 WelENTIL Зure served the Justice Committee's 33st meeting of 2018. We've apologized from Shona Rotsom, and Liam MacArthur is delayed due to adverse weather conditions. We thought that was better than saying that he was delayed due to wind. Agenda item number one is the decision on taking item 7 in private, which is consideration of our forward work programme. Are we all agreed? Agenda item 2 is our fourth evidence session on the Vulnerable Witnesses' Criminal Evidence Scotland Bill. I refer members to paper 1, which is note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is the private paper. I welcome the right honourable lady, Dorian Lord Justice-Clark, and to embarrass the Executive Director of the Judicial Office for Scotland. I thank you very much for your written evidence, which the committee finds tremendously helpful in advance of us taking formal evidence. In addition, I also thank you for arranging not just one but two visits for members of the committee to see the facilities for taking evidence by a commissioner and the opportunity to view recordings of commission proceedings. I know that that was very much appreciated by all the members and it is very helpful to inform our scrutiny of the bill. Lady Dorian, I believe that you would like to make a short opening statement. Just a couple of minutes if I may trespass upon your time, convener. Simply to say that I am very pleased to be here to give evidence on the bill because the bill represents a significant milestone on a journey that I have been personally involved in since 2014 when I was a member of the small group that conducted the initial research leading to the publication of the first evidence and procedure review report in 2015. That started a process of consultation and the development of ideas to devise better ways of taking the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. From the start and throughout the process, we had the twin objectives that any new measures that we could introduce without legislation should both reduce the potential harm to witnesses and the distress, and increase the opportunity to give reliable, accurate and comprehensive evidence. The work that followed the initial report involved all those with an interest in the criminal justice sector. We knew that the best way to get genuinely workable proposals that people from all sides would effectively buy into would be to get them working together to develop them so that the working group included representatives of the judiciary, of the faculty of advocates, of the law society, of Crown Office, justice agencies, third sector organisations representing the interests of children and crime and of course the police. The quality of the collaborative work in each group was very high indeed. The practice note that I know that many of you have had sight of was very much the work of that collaborative process. The prerecorded evidence work stream of the review had two major outcomes first, paving the way for the practice note that I have just mentioned, designed to use existing legislation and enhance the use of commissioner hearings. That effectively introduced the ground rules hearing, to regulate the conduct of commissioner hearings, bring greater consistency and focus on the needs of the witness. That has led to an increase in the number of commissions that has enabled us to carry out an evaluative process of that work. The working group has set out a long-term vision for the taking of evidence from all vulnerable witnesses, which we recognise could not be achieved overnight, and we recognise that graduated steps along the way to a more modern and more consistent approach in the interests of witnesses was going to take time. The bill represents one of the significant staging posts in that journey. For that reason, I and my fellow Senators generally support the proposals in the bill. We now move to questions starting with John Finnie. Good morning, panel, and thank you for your work with others on this. I ask you to expand a bit further, please, Lady Dorian, on what we are talking about, the increased use of evidence to be recorded, particularly the benefits, particularly in terms of the impact on vulnerable witnesses and the most important part, or another important part, the quality of evidence that is obtained. Can you elaborate on both those aspects, please? Yes. What really sparked this off for us was looking at a case in which a child of five had given evidence at a trial, having had joint investigative interview, which was played for the evidence in chief, but was cross-examined at the trial that had not been a commission. That was some two years or something after the actual joint investigative interview, and probably quite some time later, maybe three years after the actual complaint had been made. We know that, in relation to children in particular, if they are asked to give their evidence about something at a time remote from the event, their memory diminishes. Not only does their memory diminish, but they are more likely to be confused by general questioning about the incident and, therefore, might come across wrongly often in cross-examination as being shifty or unreliable. Not only do they find it difficult to deal with the questions at that stage, they are more inclined just to agree with the questioner when they cannot remember as well. The idea of a commission at a much closer period in time to the incidents of which they are complaining was clearly something that would enhance their ability to recall, to give accurate and comprehensive evidence and, of course, to reduce the harm to them because then they can get on with their lives and they do not need to attend the trial, so everything else can carry on, as it were, without them. The specific example that you referred to there, what was the impact on the child of being cross-examined, are you able to say? I would have to refer to the details of the case. I think that the child did have difficulty answering the questions in any meaningful way, and my recollection, again, I would really have to check this, but my recollection is that the child was not able to give any meaningful evidence in cross-examination. Conversely, there are other problems associated with taking this particular route. I think that with regard to safeguards to prevent any miscarriages of justice, what safeguards should be built into the process? The safeguards that apply are essentially the same safeguards that would apply if the child was giving evidence at the trial. The commissioner is a high court judge, invested with the same powers as a high court judge. The commissioner is in control of the proceedings if there are difficulties in the way of the questioning that the commissioner can deal with them. Equally, the commissioner is there to protect the interests of the accused as well, in the same way as the judge at trial. All that does, apart from the other issue of simplifying the questions, which is another issue, brings the process forward. I do not see any real difficulties along the issue that you are raising. If, subsequent to the commissioning of the statement, further evidence comes to light, how was that dealt with? Well, if something further came to light that really required the child to be further examined, and you have to bear in mind that very often the nature of the cross-examination of children in these cases is very limited to suggest that either the events did not happen or perhaps that someone else might have been to blame, possibly someone else visiting the family or something. First of all, the question would arise whether it was actually necessary for this material to be addressed in cross-examination or examination chief of the child. If so, then a further commission could be held. However, in the period of time since we introduced the practice note and the evaluation that we have had of the results of that, which have seen a 50 per cent increase in commissions, admittedly from a low-level start, we have not ever encountered a situation in which something has subsequently come to light that is required to be addressed in that way. As for the specific legislation, do you have use on having a requirement to pre-record evidence built in categories? Well, certainly for young children and children generally, I think that a requirement to pre-record the evidence is absolutely the way forward. In due course, I think that that is something that could usefully be extended to other vulnerable witnesses, but, of course, there are resource implications of doing this, and it is important to make sure that we get it right for children before we move on further with other categories, I would say. I would just like to pick you up on a wee bit on the last point that was raised there about phased implementation to other witnesses. Can I ask what your view is on the fact that it now is restricted to children in the most serious cases, and whether you think in how it could be rolled out to children generally appearing in the sheriff court, etc? Well, in our review where we recommended a particular approach to be taken, we recognised in that a phased implementation of change was going to be necessary, and we felt that probably the best way of starting was with children who are amongst the most vulnerable of the witnesses that we would have to deal with, and that there was sense in limiting it to the High Court, not just to solemn cases, in order to make sure that the model that developed, because bear in mind, we were developing a model of practice that did not require legislation, and that was new. In order to make sure that it developed in a careful, managed, consistent way, we felt that it was more important to limit it to those most serious cases where children are giving evidence, and those are mostly pretty serious cases of abuse, which will be dealt with in the High Court. Our view was that it was very important that we got it right for those children, and that the danger of expanding it too quickly across the country was that we would have less consistency in the operation of it. Also, it would be harder for us to evaluate what was working and what was not working. Can I ask how—I know that you are not able to say exactly—how long you think it might take to evaluate that first phase? We have done our second evaluation report. As a consequence of that, we have identified some issues that we need to look at. Some of them are technical in relation to the nature of the filming and what gets displayed on the screen. Some of them relate to the issue of controlling the questions and how that should be done. At the moment, the practice note is definitely an evolving document, as it were, because we will be revising whether we need to look at changing any elements of it as a consequence of that evaluation. It is quite difficult to say how long it might take to feel comfortable. Are those issues that you envisage to be relatively easy to resolve? Yes, yes. They are not huge seed issues. No, they are not. There are things to do with technical aspects of the use of the equipment, sometimes to do with the rooms where the commission takes place and to do with the control of the questioning, which is something that we are in negotiation with the faculty of advocates and the law society at the moment. Are you in favour in time of rolling out into other adult vulnerable witnesses? I am, yes. That would be the eventual aim once everything else is moving smoothly. Jenny, you have two supplementaries from Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. This is a follow-on from Rona Mackay's line of questioning with regard to adult vulnerable witnesses. I wonder if the panel might have a view with regard to domestic abuse cases specifically, because I appreciate Lady Dorian who said that in due course it will be extended to other vulnerable witnesses. Do we now need to consider domestic abuse witnesses next, as an example of adult vulnerable witnesses? I am using the term vulnerable witness in the sense in which it is currently defined by the legislation. Obviously, it is a matter for the Parliament to determine whether the definition of vulnerable witness should be expanded in any way. On that point, if I may, you say, Lady Dorian, that it is a matter for the Parliament to extend. I think that I am right in saying that that extension will be done by regulations. Do you take a view on whether having regulations to extend that jurisdiction is appropriate, or whether that would make it too easy, too straightforward, and without sufficient scrutiny to extend the scope? There are two separate things that I think are involved in the questioning. The answer that I was giving was in relation to the statutory definition of the vulnerable witness. My view on that was that if that definition is to be altered, that would have to be a matter for Parliament and it would be a matter for the Parliament to decide whether the definition should be changed. Of course, it will, at the moment, encompass certain witnesses who are complainers in domestic abuse cases, but it does not cover that automatically. That is the definition of vulnerable witness. The issue of whether the process in the bill should be extended to other vulnerable witnesses beyond children, i.e. those who are defined in statute as vulnerable witnesses. I personally do not see any difficulty with that being the subject of regulation so long as any extension of the definition of vulnerable witness is done in the knowledge that that could be the consequence. I understand that some people feel that the extension by regulation is not an adequate safeguard, but that is something that the committee will have to grapple with. Can I just, before Daniel Cymru comes in, ask you a little bit more about the definition of vulnerable in vulnerable witnesses. We had evidence from Ms Carridge of Justice and they suggested that vulnerable wasn't clear and it tended to be looking at the offence and categorising someone as vulnerable automatically, rather than looking at the person in