Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank members and colleagues for their input on the issue.

I will first address Maggie Chapman’s comments. I am clear that the purpose of the amendment is not to inhibit or deter any trans people from making good use of the new, simplified process, which she will understand I support, although I appreciate that others do not. In no way is the intention of the amendment to inhibit or deter. It is clear that an aggravator would be used only when an offender was rightly in court for having committed other offences. The concept of an aggravator is commonly used in law in Scotland as a deterrent; that is the point, and I want to be clear about that.

The cabinet secretary referred to the seriousness of committing such an act. If someone fraudulently obtains a GRC with the intention of accessing spaces or people that they should not, and goes on to commit further crime—I am interested in a number of crimes that may fit into the amendment—such acts would be viewed very seriously by judges and courts, and offenders will, in effect, be given a harsher punishment. That is the point of an aggravator.

I do, actually. I know that other committees have given a great deal of thought to what is a complex and difficult issue. The nature of the offences for which some of the individuals are held in custody rightly gives rise to very public concern, and that concern is often shared with us. For that reason, I actually support amendment 111 in the name of Fulton MacGregor. I know that the cabinet secretary has asked the member not to move it, but I think that it would be helpful if he did, because we would be able to build on it ahead of stage 3 to make it clear that, although these are autonomous decisions made by governors and the Prison Service, there is a general feeling that they must be in everyone’s interest.

With amendment 136, I am not seeking to put in place any prescriptive measures; I am simply asking for data, because in the past we have frequently tried, with great difficulty, to get clarity on decisions made with regard to policy guidance on where people are housed or, indeed, on who is being housed where. Often the response is that the data is simply not available, for reasons of confidentiality. I have asked the Prison Service a number of written questions as well as questions during Criminal Justice Committee evidence-taking sessions, and information has been far from forthcoming. I do not think that there is any particular cause for concern in that respect, but the fact is that without good information we cannot make good decisions.

I think that what I am trying to do with amendment 136 is to improve transparency in the data, even if the numbers involved are small. I also want to address concerns that others have rightly raised that, if a much greater volume of people starts to come through the system and that has a knock-on effect on the transgender prison population, the Government must have a good grasp of the bigger picture. I understand that the Government is willing to accept a number of amendments that place additional reporting requirements on it, and I think that that is a helpful approach. I think that this amendment will be helpful in that respect, too; it casts no judgment on the policy of where people are housed, nor does it interfere with the independent decision making of governors or the SPS. Instead, it allows ministers and the Parliament to get sight of the bigger picture that, currently, we do not have sight of. If we did have sight of it, we could, I would hope, ask the right questions and have them answered.

Thank you. That is helpful.

I will let other members come in; I might come back in later.

Would you be prepared to go on the record with an estimate, today?

In its evidence, the Scottish Prison Service said that a flat cash settlement would mean that it would need to revert to near-Covid-type lockdown scenarios in prison, and pretty much get rid of all the good stuff—rehabilitation and the involvement of third parties including the third sector—that ensures that people come out of prison better than they were when they went in. It said all that would cease to exist. Is that a concern?

That sounds worrying.

I want to touch on two local issues. The first is HMP Greenock. As Katy Clark mentioned, it is disappointing that there are no plans for a replacement for it. I understand that such things come at huge capital cost; we learned that the cost of HMP Highland has already nearly trebled and that costs will probably rise further. Such things tend to cost a lot more than was initially estimated, but it sounds nonetheless as though things are quite dire in Greenock. Do you have the power to shut it down? If you do not, which other agency has that power?

I will just add that, if the process is revised, it is unclear who the ultimate arbiter would be or what appeals process would be in place if, for example, organisers of such events felt that a decision had been made wrongly at local level. If there is no national consistency, how would that be presented at local level? Those issues need to be cleared up.

Do you think that the Government would do that even if a better service was being run more cheaply?

That would not be ideal.

Indeed. There are two privately run prisons in the estate. What is your general view of the privately run prisons versus the publicly run prisons?

You will be aware that the Government has chosen to take HMP Kilmarnock back into—presumably—public service. We have struggled to get any justification for that decision, and the argument seems to be around cost. However, you said that we might not have full sight of all the detail that we need. Would you say that HMP Kilmarnock is currently good value for money? What is the situation there?