I'll just take each letter in turn and I'll start with the letter received from the Minister for Community Safety on the commencement of various parts of the fireworks and pyrotechnics articles act. That can be found on page 3 of the paper. I'll open it up to members if you have any queries or points you want to raise. If not, are you happy with the suggested follow-up to note the developments outlined in the letter, including the confirmation that certain parts of the act will be implemented before bonfire night this year, and to note the timetables for the other parts of the act? Are members happy with that? Thanks, convener. I just maybe needed a bit of clarification. The commencement of the SSI comes into force on 10 October. I'm not seeing much publicity about that or I assume there'll be some public awareness. There's quite a tight timescale for that. That's a good point to raise. In the letter received from the Minister, there was reference to information on the offence being included in the Scottish Government's annual fireworks campaign. I don't know what the dates are for that starting unless you've got any update on that. We can perhaps go back and clarify that. That would probably be good, but it might have started by the time we get to the post. I just flag it up because this is the fifth and it's starting on the 10th. It's a good point to raise just to get some clarity over what the plan is. I think that this was an issue that was raised quite a number of times in committee, was the issue around publicity and awareness, so happy for us to take that back to officials. Members are happy with that, Jamie? Happy. Just falling on from that point. I think because there are different bits of this bill and the implementation will come at different periods, so obviously there was a rush to get the bill through to deal with the issue of proxy purchasing supply. I'm not entirely convinced people may even understand what that is or what that means. For example, there may be parents out there who think about buying fireworks, does that mean that they can't use them in their household with their children there? Or I think we understand perhaps the more obvious problem that existed, which the bill was trying to address. I would have some concern that that practice becomes illegal in five days' time and there has been no public awareness around it, despite calls in our report throughout the process. Indeed, I recall amendments being led to that effect to try and push the Government to do that. We were given, I think, categorical reassurances. I'll need to go back and check the official report, but I'm pretty sure community safety minister asked us not to move some of those amendments on the premise that the Government would be quite robust and it's public awareness. I haven't seen anything on radio, television, ambient, or media. There's been zero coverage of that. The worry is that people will carry on doing what they do and find themselves falling fell over the law, having not known that this is coming to place. Of course, there are other aspects of it where there may be the other side of the conas and people may think that we also banned fireworks, which we didn't. Again, there's been not really much awareness as to what we'd actually passed in law and what is happening this year versus what's happening next year. I'll maybe ask the Government to reflect on that. We're obviously going into recess. We won't be able to look at this till after the 10th and we're only looking at this letter today, just a few days before the implementation of the SSI, so I don't think that's ideal. I would come back to the letter that the minister sent the committee. There are a couple of sections in it, one relating to information on the proxy purchase and supply offence being included in the Government's annual fireworks campaign. Further on in the letter, she makes reference to the fact that her officials are developing a bespoke programme of communications with partners in addition to the annual fireworks season campaign to support commencement of the proxy purchase and supply offence and emergency workers' aggravation and publicise those coming into force. The point that has been raised is a fair one. As I say, I'm happy for us to go back to the ministers and officials and just raise the particular issue of timescales given that this is 5 October that we're discussing this. The date that has been set out for the new offence coming into force is five days' time. If members are in agreement with that, we'll write back to the ministers. The second letter is from the cabinet secretary on charging fees for access to court transcripts. I'll open it up to members for any comments that they have. I just think that it's pretty vague. It doesn't really tell us anything at all. Fourth part down, it says that there's a commitment to working to improve victims' experiences, but it doesn't address the central point, which is access to court transcriptions. So I don't really... It's quite a delay between, as the top of the letter points out, between our letter and the response, but what's the point of the response? There's so little in it of any substance. This is one of the items on our tracking radar of Government actions and this letter says nothing that we didn't already know. I think that the second substantive paragraph, which kicks off with, as you will have appreciated from previous correspondence, in other words, we're expecting some repetition of the words that follow. The matter's not straightforward. Well, we know that, but we did go back and say, well, what are you doing to resolve those not straightforward issues? It then lists a number of barriers to making this happen, but it doesn't really expand on them. So it talks about existing contractual arrangements in place. Well, what are they? It talks about the funding resource that might be required. How much? The wider question about existing legislative framework, which laws and the extent to which they might need to be amended. So what I don't really see is a plan as to how the Government might in turn deal with those barriers if they exist. Now, if they can make a robust case that these are onerous barriers, i.e. this is going to cost £20 million, it just isn't enough money, or we're locked into a contractual obligation for five years and we can't break it, then that's a fair answer. I would hear the Cabinet Secretary out on that, but this sounds very wishy-washy, I'm