front of us. There are two separate issues here. One is that there is a category of vulnerable witness that relates to the offence in relation to which the trial is to take place. Equally, a witness can be a vulnerable witness if it is shown that they would require to have special measures in order to give their evidence more fully and if they are apprehensive or otherwise would be scared or intimidated from doing so, if they didn't have that measure. That kind of approach is one that is more of a model designed to assess the individual vulnerability of the witness as opposed to whether they are complaining of a particular offence having been committed. Do you think that that needs more explanation in the policy memorandum? I don't think that there's any difficulty at the moment in identifying who would qualify as a vulnerable witness. On the face of it, I think that the provision that enables someone to be classified as a vulnerable witness if they would find it difficult to give their evidence without special measures because they are apprehensive and feel under threat is probably sufficient. I don't have the statute in front of me, unfortunately, so I can't be quite precise. I'll be returned to definitions later. I'd like to carry on some of the questions regarding the extensions that are provided for in the bill. As I understand it, in the first instance it will apply to children and to specific types of cases that can be extended by regulation. However, it's essentially my understanding that it stops short of making it possible for all types of cases in all courts. I'm just wondering whether, in your view, the bill should go further and make that a possibility so that we don't need to return to primary legislation in the course of time as that evolves and as we seek to extend the provision for other types of witnesses and other types of cases. Well, ultimately, the question of extending to other courts to, say, some share of court solemn and share of court summary business is a question of resources largely, as well as being satisfied that we have a model that is clear and consistent. Once there is a model that is clear and consistent, there is no reason other than resource implications for that not to be extended to other courts. In a way, as long as the resources are available, there would seem to be no difficulty in extending that by regulation. In fact, there is probably a better and easier argument for doing that than for extending the categories. I want to add to that, just to be clear, that this facility of taking evidence by commissioner is available across the people and does happen at every level already. It's a question of whether the presumption should apply or not to a wider range of witnesses. In the evidence and procedure work that was done, it was recognised that you needed to take a proportionate approach and the pre-recorded evidence document talked about different approaches for different levels of seriousness and different levels of court. For one example, at the other extreme, for a proportionate response, we were saying that you don't really need a complex process for, say, an articulate 16-year-old who has witnessed a bicycle theft. It's not—by definition, they're vulnerable, but they're not necessarily going to need a lot of special measures for them to provide their evidence, so it's just to make sure that we took a proportionate approach and, as we extend it, that proportionality still applies. That is an important point, I think, and it is worth noting also that, at the moment, other witnesses, other than children, if their needs of communication or their ability to give their evidence requires it, they can also give evidence by commission at the moment. The real question is the issue of making it essentially the main method of giving evidence, and there are, as Tim says, proportionality issues about that in the lower courts, particularly in the summary court. Can I maybe just draw it a little bit in terms of the resource requirement in order to make this feasible? What resources are we looking at? What would be necessary for extension? Is it about facilities? Is it about training for individuals? If you could just elaborate on what the resource requirements are. If you have a system where the evidence of all vulnerable witnesses, for example, just to expand it to that, all vulnerable witnesses in the High Court have their evidence captured in commission form. That has significant resource implications for the police and for the Crown in how they go about gathering the evidence, what they do in preparation for the way in which that evidence is going to be captured in due course, particularly since, with children, the standard way of capturing their evidence in chief is in the joint investigative interview, and that would continue. The main resource implications really are at that front end. There are then resource implications for the court, because for every commission you would have to have a ground rules hearing. If you are looking at assessing the nature of the questions to be asked, they can take some time. There are quite significant resource implications from the point of view of the court's programme of building in time for the ground rules hearing and then building in time for the commission, particularly when the commissioner is a High Court judge. I would like to focus a wee bit more on taking evidence by commissioner. At the start you pointed out that a 50 per cent increase in taking evidence on commission since a practice note was introduced. Are there any issues currently in terms of the practicalities, for example the use of technology, or increasing that any further? There are a number of practical issues that exist at the moment. It is very important to make sure that the equipment that is used up and down the country is consistently the same equipment, operating the same systems and that there is this consistency across the country. Some issues arise about using particular premises for commissions. At the moment, we have largely been using court premises, not court rooms, but court premises, because it enables us to keep control over the nature of the equipment that is being used. Once we start using more remote sites, and of course we are keen to do so when we can, but at the moment there are difficulties about that because we have less control over the nature of the equipment that is available and so on. There are certain issues about that, and for remote sites, there are also issues of security and safety. The committee has previously taken evidence, for example, of a child having to give evidence 24 times from a children's chart to actually who brought that evidence to the committee. As a result, the evidence was then ruled inadmissible because the child had to go through this process so many times. I appreciate Lady Dorian at the start who talked about children's memory diminishing the further away they get from the event. Is there an opportunity in the legislation to expedite the process, particularly for children, to get that done more quickly? I am glad to see that the bill contains provision for that, because one of the things that we were concerned about was that, although we could, by our practice note, encourage the use of commissions for children and try to encourage people to apply for the commission at as early a stage in the proceedings in the High Court as possible, it could not be done until at the very earliest service of the indictment. We were quite keen to see some means by which that could be expedited. I am very pleased to see that the bill contains the possibility that a commission could take place before the service of an indictment. Lastly, is there an opportunity for the use of ground rules hearings for the legislation perhaps to specify at an earlier stage what is required as an opportunity there? I do not actually think that there is a requirement for that in the legislation. We have quite detailed recommendations in our practice note as to what should take place at the ground rules hearings. You will find them if you are interested in paragraph 11 of the practice note. It is about two pages. Because I was saying earlier that this is a document that will be under review, we will be able to change those as and when it appears that something else would assist. I think that the flexibility that can be maintained by having the set-out in the ground rules hearings would be much more beneficial than trying to put it into primary legislation, which would be much more difficult to change. I ask you about the role of intermediaries such as the Court of Intermediaries in England, and whether you think that they should be provided for in the bill to happen here. We are generally in favour of the use of intermediaries where their assistants would enable a witness to give their evidence in a more comprehensive and more in a clearer way and where the communication needs of the witness make that necessary. Very often, with children, the use of an intermediary is not necessarily what is required, simple questions, one issue per question, things of that nature, can usually be sufficient to address the communication needs of children. There will, of course, be cases in which an intermediary would be of great assistance. Whilst we are in favour of intermediaries in general, I am not entirely sure whether this is the stage to try to introduce them into the bill. The other issue is that we do not, at the moment, have a base of intermediaries, we do not have a cadre of intermediaries who could be called upon to provide that service, and I think that that would be another complication that would perhaps hinder progress at this stage. Fulton. Good morning, panel. Lady Dorian, you spoke earlier about the use of joint investigative interviews. How often are they used as evidence in chief in a regular occurrence? What are the practical difficulties with those? With children, the joint investigative interview is frequently the way in which the evidence of children is gathered for their evidence in chief. If there are care issues as well as criminal justice issues, there will be a joint investigative interview. Where there is a commission, generally the evidence in chief is taken to be the evidence of the joint investigative interview, and that will be played in due course to the jury at the trial. It happens on a regular basis. The issue of the content of joint investigative interviews is something that one of our work groups looked at. I was not involved in that work group, so Tim might be able to give you more information about that, but we did recognise—we in our work group about recommending a different vision—that what we had in mind would be a necessary improvement of the quality of joint investigative interviews. There still seems to be an issue, even from the point of view of the commission process, in that the quality of joint investigative interviews is not as consistent as one would like to see. That was something that we had heard in previous sessions. The joint investigative interviews are used as the primary means of gathering evidence from children, but I should declare as a previous social worker myself that I was involved in joint investigative interviews. What I was interested in was that we heard that there was often inconsistency in the quality of evidence that that could be taken to court. Is there any stats—I do not know if you have got any stats—on joint investigative interviews taking place and then how many of them end up in court? I apologise if that is a question that you do not have the answer to here just now. When the working group that was looking at looked at it, it was hard to get absolutely clear stats, but the feeling was that I think an estimate was that around 5,000 joint investigative interviews were taking place per year. It was in the thousands, but that vast majority of those never ended up in criminal proceedings, because, remember, they have more than one purpose. It is about finding out whether there are protection issues, and they may reveal nothing that needs to be taken further. It was a small percentage of the overall number of JIIs that actually ended up in criminal proceedings. Remember, again, very often, even if criminal proceedings do start, you do not necessarily get to trial. There is a big fall-off in cases that start because the accused pleads guilty or whatever reason. I would say with respect that I doubt very much whether that would be a meaningful statistic, because the percentage of overall JIIs that end up in court is not, I do not think, a measure of the quality or success of that information gathering process. Would a more meaningful statistic then be where the JII had identified that there should be a prosecution, however the quality of the JII did not allow for the prosecution to take place? Does that make sense? If there were cases in which, for example, the crown had decided that they could not proceed on the basis of a JII, that would be a more meaningful statistic. Bear in mind that the decision would not be made simply on the quality of one piece of evidence, because there would be issues of corroboration and so on. The crown might have a JII in a case and not proceed on the basis of an inadequate sufficiency of evidence, as opposed to anything else. There are measures that one could look at, and that is one of them, but you would probably have to look at more than one measure, for example. You could try to ascertain the extent to which JIIs had been the subject of objection to the quality of them or the use of leading questions and so on. I am not aware of that being a significant issue, but that is another element that could be looked at. That is really helpful, but moving on from that in terms of training, both social work and the police have been in front of us in previous panels and have talked about the new training techniques for the JIIs. Is there anything that you think should be included in that training in relation to prior statements from your point of view? Well, we