Seòmar agus comataidhean

Last year, the committee, in its pre-budget scrutiny, took evidence on the big picture around spending. Karyn McCluskey told us:

“of the overall justice budget, 2.5 per cent goes to social work and 1.47 per cent goes to community justice.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 1 November 2023; c 54.]

She also made the point that, if we want to do something differently, we have to spend differently. Is it not inevitable, therefore, given those ratios, that we are where we are?

I will ask a quick follow-up question if I have time. There is a presumption against short sentences. In other words, there is a presumption against sentences of 12 months or less, and that has been in place since 2019, I think. However, according to some data that we have, there are roughly 33 prisoners doing three to six months and 70 doing less than one month. Sheriffs have clearly been privy to the full details of those cases before making their sentencing decisions. Do you think that the judiciary in Scotland is paying heed to that specific guideline and, more generally, to the ineffectiveness of short sentencing, as you see it?

As well as that support, other measures could be used, or better used, such as electronic monitoring. For example, remote alcohol monitoring technology is used elsewhere in the United Kingdom to great effect, but it is still not being used in Scotland. Why is there sometimes a reluctance to embrace changes and technologies that might help to alleviate the problem that we are talking about?

It relates to something that was said earlier, and it overlaps with the issue of prisoner mental health. The absence rates for SPS staff were mentioned: I think that Paula Arnold provided a number or a percentage—or was it Phil Fairlie? Sorry. Do you happen to have that number to hand, Phil?

I see. I had misunderstood, so I am glad that I clarified that. So, for 35 per cent of those who are off at a typical moment, their absence relates to mental health.

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions that the committee might be interested in asking. I have been assisting one of the female complainers in this long drawn-out saga, and there are several questions and concerns, so I think that it is useful to give a quick synopsis of the matter.

This is the first fitness for judicial office tribunal in Scotland, having been legislated for in 2014. In March 2021, the tribunal found the individual’s behaviour to be inappropriate. However, the findings of that tribunal were quashed on appeal, because the tribunal did not take some other evidence into account. A second tribunal was held, which ruled that he had committed serious improper conduct, which is a matter of public record.

All of that took five years to conclude. In that time, the individual was suspended on full pay, which amounts to not far off £1 million in pay. As far as I understand it, the public might also be required to pay the legal costs of the individual. I have asked the Scottish Government how much that will be, and I am waiting for an answer.

The first question is whether it is proper in such circumstances for the public purse to meet the cost of a judicial office-holder’s legal fees.

The second question is about the time that it took for what appears to be a relatively straightforward process that we might imagine happening in any other walk of life. Why did that take the best part of five years? On the basis of it being a brand-new tribunal and a brand-new process, is the Scottish Government concerned that the case will be typical, or is it confident that we will not see a repeat of a five-year process?

The third point is a possible question, but it is more a general point. The female complainer in that particular case was led to believe that she did not have an automatic right to know the outcome of the proceedings and, indeed, that it would not automatically be a matter of public record. That is at the discretion or behest of the First Minister of the day.

In March, I wrote to the First Minister at the time, Humza Yousaf, to suggest that the issue might be looked at. I would not necessarily call it a loophole, but the issue is whether there should be some form of appraisal of whether, in such a tribunal—as rare as they might be—the default position should be that complainers are informed proactively and unconditionally, and that the wider public are also informed.

Those are my thoughts.

So crime victims will see in the news that there will be a mass release of 550 prisoners who are serving sentences of under four years. Those prisoners will include people who have committed sexual crimes and acts of violence.

Right. They might have committed sexual crimes in the past, but the index offence would not include sex offences.

They might come to you, but they cannot possibly know whether their offender is being considered for release until they engage with you and you go through the process with them.