afraid, and I don't think it's acceptable, given the scale of the fees that people have been asked to pay, victims of quite horrific sexual offences. It's entirely unacceptable, in my view, and this doesn't sound like the tone of it, if nothing else, if not the content. It certainly doesn't say to me that the Government's going to look into this any time soon or any further. So what I would actually like is to address those issues in that second paragraph and a bit of a more planned from the Government as to how they're going to navigate their way through that and come back with a solution and a timescale, ideally. Pauline? Yeah, it's very little information to go on here. I mean, I take the view there's a wider issue about access to justice, both criminal and civil, that people should have affordable access to seeing what happened in their court case. I don't know what the charges are, so I don't know anything about it, but I'm going to start from that viewpoint, but I presume it's quite expensive, otherwise they wouldn't be creating a scheme in the first place. So I don't really feel I can comment any further than that, other than that. For me, it's a wider issue. I have certainly spoke to constituents in the past who have said they find it really difficult to get a transcript of their own court case, so there's a wider issue there. Probably not enough time in this committee's agenda to deal with it, but yeah, I think if a commitment has been made, and the Lord President is commenting on it then, I think we probably need to prove this to the element of it to make sure that it happens. Okay, thanks very much for that. Anybody else want to come in on it? Nope. I think the points that have been raised are fair. I think it's obviously, as we've been, I think we've been outlined in previous correspondence, as well as it's not a particularly straightforward process to put in place and implement. So bearing in mind the points that have been made, are members content with the suggestion obviously that we would note the cabinet secretary's response, but clearly we do feel that this does remain a priority area, particularly in the context of support for victims, which is an issue that the committee has looked at regularly. It also sits within our action plan for reform of the justice sector and that we review progress on this particular issue before the end of the year. Members content with that? I'm content with all of that, but I would perhaps be a little bit more explicit as to what we're asking the Government to say in their response, otherwise we may just get another, you know, we note your concern and we don't worry, we're dealing with it. I would ask very straightforward questions, as it was indicated here, about the funding barriers, about the legislative framework that may be causing problems, about contracture arrangements, without delving into commercial sensitivities within reason, but I think these are quite specific questions that I trust the clerks could come up with that we could ask the Government to respond to in turn one by one. I suppose the only thing I would come back on that with is whether or not that information would be available at this point in time. We can ask the questions, but I wonder if that had been available then that would have been shared already with us. We did ask in June, so I mean it's not, this isn't a new thing we're asking. Anybody else got any comments at all? Are you wanting to go back to, so what you're saying is you'd like to go back and ask those further points? I just think if we have a generic, you know, we're still watching you on this, then we'll just get a generic response. I think if you ask specific questions then the Government will either choose to respond to those specific questions or not, as the case may be, but at least we're starting to delve below what are the barriers to progressing with this issue. Okay, thank you, Russell. Just an agreement with Jamie. I think I don't have the Lord President's response to us in front of us, but it was a lot more detailed and his explanation as to why this would be difficult, but there are so many reasonable things we can ask on the basis of this letter which really says nothing, so I think we should do that. Okay, I'll just bring in other members then in relation to Collette. Obviously Jamie has touched upon the cost implications in terms of how we take that forward, but the other question there is the question of charges as well for transcripts, you know, how costly will they be to teach the victims in order to, you know, for accessibility as well, so that's maybe something else, because obviously if it's far too expensive then that's another barrier for justice, effectively. Okay, thanks very much. Okay, so if members are happy then, happy to take on board Jamie's points and we can write back to the Cabinet Secretary bearing in mind that obviously this is something that we would be looking at anyway, but I'm happy for us to pick that up and take that forward. Okay, thanks very much. So our next piece of correspondence is from, again from the Cabinet Secretary, on the risk assessment review and prison releases. So this is the LSEMI process that was raised in chamber quite some time ago and which we have received previous updates on. So I just again ask members for any further comments that they wish to make on that correspondence and if they're happy to note the information provided as has been suggested in the paper. So again I'll just open it up, Fulton. Just a comment, convener, more than anything else, I think that given that there was a review of nearly 18,000 cases and these were reviewed by justice social work staff, I think it's worth putting on record our thanks to them for doing that because I think we've already heard and committed in various evidence sessions about their workloads as it is in the justice sector and we've heard that in various different formats and from different people so I imagine that would have been quite an undertaking in itself so I just wanted to put that on the record. Thanks very much, Fulton. Any other comments or members' content that we note the content of the letter? Okay, thanks very much. Our next letter is from the Minister for Drugs Policy on the oversight of the national mission to Tackle Scotland's rate of drugs deaths. Any comments on that one? Nope. Members happy just to note the information provided? Okay, thanks very much. Our final letter is from NHS Scotland