did have, as I say, a report on the use of JIIs that set out very clearly what we recommended should be the way forward for the training of both social workers and police officers in the taking of that. Again, I was not on that workstream, so if you want more information, perhaps Tim could supply it? Yes. As you rightly recognise, it was recognised by the group that there was a lot of inconsistency and variation in the quality of JIIs across the piece. The two main things that were required to improve that consistency and quality were one better equipment that the technology had to be improved because I think that that was very out of date. Secondly, the point that you raise of a common approach, because there are very different approaches in different parts of the country, is a common approach to the training and forensic interviewing. There is a lot of academic research out there into different ways of interviewing children forensically. That is where some of the information from the Barnhouse experience was also very useful. We had experts both in Scotland and in the wider UK who could give advice. I understand, although it would be for Police Scotland to give the actual details, that they are quite in the process of changing the approach to training at the moment. When we were looking at it, training was a one-week course that they did for four days and practised their interviews at the end of that week. I think that it has to be over a much longer period. Alongside that, one of the other things that was picked up was very important. Providing the interview as a properly trained in forensic interviewing according to the recognised models and then that they practised it on a regular basis in real life, that is when the quality, because some of the quality issues were coming through where you had a large number of police officers and social workers who were trained in it, but were only doing it once or twice a year, so they couldn't keep up the skills and developed skills and were not evaluated. You need to have evaluation and regular practice, as well as the initial training being of high enough quality. Thank you very much for those answers. I will be back a wee bit to the extension if you talked about the extension to other vulnerable witnesses earlier in answers to colleagues. I was interested in the Scottish Government's decision not to extend the rule to a child accused. Have you got any of you in that? First of all, I should say that the current legislation provides that a number of special measures would be available to a child accused from the giving of evidence. The probably most appropriate one would be giving evidence by CCTV from somewhere not actually in the courtroom, because the experience of sitting and listening to the trial in the presence of the jury is another thing going into the witness box and giving evidence there and then with the jury in the same room. It may well be that that is a measure that is currently underused in relation to children, young people and other vulnerable witnesses. I noticed that some people have raised the issue of somehow capturing the evidence of a child accused before trial. I am afraid that I cannot see how that could ever be done. The accused, whether a child or otherwise, is not required to give evidence and the decision about whether they give evidence has to be made in the context of what the evidence at the trial has been. You do not know what that will be until the end of the trial, because although you might anticipate that the evidence will be A, B and C very frequently, that turns out not entirely to be accurate. The accused has to respond to what the evidence has been in the trial. I cannot really see a way in which it could be done in advance. I cannot also see how it would not be in breach of the rights of an accused child to require them somehow to do that. I thank that very helpful answer. I suppose that my personal opinion is another bill. The major criminal responsibility that goes through the Parliament is that we should be moving away from being seeing children as perpeturers. Do you say that it is another bill? Llywydd, sorry, Daniel. You have got a supplementary question. Mr Brifon, on the quality point, how frequently are technical issues the factors that impinge on quality of GI and by extension on what has been happening in recent times with commissioned evidence, how frequently do technical issues impact on the quality of the evidence or even render it unusable in court? I am not aware of technical issues that have rendered it unusable in court, but we have had technical issues that make the evidence perhaps easier to follow perhaps. It is really more to do with, especially if you have a remote site, a child giving evidence at a commission but doing so by CCTV for example, then you have issues of who is seen on the screen when. Sometimes the end result is that the child is not given as much prominence on the screen as one might wish to see. That is something that we are very much addressing at the moment, trying to make sure that those technical issues do not get in the way of the evidence. Does that imply that there is a requirement for detailed technical standards both for commissioned evidence and for GIIs to ensure consistency and quality from that technical perspective? Is that something that would be sensible to develop? Well, certainly from the point of view of what we are looking at, we are looking at trying to get some kind of overall consistent standard of what a commission film looks like. Again, the issue of specifying something in the legislation has with it the difficulties that, as technology increases, which it does at a much faster rate than the legislation might be able to follow, it would not perhaps be… I was not implying that we should put technical standards on the face of the bill. Certainly the development of them, yes, definitely. Just to say, within the court estate, there has very recently been a substantial amount of investment in the technology such that I do not think that we have any particular concerns about the quality of recording and playback and video audio using the technology that we now have available to us across the court estate. I think that the issue that you were talking about is that GIIs will be greater variability because they will be different people providing that equipment. Remember that the Joint Investigation of the Vintage is a pre-court procedure, so we do not have a huge amount of influence on how those are conducted. That is more a matter for local authorities and the police, but we would like to see improved consistent quality because it just makes everything that follows easier. That is a very helpful thing. Can I just endorse that? We would very much like to see an improved and consistent quality of recording in relation to the GIIs. Briefly, I would like to go back to Fulton MacGregor's point about the child accused, if I might. I totally understand the point being made, Lady Dorian, about the logistical and, indeed, the justice aspects of not extending this to child accused's full stop. I also see that, in the review, there was a conclusion that the most comprehensive, reliable and accurate evidence is maximised by a process similar to that. Earlier, you said in your opening statement that a child is more likely to agree with a questioner. If that is right, there is an inherent tension between those two positions. If that is right, then isn't the answer to Fulton MacGregor's question that there is more to be said around how we improve the evidence and the ability to get justice for a child accused? You have to bear in mind what the process is in relation to a child accused. The child accused has no need to answer anything, no need to give any evidence at all. I think that there would be significant issues in trying to create a situation in which you somehow required a child accused to answer the allegations prior to any kind of a trial. There would be significant constitutional issues in relation to that. I am not sure that I can say any more about it at this stage, because it is not really part of what I was anticipating to be the remit of this morning's discussion. Are you satisfied or confident that the SETS budget for 2019-20 will be sufficient to have the necessary resources for the technology that you require? In order to deal with the use of commissions for children, we are satisfied that we have the equipment. We are restricted in the use of places at the moment. We have a room in a Parliament house, which the committee or most of them have seen. It is not ideal. We are looking at other options, and that is likely to be resource dependent. We have a very good facility coming on stream in Glasgow at Atlantic Kias, I think that you all will also know. In due course, we will have a good facility in the Highlands when the Inverness Justice Centre comes on board. However, if there is a vision that the commissions should be able to take place more widely across the country and be less focused on court buildings, that would be another issue. I do not know that Tim might have something to add about that. The direct answer to your question is that we are confident that we have the facilities being brought on stream in place that will cope, certainly in the short to medium term, with the increase in commissions that are likely to take place. The Glasgow facility, we expect, will have three commission rooms that will be dedicated. It is not in a court building, it is in a separate building, so it does not have the difficulties associated with doing things in court buildings. It, operating at a reasonably high, not full capacity, could cope with something like a thousand commissions a year. That will be the centre that we would then look to upgrade facilities elsewhere across the country, as Lady Darring was saying. In the short to medium term, we are certainly confident that we have the facilities in place and that we would have the people in place to be able to manage those facilities and the judiciary. As you expand the availability of commission hearings to other categories of witnesses, we would keep in constant dialogue with the Scottish Government, who so far has been very supportive in providing, for example, the resource for the Glasgow centre. They have indicated that they will obviously be very keen to be as supportive as they can be. As I said, for the short to medium term, we see no problems with that. I think that the committee would welcome being updated as you progress about the resource issue, because it is so very key to ensuring, hopefully, that this is all going to work well and be successful. Rona, just really on the subject of facilities, the committee recently had a trip to Norway and we visited the Barnhouse. I think that it is fair to say that we are all very impressed with it. Is this something that you see us moving to in Scotland in the future at any point? If you do, what are the benefits and what would be the practicalities or the downside of it? As you know, the Barnhouse system operates slightly differently in all the countries that operate adapted to their own requirements. We set out our own vision of how a forensic interview of a child might take place, which was designed to meet the particular circumstances of our own system. We suggested that there should be a forensic interview of the child. Obviously, that was something that would require much greater training and so on from the point of view of the JII and a much, much different kind of approach. The idea behind that was that there would be minimal involvement of lawyers. Essentially, that was our view of how we could take some of the best aspects of the Barnhouse model and use it. I think that we would have envisaged that that would take place in centres where there were also the other facilities available for the child, medical or social work facilities that would assist. It is a very different vision to the one that is in the bill. As we recognised in our report, achieving a vision of that kind is a very long-term strategy because it requires so much of a cultural change and so much of a change in the form of the nature of the forensic interview that takes place. We saw how it could work in an adversarial system in Norway, which, as you say, is different in other countries. In the long term, do you think that it would be possible to happen in Scotland? In terms of the vision that we have suggested, we think that it could work in that way. Thank you. Mr Barcliff, do you have any thoughts on that? Just to add, we have visited a number of barnhouses in different countries that, as Lady Dorian says, are all slightly different. Just two comments. One, the core idea of a barnhouse being a centre where there is a number of facilities to receive a child or other vulnerable business who is reporting a serious offence, is one that could be used today in Scotland within the context of a really good place to have a joint investigative interview, but the legal system would still then have evidence by commission hearing later on. The idea of a barnhouse as a very good space for interviewing children can be developed now. The long-term vision was for the right kind of cases because it is a very resource intensive procedure. The vision is set out in one of the reports that says, yes, for those kinds of cases you could move to something, but it would, as Lady Dorian says, mean changing the whole legal system as well as the facilities available. It is much more than just building facilities and having certain people there. It is changing the culture because it takes lawyers out of the direct questioning of the witness, which is alien to the way that things have been done here. I think that that was one of the things that impressed us, that the lawyers went to the child, the professionals went to the child rather than the child coming to them. It was very holistic, and I think that that was one of the things that we were very impressed by. We will wait and see. There are lots of other ideas that we can take and introduce as best we can, I think. Can I ask about communication? It is a theme that has come through in the evidence sessions that we have had so far, particularly with vulnerable witnesses. Also, how much support is given to them before, during and crucially, something that I do not think gets addressed in the bill, is after they have given evidence and there has been a conviction. From the point of view of the court, our involvement does not start until they become a witness within the court system. From the point of view of the support that may be available for them in advance, that is something that needs to be discussed with the police and the Crown. Our objective is to make sure that, when they are giving their evidence, that they are given the best circumstances in which they can do so and that, if that requires them to have screens, to give evidence on CCTV, to have a supporter present to have a commission to take their evidence, then that will be done. Our focus is to make sure that the representatives who seek to lead a vulnerable witness—and it may not always be the Crown, it may be the defence—have to think about what the requirements of the witness are, what the communication needs are and everything else. Advise the court of that in the vulnerable witness notice and the court will then specify anything else that requires to be done to assist that process. However, after that, again, they move out of the court system and the question of what support then may be available for them seems to me to be more of a therapeutic issue in respect of which the court has no involvement nor does it have the skills or expertise to be able to address those kind of issues. I think that there would also be constitutional issues whether it to be suggested that the court should be involved in that. I understand that fully but, obviously, you are very passionate about this lady, Darring, and you want it to succeed as we all do. A recent case that has come to my notice has suggested that, if there is not that support later on—this is looking not from the judiciary's point of view but the whole legislation as a whole—it could almost get to the state where the vulnerable witness is saying, if only I had not given evidence, I would still be able to follow my career and not be rejected because I have been traumatised. I would not be defiled by my very close community and my family would not be facing horrendous problems both with where they are living and doing. There is an issue here that, if the word goes out, you give evidence, that is fine, you get the conviction but there are repercussions, then there is a real danger. We are not giving the support and encouragement and confidence for people to come forward. One of our objectives in looking at the ways in which the witnesses give evidence is to try to minimise the harm involved in the process of giving evidence. If there is the risk of harm to the witness from having given evidence, clearly that is something that should be addressed, but it requires to be addressed outwith the court service. I understand that. Tims just reminded me that, of course, the recently constituted victims task force may well be addressing those kind of issues. The Lord Advocate is possibly co-chair of that. That might be a more suitable forum to address the issue. When the cabinet secretary comes in, perhaps that is the question for him. Can I ask just a little bit more about definitions that you consider should be a definition for solemn proceedings? Do you think that that would be helpful in the bill in your written submission? Was that right? It was page 5 in notes. All right, solemn cases. It was suggested that there could be—we want to therefore whether provision of definition of solemn proceedings would be beneficial in the context where child witnesses giving evidence and the relevant criminal proceedings are solemn proceedings. I think that later on there is a reference to it. There is no definition of solemn cases in the bill and it is not clear. It is at the top of page 6. Yes. It is a slightly technical issue, as you will appreciate, because the proceedings are taken to have commenced when the indictment or the complaint is served on the accused. Therefore, the question of when there are solemn proceedings as opposed to proceedings would only be sure that you had solemn proceedings when one indictment was served, because a petition, which is how you commence initially solemn proceedings, can be reduced to summary complaint. You would not be able to say that that meant that there were solemn proceedings. Simply from the point of view of being able to utilise the suggestion in the bill that we could have a commission at a much earlier stage, it would probably be of assistance. There were two other definitions again from previous evidence that it was from MOG, the miscarriages of justice that they thought could be looked at, definition for ground rules and a definition of permissible lines of questioning. You thought that that was vague. Do you think that that needs further clarification? I do not, because the ground rules hearing is what takes place at the hearing at which the organisation of the commission is discussed. I think that it is well understood now what is involved in a ground rules hearing. Defining it, I do not see what one would gain by defining it. I think that if one were to, and I answered this to someone else earlier—I am sorry, I cannot remember who it was who asked me about it—the kind of issues that are raised at a ground rules hearing are listed in detail in the practice note. As we evaluate the practice note, if we find that there are other issues that it would be useful to discuss, we can add them in very quickly. If they were listed in the primary legislation, that would not be possible. Permissible is a matter for the court to determine. It would be very difficult to come up with a comprehensive definition, because so much will depend on the actual circumstances of the case. The first rule of permissibility is that the question must be relevant to the circumstances of the case. As far as the form of questioning is concerned, the questions must be such that they are sufficiently geared towards the level of comprehension of the witness. If you have a child witness, say that you have a five-year-old child, the kind of questioning that might be permissible in those sense for a five-year-old would be quite different from what you might have for a 17-year-old or for what you might have for an adult vulnerable witness. My strong feeling is that those are things that can be developed within the overall concept, without requiring them to be put in a straight jacket of a definition. That has been a helpful discussion to tease out the issue. If the process is to be focused on addressing the individual needs of the witness, you want to make sure that you have that flexibility to be able to address those individual needs. If it is going to be a victim-focused or witness-focused approach, setting out has to cover certain things in legislation and perhaps leaving out others limits your ability to have that individual approach. That is very helpful. There was just one other issue that was raised from the policy memorandum, and that was the use of the generic term victim. It suggested that perhaps complainers would have been better. Yes. Certainly, from the courts point of view, that is the term that we would use. That is the formulation that we would use. There are a number of cases about using particular terms and the appropriateness of a judge using a particular term. The word complainer would certainly be more of more assistance. That concludes our line of questioning, Lady Dorian. I thank you very much for giving evidence today, and I thank Tim Barricklough, who has been exceedingly helpful for our scrutiny of the bill. We will now suspend and have a five-minute comfort break. Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on the management of offender Scotland bill. I refer members to Vapor 3, which is a note by the clerk, and to paper 4, which is private paper. I welcome John Watt, chair of the parole board for Scotland. Yvonne Gailley, chief executive risk management authority. Dr Joanna Brown, consultant forensic psychiatrist, Royal College of Psychiatrists Scotland. James Mayby, principal officer, criminal justice, interim chief social work officer, Highlands Council, representing social work Scotland. I thank the witnesses for their written evidence. As ever, it is really helpful to the committee in advance of us hearing from you in person. We will move straight to questions from members starting with John Watt. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel, and yes, thank you indeed for your written contributions. I would like to ask questions about the new arrangements, if I may please, and if he asks you to comment on the improved information sharing that we are advised about and who takes the decision and the level at which the decision is taken. Could you comment on that, please? If we don't volunteer, we have conscripts. Mr Watt, will we try you? What stage of the process are we talking about here, please, Mr Finnie? We're talking about the point at which the Scottish Prison Service assesses someone's suitability for home detention. All right. I think that I can sit back at that one then, because it hasn't come to the parole board yet at that stage. Anyone else would like to start off with that, Mr Meeby? Thank you, convener. In respect of HTC, the criminal justice social work is involved in that assessment process, and we are notified or requested to provide a written assessment, which we do. That assessment is submitted to the Scottish Prison Service, and they consider that. It's part of their decision making process. Ultimately, it's obviously their decision as to whether to release somebody on HTC. That's a changed arrangement, Mr Meeby, from what happened previously. No, it's always been the case that criminal justice social work has provided an assessment report to the Scottish Prison Service. When the term improved information sharing, has there never been an issue with information sharing between Scottish Prison Service and criminal justice social work? Information exchange has generally been very good. We worked to the current HTC guidance, which was refreshed a couple of years ago, and I believe that that's currently subject to further review. There has been a joint SPS Police Scotland and the Scottish Government working group looking at that. Social Work Scotland is just in the process of formulating our response to the social work aspect of that report. That's not yet being brought to the Social Work Scotland Justice Standing Committee. Primarily here, because we were taking evidence, and of course there was a very tragic case, which focused a lot of minds. I think that not unreasonably we anticipated that there might be, perhaps you're saying that it's a refresh of existing arrangements, but there was no difficulties at all previously with information sharing? There's always been a clear set of guidance for HTC, and in terms of the criminal justice social work responsibilities, they're set out very clearly in terms of what our responsibilities are. So, for example, in terms of the guidance that was introduced a couple of years ago, that's set out much more clearly in terms of our responsibilities to conduct a home visit, for example, to ensure that it's not just a telephone conversation, for example, with the homeowner that's actually a physical visit to ascertain the circumstances regarding the proposed property and residence of the prisoner. Okay. Let me take a different tack, then, if I may please. We're told that, from the Scottish Prison Service evidence, and I'd welcome all your views on this please, that there's now a presumption against home detention, and that is curfews, and that's led to a 75 per cent reduction in their use. My question would be, does that suggest, or is it reasonable to suggest, that there's risk aversion as crept in where it previously wasn't there, and trying to understand the wider implications for, for instance, prison capacity and the very important issue of rehabilitation? Could the panel comment on that, please? I think with respect, Mr Finnie, it's difficult to comment, obviously, we don't have a representative from the Scottish Prison Service here. I can only speak from my own agency's perspective, and that when we're requested to provide an assessment, then we'll carry out and provide that in accordance with the guidance. As to what triggers that request, that's entirely a matter for the Scottish Prison Service, we can only respond to that request and provide the assessment and ensure that there's sufficient detail to enable Scottish Prison Service to make a fuller, more rounded risk assessment in respect of whether somebody qualifies for release. Okay, if there's a 75 per cent reduction number, advice there is on the granting of these, is it too early to have seen any manifestation of that on the work road of criminal justice social work? I can't sit here and claim I could quote you figures with regard to the HCC requests. It might suggest that Scottish Prison Service have taken a slightly different tack, possibly in light of media coverage and concerns about prisons being released on HCC, but I can't really say much more than that, I'm afraid. Ms Kelly, do you have a view on that as part of a risk assessment? Thank you, and thanks for inviting us to be here today. I do have an interest in the HCC from the perspective of a risk assessment, and that's really the only perspective that I can comment on it from, rather than from operational processes. However, we have recently been invited to join a group run by the Scottish Government and Scottish Prison Service to review the guidance for HCC with a particular focus on the current risk assessment process. I think that that has a bearing on the questions that you're asking, Mr Finnie, about the reduction in