on the issue of medical prescriptions upon liberation. It's a fairly detailed letter from NHS Scotland following our correspondence in relation to seeking some clarity about the availability of prescriptions on release from custody so again I'll open it up just bearing in mind the recommendation that's being made. Any comments that anybody wants to make on that or collect? Noted in page 13 is a short-life working group one which is looking at considerations, solutions. I'd be keen to get an update on the completion of that. I think what it has done is flagged up two issues that we were acutely aware of already. One is the disparity of provision across the country so depending on which NHS board you're in, which depending on which prison you're leaving from, there seems to be very different processes taking place now. I understand that's a by-product of having different NHS boards but it seems to me like since the responsibility for healthcare has been passed from the SPS to NHS boards that we are left in a real mishmash of a situation, it also flags up the second issue which is a much more wider one which I've been acutely aware of since I've come into the Parliament and that's a lack of digitisation of this type of thing. It's the idea that people are getting a prescription generated from a specific pharmacy along with a handwritten letter to their GP if they have a GP and in some prisons are then printing GP 10s which are then signed by somebody and present to somebody and then taken to chemists. The whole thing is quite complex for many people and I just can't understand why they're with all the money that's been spent on national NHS data systems and CMS systems that they can't come up with something. They just told that it actually works in conjunction with the SPS which may involve rollback of some of the blurring of the lines of responsibility there but surely they could work together and the prison population is not millions but I appreciate you couldn't do this overnight for the wider population but surely in relation to this they could come up with a digitised solution that actually works and so yeah those are the only two comments I had and I think this letter layers that case open again which is something we've been aware of so. Okay thanks very much Rona. Just to agree really with what's been said and with Colette Stevenson's request to have an update on the short live working group but following on from what Jamie said there's a piece in the letter that said the board has been tasked to provide oversight of the development of an outline business case to support a set of clinical IT solutions for prisons whether you to support an equity of care in prison healthcare settings and so the outline business case is expected in autumn 2022 which is probably now and after which the programme will present options for progressing to a full business case yeah I would just like to know more about what what this business case is will it address some of the things that we're talking about in terms of digitisation etc and making it a much clearer process and so yeah just just more about that really would be good I think. Yep that's fine okay okay any other points okay thanks very much yep Colette. Again I think as well based on the evidence that we we got you know from from the visit at Maryhill and whatnot as well and some of the challenges I think it might be worse while writing to the wise group to to seek their views as well on this based on that because from this report or this letter it would state that everything's going quite smoothly you know in terms of you know releasing what not and there's a comment as well about friday releases and how that can be a challenge so it might be good to get a a second opinion from the wise group based on that as well okay okay thanks very much so I think what what I'm from what I'm hearing in terms of the suggestion that's been made to share the correspondence that we receive from NHS Scotland with the wise group and others and ask them for any feedback that they wish to provide bearing in mind that they'll obviously have a chance to pick up on the business case and the short life working group and then if they wish to write back to us then that that would be helpful for us in the meantime I wonder if we might want to write back to NHS Scotland with the specific points that you've raised regarding the digitisation that Jamie raised your point Collette about the short life working group and obviously the business case and a little bit more about that Pauline? If we'll be closing this, I mean are you satisfied with this response? I mean I find it really hard to believe that it took one half a noon meeting it took a half a noon meeting for it to be raised with us by the wise group but it wouldn't have raised it with us if it wasn't you know I presume you know wasn't a one-off and they wouldn't have raised it with us why are they not picking this up? Sorry I was just going back over it because that is quite a problem to me if they're saying all right so on a Friday blah blah blah prison healthcare would write a prescription for the patient to cover a week or so of all until the catine can pick up the patient so lax. I think that's the point that I think we're making is that it's appropriate that this goes back to the wise group you know they're at the front end of this and really they're probably messed on to comment on the content of the correspondence if you're content with that but that's the sort of at the heart of why we were proposing I'm not really content with the response because that's an admission to me I don't need the wise group to tell me if they by their admission are saying that they think it's okay I mean other people know more than this but me but I'm just a layperson reading this surely that if you get a week of opioids until the catine can pick it up sounds to me like there could be a gap so that's an admission is it not so okay I'm not I'm just okay I wait to see what the wise group say I'm asking if you're content to for us to send the correspondence back to the wise group in order that they can comment on it and then we can pick that up from there members happy with that okay thanks very much okay that completes our business in public today and we now move into private session our next meeting will be on Wednesday the 26th of October when we'll begin taking evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny process thanks very much