numbers. One of the points that were covered in the first meeting of the group that was only met on one occasion last week was that there is a need if you're refining a risk assessment process, and I think that there is an argument for doing that, then it's really essential to start from having a really clear understanding of the purpose of the intervention that you're assessing for. Perhaps the introduction of the presumptions against recently have inadvertently raised a question about the purpose of HCC. What is the intention? What is it in place to achieve? It's from that perspective that we can work out the correct risk assessment process and also have a clear idea, or as clear as possible, of who is the right candidate for HCC. If there's a reduction in 75 per cent, we're told by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, that I either suggest that there's a frailty in the previous system, there's a new robust regime in place. Do you have a view where the previous existing arrangement is satisfactory? That's a dramatic turnaround in figures that I think I would acknowledge. I can't really comment on the operational arrangements rather than the risk assessment process. But surely there's one in the same, if you forgive me, because the whole basis of the Scottish Prison Service and indeed the whole judicial process should be about risk assessment, the suitability of someone for this, the requirement for the being put in custody in the first place. I think that what we would need to do in order to answer your question in a robust way is to take up the recommendation of the inspectorate in terms of research being needed into home detention, curfew, both to understand what's happened in the past and to guide the way forward, because I think I'm not aware of evidence that's currently available, but that might be my lack of awareness, to tell us what we need to know about. We understand, for example, that there has been an 80 per cent successful completion rate in HDC, but what would be interesting to know in order to answer your question would be what do we know about the circumstances and characteristics of the cases of the 80 per cent and the 20 per cent who didn't complete successfully. I think that it's from that way that we can understand what has been the reason for the dramatic reduction. Is that in fact the direction of travel that we wish to go on or is it not? Is it a reaction? Were any of the panel members aware of the Scottish Prison Service change in the new presumption arrangements and did any of you play any part or your organisation play any part in informing that changed arrangement? My organisation's first involvement was when we were asked to take part in the group that's recently been established. It would be helpful if you explained risk assessment Scotland, to know exactly who you're pointed with, what you do at what stage in any particular process you may have an input. That would be really helpful. We've got a number of statutory functions that all have a bearing on effective risk assessment and management practice. The ones that are possibly most relevant to this discussion is a responsibility to set a standard, to set the standards for risk assessment against which practice is judged generally, and we also have very specific responsibilities in relation to the order of a lifelong restriction. From the discussions that we're having today, there are more general functions that are relevant, which are in terms of advising on policy and research, setting standards, delivering training, publishing guidelines and all in relation to risk assessment and risk management. Did you have any concerns in prior to the new rules coming into being? Was there anything raised just generally, or even specifically, from a risk assessment point of view? Not specific to HDC, as I say, that our first direct involvement has been in recent times. However, while I talk about generally setting standards, we're also involved in different risk assessment processes at different points of time to give advice on developing practice processes as they are currently to ones that would closer aspire to the standard that we've said. Colleagues of mine have been involved with Scottish Prison Service in recent times, looking generally at the risk assessment of short-term prisoners. I think that there's a very close overlap between the discussions on HDC and that piece of work, and that might be the most direct route of influencing the risk assessment of HDC. That's helpful to clarify. You've been looking at the short-term sentence risk assessment, not specifically at HDC, but clearly you think that there is an argument for absolutely looking at HDC as well? I would say that we promote that there's a basic approach to risk assessment that can be applied in any situation, with any group and in any context. We've set the standard for that type of risk assessment, and we work steadily through different processes and agencies to integrate that. It's well integrated in criminal justice social works processes and with Police Scotland. In certain areas of work with Scottish Prison Service, it's already well integrated, and the one that we're currently working on together is looking at short-term prisoners, because it raises particular challenges in its own right. Okay, thank you very much. Supplementaries, Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson. Is that right? No? No, but since you're bringing me in, convener— Maybe the questions have moved on from where you were going to go. I'll happily put something to Gaeli, if I may, which is simply around when you were talking about risk assessment, risk to whom and risk of what. Where I'm specifically going here is Mr Finnie is talking about a 75 per cent reduction in use, and that clearly has a negative impact in terms of prison, overcrowding and opportunities for rehabilitation. One would have thought that the overriding consideration is risk to the public from allowing people out on HDC. Is that in fact the case? That is an excellent question. It's a very fundamental question when we're talking about risk, and in any process, practice process, set of guidelines that are developed, it's absolutely essential to identify what we mean by the term risk. There are often several different risks involved. Generally speaking, in the risk management authority's work, it's very specific—the legislation is very specific—that we're talking about the risk of serious harm to the public. Now, in most areas of work, that is a primary consideration. There are certain aspects of the criminal justice system of criminal justice work where, when people are talking about risk, they're thinking about the likelihood of re-offending. That is also a valid concern. I certainly consider that, when we talk about risk, we have to be considering both a combination of the likelihood of something happening and the impact that it will have on whom and how serious that impact is estimated to be. There are a number of dimensions to risk, but it's always essential to be identifying what it is that you're assessing and what it is that you're estimating or forecasting in terms of your risk assessment, about what group of people or what person is at risk from a particular person and what's in nature of that risk. Thanks for the answer. I'm not sure I quite heard, though. Where, in terms of priority, I would have thought that the key priority is preventing harm to the public. Is that the case? Secondly, you talked about the prevention of serious harm. I'm slightly concerned that you've triggered something in my mind and I can't just quite put my finger on it. The serious bit, is it the case then that a consideration of there is a possibility, there is a probability of harm to the public? If it is not serious harm, then a decision could be taken to allow someone to go out on HDC. That was… Thank you for clarifying that. I wasn't… What I was wanting to ensure of there is that if we were speaking generally or in relation to HDC, we have… Are you referring to the threes of guiding principles in terms of HDC? If you don't mind me asking for clarification, when you say that risk of harm to others or to the public is a priority, is there an implication as opposed to something else? I think that's where I'm not quite clear what you're asking me. When we're talking about risk assessment, what will always be foremost in someone's mind is risk of harm to others, whether that's specific of the public at large. Is that harm clarified by or caveated by a category of seriousness or is it any harm to the public? If we're talking about HDC and my reasoning of the HDC guidance, that caveat is not… Whether it's a caveat or whether it's a clarification, it is not there. I've read through it several times and it appears to me that the risk that is being discussed is considered, is risk of harm to the public. That is the top priority, that's the top consideration. At the beginning of the HDC guidance, it refers to the three objectives of three guiding principles or considerations that must be come into play. One is the protection of the public, one is the prevention of re-offending and the other is about re-integration. I think that in a situation where there was a choice to be made about one trumping the other, if that is the point, then risk of harm to others would win out there. However, in reality, what those working in this context must do is balance all three because reducing re-offending and promoting safe reintegration of prisoners into the community is one or two of the best ways of protecting the public. There's not either or in terms of those considerations, but if there was a situation where one had to win, it would be in terms of protecting the public. Reading of the HDC guidance suggests that that's the priority in there. I think that there's scope for clarification within the guidance material along the lines that you're talking about to make it absolutely clear that risk of harm to others is the consideration. I think that we'd agree with that. Daniel Suflemid. Yes, I just really wanted to follow on from some of the points raised by John Finnie around the role of social work in terms of the assessment, the information sharing and particularly the point where he left off regarding assessment of homes. Clearly with the McClelland case, where that individual who murdered Craig McClelland actually resided was in question, so can I just ask two specific questions around that? How is that information shared? Is that information also acted upon and are there the circumstances in which someone is not present at the address that they have given or that there are concerns raised about anything connected to that, in particular about the likelihood of re-offending? Is that shared? Is that acted upon? The other particular point is when people give addresses outside of Scotland because that is a concern that's been raised through this case. What happens in those circumstances? How is that assessed? The guidance is very clear in terms of the criminal justice social work role and it states absolutely clearly that we must visit an address that is put forward for HCC. There are two caveats to that. One is where the individual is the sole key holder of the address, i.e. it's their own property. The other one is in terms of remoteness. Clearly in parts of Scotland there are significant geographical challenges in visiting addresses, but the overriding focus is to visit the address and that's clear. The word used in the guidance is must. If an assessment report is completed by criminal justice social work and has returned to Scottish Prison Service and, for example, the home hasn't been visited and it's not been made clear why, then SBS are perfectly in their right to contact the criminal justice social work service and ask for an explanation for that and indeed seek further information and clarity around the address. I think that there is absolute clarity around that. By implication, you don't necessarily know how that information is being used? No, and I think that that's perhaps one of the issues and it might be helpful in respect of Mr Finney's questions to just make reference to the report on the review of the arrangements for home detention curfew within SBS, which was published in October 2018. The number of recommendations that come out of this particular piece of work, one of which is that, and I'm quoting from the document, the assessment process should therefore be reviewed to ensure that it can satisfy the assertion within the guidance that, quotes, a robust assessment process has been developed. It must be recognised that the SBS is not currently funded or staffed to undertake a more detailed multidisciplinary approach to HTC risk assessment, and as such the financial and resource implications would need to be addressed and appropriate funding provided. Recommendation 3 states, specific training and risk evaluation assessment must be provided to individuals or teams tasked with making the decision to release someone in HTC. I think that one of the issues is when information from criminal justice social work goes back to SBS, it's their decision making forum. We don't have any input into that final decision that goes entirely internally within SBS. There are occasions where, certainly in my own local authority, we have given information to SBS and have taken issue with the SBS's decision, because we believe that the information that we're providing is of significant concern. Clearly, we feel that perhaps that HTC is not appropriate. I think that from my reading of the recommendations here, there is a a move towards having a more multi-agency framework in terms of the decision-making and ensuring that Scottish Prison Service staff are properly trained in the tenants of risk assessment. Referring back to Von Gaeli's points, we all work in stopping to the framework of risk assessment and management and evaluation, which sets out the core tenants of how we should approach risk assessment and risk management. I think that it's about just ensuring that that square is circled. I wouldn't want to sit here and be unnecessarily or seem to be critical of SBS. I think that it's just about understanding that process and how all the parts of the journey kind of link together. I think that's very helpful and I wouldn't want you to ask you on the spot to give a characterisation of some of those situations, but if it was possible for you just to provide some examples, obviously bearing in mind that there'll be confidential elements to it, where you think that information hasn't necessarily been acted on, that would be quite useful for the committee's deliberation. Can I just touch? Is the supplementary, if you don't mind, Daniel? It's an area that Jenny had already indicated an interest in pursuing. If your question hasn't been answered at the end of our questioning, I'll bring you back in, Jenny. I'd like to, today's debate, drill down into some of the written evidence that we received ahead of today's meeting. I know from your written evidence that Social Work Scotland would have reservations regarding the use of EM as an alternative to lower tariff disposals, and then you go on to say that there is a risk that a two-tier system would be created in which electronic monitoring is used disproportionately with those on low incomes. I wonder if you could say a bit more as to why you think that might be the case. I think that Social Work Scotland are not convinced of the argument that EM should be used for things like fine default, for example. Our concern is that there is a risk that it becomes a default option, because you can't afford to pay, you get EM. There are lots of ethical issues around EM and proportionality. It is a restriction of somebody's liberty in a way that finding someone isn't. Those things have to be taken into consideration in considering whether or not EM is a proportionate disposal or sentence for people with much lower risk. Secondly, I would like to follow up with regard to monitoring any additional conditions that might be attached other than the curfew. I note in your submission that you talked about guidance for GPS monitoring. You should involve clearly defined boundaries for buffer and exclusion zones. It is imperative that boundaries are unambiguous and clearly outlined for those subject to restriction. You then go on to talk about the implications that this might have in terms of resource and staffing. Are there any other issues in terms of rurality around about GPS? Is that something that has been considered by Social Work Scotland? In respect of GPS, there are issues with regard to the remoteness and whether or not the equipment will function consistently to enable it to do its job. Technology is developing all the time and so on and so forth, but I am not sure where we can be absolutely confident that that is not going to create a problem. In terms of GPS and how that is going to be used in terms of resources, that is an interesting question because, to a certain extent, we do not know from a Scottish perspective. We can look and see what is happening internationally. It depends on how GPS is used. Are we talking about active GPS monitoring or are we talking about passive GPS monitoring, for example? If it is active and we are monitoring in real-life time, 24-7, the movements of an offender, clearly there is an issue there in terms of resource as to who does that, how is information shared. We can certainly learn from colleagues and other jurisdictions internationally, but it is hard to say that there would not be any additional costs because I think there probably would be. Passive GPS clearly is a slightly different situation where you may review, say, over the course of a day someone's movements and see if they possibly have breached their exclusion zones and then you decide what action to take. If you are talking about an active system where as soon as somebody steps a foot over the exclusion line, then clearly resources have to kick in very quickly and you have to assume that somebody has breached that with intention and everything has to follow from that. That might be that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that breach, but until you know that, you have to assume that somebody is potentially at risk, otherwise there would not be an exclusion zone set up. There clearly would be resource implications to develop, not just for criminal justice but for other agencies, in terms of Police Scotland, for example, for the court service, in terms of how that has dealt with. We are still in the release of HDC a follow-up from Daniel. Then Liam, a brief question, and we will be moving on to release on parole. I am conscious that Dr Brown, you have not come in yet, or Mr Watt, but you will be in this session. I just really want to follow up a question directly in terms of what Mr Mabee said to me regarding developing that multi-agency response and, indeed, more broadly, what Ms Galey's body is responsible for. Considering directly both the details that Mr Mabee raised in the two reports from HMICS and HMIPS, but also, more broadly, bearing in mind the fact that the inspectorate of prisons said that the processes that were in place would not be what you describe as robust, I was just wondering what your reflections are in terms of the contents of those reports and what you think the key issues that need to be developed, bearing in mind that you have a direct perspective around multi-agency working and development of risk management standards, and essentially what is the gap that you think has been identified by those two reports? I find myself in almost entire agreement with the recommendations in the prison inspectorate report in terms of risk assessment, perhaps coming at them from a slightly different angle, but not too differently. Essentially what we have with the risk assessment process currently, and I have shared that view with my colleagues last week, is that we have part of our risk assessment practice in place. Essentially, we promote that all risk assessments should have three core steps in it. One is identifying the relevant information, one that is analysing the meaning or the relevance of that information and then evaluating all of that to inform the decision that you are being charged to make. What I find with the risk assessment process currently is that it sets out a range of pieces of information that the person doing the assessment is required to identify. The information that they are required to identify is very rational and it is evidence-based. They are looking at the kind of behaviours that have happened in the past and the kind of behaviours that can be looked at currently that might suggest whether somebody is likely to comply or less likely to comply. However, what it does not do then is go to the next stage and giving the person doing the assessment guidance about what to make of that information. Essentially at the moment it is looking at what the adverse behaviours in prison is, is what one of the questions are. I have to been adverse behaviours in prison and the assessor would consider whether they have or have not been, but then it falls to the person doing the assessment to make meaning of that and then to decide what that meaning means in terms of the decision or the recommendation about HDC. In those two areas, there is a need for further guidance for the practitioner of whatever but it is generally prison officers who are undertaking, middle management prison officers who are undertaking those HDC assessments before they go to the governor for sign-off. I think that we can see how it is perfectly achievable for us to work with the Scottish Government and Scottish Prison Service to refine that process just to make it a bit more robust by including that additional guidance. Also, as the inspector has recommended, there would need to be some element of training or determining what element of training is required to support that. I would also support the recommendation about the need for some analysis and research about the use of HDC in the past and current length. When we had SPS before us recently, they said that they were essentially upholding the regulations such as they were up until the point that they changed. Do you think that on the basis of the report that we have from HMIPS, that is correct? The change in arrangements means the presumptions against being introduced? They just essentially said that they were complying in full with the regulations such as they were that there were no deficiencies exposed in terms of them following that regulation that has set out. Would you agree with that, based on what HMIPS reported? Understanding that I do not have access to any of the details of the case, I understand that the SPS and, indeed, the inspectors found that the process was followed correctly. That is my understanding, but I cannot know any more than that. That is my understanding, but I cannot know any more than that. That is my understanding, but I cannot know any more than that. That is my understanding, but I cannot know any more than that. No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Mayby, you wanted to come in. Just briefly, convener, it might be helpful just to give a bit of context around risk assessment. For example, for a criminal justice social worker who is trained to use the level of service in case management and inventory, risk and needs assessment tool, that requires a five-day training course with pre-course and post-course evaluation as well in order to pass and be accredited to use that tool. Again, that is not a criticism of the SPS and the HTC process. If we are talking about short-term prisoners who are receiving prison sentences of less than four years, there may not be a criminal justice social report prepared at the court stage. They may go straight to prison for very short periods. There won't necessarily be a formal risk assessment that had been previously carried out. It is reasonable to ask the question on what basis all that information is being pulled together in a systematic and structured way that involves pulling together information, assessing it, analysing it and evaluating it. For long-term prisoners, for the four years and over, there will be formal risk assessments that SPS can use as a basis for developing their judgment around the HTC. I would stress that it is not critical of SPS. I don't doubt that the response that you got from SPS is absolutely correct in terms of that they are following the current process for HTC. I think that we would not have those recommendations if there were not some gaps that we need to look at in order to improve and tighten up the system to ensure that we have the best possible decision-making around HTC. There are a number of reasons why HTC is a good thing. It tests out prisoners coming to the end of their sentence, helps them to establish and reconnect with the communities and with families and friends and start looking for work. All sorts of very good reasons for it. It is just about ensuring public protection, community safety and having an absolute robust system in place to do that. Liam Kerr is very briefly on this. Very briefly, convener, thank you. Currently, where a person breaches an HTC, they do not commit an offence. The HMICS report from October says that there should be such an offence. Does the panel have a view on that? Does the panel agree? Is it directed to anyone in particular, Liam? Not really, but perhaps James may be. Do you think that a breach of HTC should be an offence, given what you have just said in answer to Daniel Johnson's question? I can give you a personal response, not a social work Scotland response. I think that there would be merit in considering that. I think that there is a kind of a cause and effect and there is an issue of personal responsibility in adhering to that. Certainly, if you compare it to other breaches of community payback orders or prison licences, clearly there are consequences in terms of an individual being held to account for that breach. It does not necessarily follow that there is a sanction imposed, say for a CPO, but somebody has to go back. They have to state their case and be held responsible for the fact that they have not complied with the conditions of the order. I think that it is right to consider that, but I would not argue that it would necessarily follow that there would be a sanction in every case, but I think that there has to be consideration to that. I understand. On that point then, the committee heard in a previous session that currently, if there is a police officer at 3 in the morning and he suspects that a person has breached their HDC conditions, there is no power of arrest of that individual. The police view that was given to the committee was along the lines that there should be a power to arrest simply for suspicion of breach of an HDC. Does any of the panel disagree with that view? Going back to my previous existence as a procurator fiscal, if a policeman suspects that there has been or is likely to be a breach of a bail order, they have power to arrest without warrant. You can see parallels between a prisoner being on trust in relation to a licence condition. I would tend to agree with what the police service representative, if I have forgotten who it was now, said that, without some kind of provision, they feel powerless. There are arguments about what they can and cannot do in certain circumstances without a warrant. Search without a warrant implies the power to break open lock fast places, for example, but in the 21st century, there appears to be a reticence to do that. I can well see why they would give us a statutory power and, with a bit of luck, they would be able to use it quickly. On parole, it is now accepted that there were weaknesses in relation to HDC and the figures that John Finnie quoted about a 75 per cent reduction speak for themselves. Can I ask you if you think that there is a licence to be learned in terms of parole and in terms of risk assessment and returning to custody? What lessons can be learned from the previous experience? Of the failure of HDC? Yes, just in the light of tragic events and recent changes. It is a very difficult question to answer. Any decision based on risk really requires three considerations, far as we are concerned. The interests of the prisoner, the interests of third parties, victims usually, and the public interest, community safety interest. If one of those takes a priority, it will be community safety, but it is a balancing exercise, it is almost impossible to answer that question without seeing a case, because each decision has to be case specific. For example, you could have a prisoner who is at a relatively high risk and you would have to have a very tough management programme to manage that risk in the community before you are satisfied that you could make a decision to release. On the other hand, you might have a prisoner who is at a lower risk of re-offending, but if he did re-offend it, it would be catastrophically serious, and you probably could not have a management plan in place to deal with that. You could have management plans that involve all sorts of satellite surveillance, GPS and whatnot, but sometimes you get to the point where, if you need all that, the prisoner is probably too dangerous to release anyway. It is a question that you cannot answer in advance, I think. I know that the European Court of Human Rights, for example, is very wary of broad statements. We will not do that in relation to a particular process that might breach someone's convention rights. For example, if you say, we are not going to release anybody who has been accused of violence or sexual offending, that would be struck down immediately. That is why you really cannot answer that question in advance. If you showed me a case, I could talk you through it and explain the risk assessment and why it is relevant in that particular case. I understand what you are saying, but I am talking about have you re-evaluated, in light of recent events, tragic events and two reports that have recommended quite sweeping changes, have you re-evaluated how you deal with parole cases? No. Can I ask Dr Brown what your thoughts are on whether a psychiatrist should still be involved and what part of the bill deals with that? Can you expand a bit on that? We understand from our reading of it that a psychiatrist would be precluded from being on the pro-panel, but we think that the presence of a psychiatrist is of benefit to the panel and should remain. Our written evidence outlines the reasons for that and the expertise that a psychiatrist would bring to that. Part of that, again, is in line with what we have heard in terms of our involvement in risk assessment, but part of it is our experience in treating mental illnesses and in the management of individuals both within a prison setting and within the community setting and our understanding of that. I was asked a question like that last time I was here and I am pretty certain that that was shortly after our recruitment process. We had been recruiting legal, psychiatric and general members and we had two applicants from psychiatrists, one of whom we appointed, so there does not appear to be an appetite out there. Not only that, but the board will appoint members to hearings in accordance with their availability. Even if we had psychiatrists, they would not necessarily be available for the cases that we need them for. We try to use them. The psychiatrists for those difficult and awkward cases are usually at the state hospital, but it would be very difficult to be able to recruit the number of psychiatrists who would be needed to sit on all the cases that they might be useful on. That is just a fact of life. We do have a lot of psychiatric service members, a lot from the nursing background, senior nurses who have a firm understanding of the process. Beyond that, it is very difficult to say how you would be able to get the number of psychiatrists whom you would need to get them on to the cases that you need them on, unless you were to have some kind of dramatic change where you could appoint on an ad hoc basis. I think that we are aware of recruitment issues at a variety of different levels and that, with regard to that, we know that there have been difficulties and those difficulties remain. That should not necessarily mean that we should not be part of that process. My final point on this, if I may, is that, if the board considers that it needs the assistance of a psychiatrist, it can instruct that a psychiatrist carry out some work with the prisoner and attend a hearing as a witness to assist the tribunal in working its way through how to arrive at a conclusion. The board makes its decision on the evidence before it. In some ways, having the professional evidence of a psychiatrist who has seen the prisoner for a particular purpose is perhaps as valuable as having a psychiatrist on the panel. It is not as though, in certain cases, we do not have the benefit of psychiatric evidence far from it. If we need it, we will go out and get it. You have psychiatric evidence for certain cases? It is very unusual, but we do tomorrow. I am going to the orthoclinic tomorrow, and I fully expect to have two psychiatrists there to explain the position to us. You take that into account? Yes, absolutely. Can I ask Ms Galey what you think about the psychiatrist angle? Is that something necessary for risk assessment? At the point of the consultation on the changes to parole board membership, my view was that the previous arrangements that required a number of people from different backgrounds was quite helpful to maintain a balance of views and expertise on the board. However, my view is somewhat distant on that, and I am sure that others here know much more about it than I do. If I could just return to this point, if I understand you right, Mr Wat, then you would be saying, if we think that we need a psychiatrist, then we can always have the actual expertise that they can give, the forensic things that we can call it in, not relying on you knowing and recognising that you do. If there is a statutory obligation that they are part of the team, the expertise is there from day one. As soon as that case is, if you would let me finish. I think that if we are looking at risk assessment and we are playing at very high and emotive issues here, then I for one would not want to leave it to chance, which appears to me not having that statutory obligation would effectively be doing. It is not leaving it to chance. All members have a very broad experience of the criminal justice system. I understand that. You have made that point. Two and a half thousand cases a year and we have one psychiatrist. It is hard to see how you could have a system like the one that you have described, where a psychiatrist looks at all the cases just to make sure that we do not miss the one that needs a psychiatrist. I spent a lifetime in the prosecution service identifying cases where there were peculiar issues about it on a precautionary basis. You would seek a report from a psychologist or a psychiatrist. We have enough members who, if there was doubt about a case, we could approach them. However, each case is informed by a dossier and unless there is something in that dossier that clearly indicates that there is the potential history, for example, of a psychiatric illness or something very peculiar about the case, you would expect the dossier to throw up a clue for you. That is where we look. I am not conscious that there has been an issue, not in my time on the board anyway, where we have misinterpreted a case and where we had a prisoner who did require some kind of psychiatric input and we missed it. Usually, those cases are transferred from prison to secure or middle secure psychiatric hospitals where a psychiatrist has been involved in prison. We deal with long-term prisoners four years or more and there is usually an opportunity in prison for that kind of problem to be identified. It may not be resolved but it will almost almost be identified. I think that we are still going on back to my initial point that it is reliant on the board thinking that there is an issue there and you think that you have enough general expertise with people who may have some kind of psychiatric background. Perhaps I could bring in you, Dr Brown, because it seems to me that there is a very specialised knowledge that you have that would be useful to have on a statutory basis generally and certainly to pick up the expertise where it is required? That is the position that the Royal College in Scotland holds. The panel knows that risk assessment is a very broad area. Psychiatry are part of that. Many of our multidisciplinary colleagues are part of that and our multi-agency colleagues are part of that. I think that the specific knowledge and expertise that we bring is broader than that. I know that Mr Watt has mentioned already the role of other health experts, including psychiatric nurses, thinking about clinical psychologists as well. What psychiatry are bringing is that knowledge of treatment of illness, of what we can expect people to agree to, to be involved with in terms of their care, and the involvement that should be required in looking forward to time in the community, how to integrate with community mental health teams, whether they should be forensic-led mental health teams or not. The involvement of the Mental Health Act should be required. There are a variety of levels of expertise that we have outlined that we think should remain part of the parol board in a statutory way. I certainly found your submission compelling. I want to ask Ms Galey. I am struggling a wee bit to understand when you are doing risk assessment. Does someone's mental health not come into that? Is that part of how you decide what the risk will be if there is a mental health issue? If you do not know that, how can you do proper risk assessment? Mental health would certainly be a factor that would have to be considered when someone was undertaking a risk assessment. Depending on the degree to which it was suspected that there were signs of mental health issues, we would very much determine the kind of professional who had to be involved in the assessment. Do you think that there is a mental health issue? Do you call in professional services because you think there might be? How does that work? If I might draw on the social work experience, if we were thinking of a criminal justice social worker who was interviewing somebody to undertake an assessment and felt that there are aspects of that person's presentation that suggested that there might be mental health issues, it would be incumbent upon them to approach a mental health professional. Sorry, a criminal justice social worker would do that. Or to say to the person that they were providing the report from, I have concerns about certain issues, but I do not have the competencies to assess them, and either we have to live with that being unassessed or it has to be referred to the correct type of mental health professional. Forgive me, it sounds quite arbitrary. It might happen, it might not. Is it not quite essential to know whether or not someone has a mental health issue? Yes, it certainly is, but that does not mean that the resource to address that is always there. What is essential is that somebody does not proceed to attempt to assess something that they do not have the experience and the expertise to assess. If I am following the discussion correctly, the argument is that it is not for members of the board or for social workers to identify whether an individual is suffering from mental illness or maybe that it should be a psychiatrist who does that. Do I follow that correctly? I think that I said already that experienced and seasoned professionals ought to be able to spot an issue and then follow it up. However, if you are not with me on that, the only solution that I can see is that every prisoner has a psychiatric assessment and that goes in the dossier before it comes to the board. I think that with everybody, we are all at risk of experiencing mental illness, it is a one in four risk and that applies within the prison setting as well. There may or may not have been mental health difficulties identified prior to someone coming into the prison. Prison is not an easy experience. Many people develop different symptoms during their time in prison, so it might not be that those are things that have been historical concerns. Those might be more recent concerns. Within Scotland we are very fortunate that there are mental health teams in the prisons. For the most part, people who experience mental illness are identified readily by the experienced staff within the prison service and then directed to those mental health teams. There should be access to professionals, not just psychiatrists, but trained mental health nurses as well. That information could be made available if it is required. Having said that, that information might not be part of the original dossier, so having access to a psychiatrist on the parole board would be a benefit in following that up and having access to that information in a way that could inform it. That is an extremely helpful question. Good morning, or good afternoon panel. My question is going to be directed to James Mayby, and I wonder if you could give an outline of the role of social work in informing decisions about releasing parole and perhaps taking into account the earlier line of questioning there to speak about how mental health would be assessed and perhaps the role of mental health officers or not. In respect of parole, there is a very clear process. There is a community-based element of that, and there is a prison-based element of that. Every prison will have a prison-based social work unit, and the prison-based social work unit will produce a parole report that goes into the dossier that will be considered by the parole board, and the community also provide a report that is separate. There has currently just finished an evaluation of a process—I always have to look at my notes for this—called Through Care Assessment for Release on Licence or TAL for short, which is a pilot that has been running, looking at streamlining that process and bringing together the prison and the community-based parole reports into one assessment. There are a lot of obvious good reasons for that, in the sense that, rather than having two separate assessments, you have one assessment that brings together the best of both worlds. Sometimes prison-based social work has a slightly different view about risk and risk management than the community, and that simply reflects the different perspectives that people are bringing to the task. We do have interim guidance that has been issued and signed off by chief social work officers and through Social Work Scotland in respect of how the current arrangements should work, if there is a difference of opinion. The default position in the very small number of cases where that does happen is that the community gets the final say, in essence, because it is the community that will be managing the risk as and when that individual gets back into the community. There is a very clear process currently in terms of how we submit and engage with the parole process. That is a good outline answer, but the previous question was about mental health. I think that there is a concern from colleagues around the table that, perhaps, mental health issues are not being considered in the risk assessment process. Is there anything that you can say from the social work risk assessments and the social work risk assessments tools that you identified earlier about how mental health is specifically addressed in that risk assessment and how other agencies in mental health officers, for example, would be brought into that process? Yes, absolutely. Mental health is something that would be considered in any social work assessment right from the original criminal justice social report that goes before the court. It might be that a social worker is not a mental health officer and has that qualification and therefore has that additional degree of knowledge and expertise than a normal social worker who does not. However, wherever a social worker has concerns about someone's mental health, whatever level that might be, they would certainly seek to refer that individual to specialist mental health services to get that assessment. For example, even at the court report stage, it is not beyond the possibility that a social worker would suggest to the court that they need to get a further psychiatric report or a further psychological assessment in order to inform the sentencing decision. It is something that social workers are very alive to, and that process would continue through someone's journey through the prison estate. If it is somebody who is being considered for parole, the prison-based social worker and indeed the community social worker who are involved in the integrated case management of that individual will always be considering mental health because we know that, as Dr Brown has said, there is such a high prevalence of mental health issues. As I say, experts are not psychiatrists, they are not forensic psychologists, but they would always seek further assessment and information to inform their decision making and then to include that information in the report. I would be very surprised if a prisoner got to a parole board hearing and if that individual had some form of mental health problem that that was not flagged up in some shape or form. Would that surprise come about because the risk assessment would ask or identify a better word if there had been any history of diagnosis of mental illness or current? My social worker would always look for any previous involvement in mental health and would seek to put information together because that is such a critical part of an overall assessment. I think that that is helpful from that line of questioning. In terms of the social worker role in monitoring parole conditions, moving it on, can you expand a wee bit with that and see where there are maybe areas of difficulty and where there is good practice? In terms of when somebody is actually in the community, certainly if somebody is subject to a statutory prison licence there will be monitored and supervised in accordance with the national outcomes and standards and the guidelines associated with that. I think that it is fair to say that the current through-care guidance for criminal justice social work is very out of date. I think that it was written in either the late 1990s or 2000s and there have clearly been significant developments since in how we do business. I think that it is generally accepted that we need to have a more up-to-date through-care set of guidance to follow. The high-level national outcomes and standards set very clear guidelines in terms of how often an individual should be seen related to their risk. Certainly, social work is our task to ensure that prisoners are seen in accordance with those guidelines and monitored very strictly. That concludes our line of questions. I thank all the witnesses for attending and presenting their evidence to the committee in person today. We suspend briefly to allow the witnesses to leave. The next agenda item is consideration of a proposal by the Scottish Government consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers and the European Union with Royal Act in relation to a UK statutory instrument. The law applicable to contractual obligations and non-contractual obligations amendment EU exit regulations 2018. I refer members to paper 5, which is the note by the clerk, and I invite any comments from members. Thank you very much, convener. It is that note that I want to refer to in particular the question of timescales and the phrase drafting. Issues emerged late. I do not have any particular issues with this proposal, but clearly we want to try and understand the basis of some of the restrictive period. We may have to consider what are very important issues. I would like that to be put on the record. I will ask Stephen to clarify what the issues are. I am very happy if the member wants me to go back to the Scottish Government for a bit more information on what those drafting issues were when they arose in the process, if I provide a bit more explanation to the committee. I think that that would be helpful and grateful to the clerk. Thank you, convener. Is the committee content to recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to the UK Parliament to pass the statutory instrument? Is the committee content that, if the clerks will produce a short report, are you content to delegate authority to publish the report? Yes, you are. Agenda item 5 is consideration of an update from the Scottish Government in relation to the proposed integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland. I refer members to paper 6, which is a private paper. Do members have any comments? Have you never written in the cabinet secretary in? Have I misunderstood something? No, I think that we were just getting a verbal written update from it. So we are noting the letter and the cover. You can tell what that is. Is there any clarification? It wasn't immediately clear exactly if there was a specific option to be looked at, nor the timetable for implementing what they are now suggesting. I think that there is still the objective of full integration at some point, so perhaps if we have some clarification on exactly where we are now and where the Government sees us going, perhaps I will ask other stakeholders to comment on where we are now, such as the BTP and the BTP Federation. Perhaps if they can think and get an idea of what they expect in timescales, they would maybe put some meat in the bones. First of all, I would like to echo the point that you have just made about timescales. I think that the absence of timescales, having some clarity on that, the other point that has obviously been concerned up to now, has been the cost of the programme so far. Maybe you are requesting an update on that might be useful. I will put this out there, because it was the question that I was going to put to the cabinet secretary. I think that Daniel McLean makes exactly the right points there. With one other part to it, which is that what I am hearing from the cabinet secretary, it is a genuine thing that I do not understand. I am hearing from the cabinet secretary that, look, if there is a satisfactory arrangement come to in the medium term, then perhaps full integration might not be necessary. He is absolutely clear and rightly so that he is concerned about the uncertainty for the officers and the long-term impact of that, and yet in the letter it still says, look, regardless of what happens in the medium term, in the long term, we are still going to go for merger. I genuinely do not understand that. Cabinet secretary is a smart guy. He will get this like anyone else, yet seems to say that it does not matter if we are successful in the medium term, we are still going to do it. I think that that is where the timescales are pretty crucial. I think that it is important to say that the cabinet secretary has realised that there are issues around that among stakeholders. By doing that, he is asking them to work together to come up with an interim solution, but the ultimate objective is still full integration. I think that this is him taking steps just to clarify where we are with it at the moment, and I think that it is a very practical and sensible move. No, I think that there have been many valid points made. I am quite frustrated about the process, I think, for largely different reasons to other people, but one thing that I would hope that we could be united on, convener, is the fact that we have a police service operating in Scotland with all the powers of a police service, the powers of stop and search, the powers of arrest, the powers of surveillance, the powers to execute warrants, and no scrutiny by this Parliament over that. I think that that is a major deficiency that we need to look at, but it would be helpful to get updates. I think that that would be very helpful. If the committees agree, we will write to the stakeholders and to the Government just to seek the information on the points that have been raised. I will agree. The agenda item 6 is feedback from the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing on its meeting of 6 December 2018. Following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments or questions, and I refer members to paper 7, which is a note by the clerk. I invite John Finnie to provide that feedback. I thank you, convener. As you said, the sub-committee met on 6 December, at which time we heard from Police Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council. That was in our evidence session on Police Scotland's role in the immigration process, and part of that was considering Police Scotland's role in assisting the Home Office compliant and enforcement teams in the enforced removal of people from residential properties in Scotland. We also considered the wider implications of how that impacted on relationships with communities. We heard that there is much that Police Scotland can do to improve its role in assisting the Home Office compliant and enforcement teams, but it is not critical of Police Scotland. In particular, one area was the risk assessments carried out by the Home Office prior to our request to Police Scotland to be present when persons are arrested and detained. The Scottish Refugee Council told the sub-committee that the Home Office is not good at accessing vulnerability and gave specific examples of individuals who had been targeted for arrest who had low mental capacity and were, in fact, blissfully unaware of what was going on. It was suggested that Police Scotland's involvement in the process was a real opportunity to ensure that these vulnerable people in Scotland are not detained. It is important to say that Police Scotland was very clear that they applied the same strict criteria about detaining someone or retaining someone in custody, and that is regardless of the circumstances in which someone is arrested. Police Scotland was not able to confirm what the Home Office's risk assessment entailed and whether it included an assessment of the vulnerability or the impact on, for instance, children if their parents are to be detained. The sub-committee has written to the Home Office to ask for details of its risk and vulnerability assessment. I think that it is fair to say that we had sought evidence from the Home Office in advance of the meeting and it was disappointing that that was not forthcoming. We also heard that Police Scotland does not have a statutory duty to work with or inform third sector organisations or other relevant stakeholders that it is to detain an individual and that they cannot do that even in a confidential way. The sub-committee is checking whether the Home Office provides information to relevant agencies prior to a removal request. Involving third sector agencies would enable health, social work and third sector organisations the opportunity to provide vital support services to those who are detained. Finally, there is a lack of statistical data in the public domain about immigration detentions in Scotland and the sub-committee has requested statistical data from Police Scotland. We also advised the Human Rights and Equality Committee of our work, given the overlap there. The sub-committee also agreed that its forward work programme is to schedule an evidence session with the chief constable in January. Indeed, our next meeting will be on 17 January. Thank you very much, John, for that comprehensive report. Members have any comments or questions? That being the case, we now move into private session. It concludes the public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on 8 January 2019. I wish everyone a Merry Christmas, a relaxing time, hopefully, over New Year and very best wishes for 2019.