Seòmar agus comataidhean

Jamie Greene has touched on the cost implications of taking that forward, but the other question is the issue of charges for transcripts. How costly will those be for victims? There is an issue of accessibility because, if they are too expensive, in effect, that is another barrier to justice.

Based on the evidence on the challenges that we heard about when we visited Maryhill, it might be worth writing to the Wise Group to seek its views. The letter seems to state that everything is going quite smoothly with regard to release, although there is a comment about Friday releases and how those can be a challenge. It might be good to get a second opinion from the Wise Group on that.

Thank you, Mark, for coming forward with this proposal. I will be slightly parochial about the proposed group’s remit. Would there be items on your agenda regarding lowland peat restoration and lowland deer management?

It is more an observation about the gender balance among members of the group, which I make in relation to every proposal for a CPG. I note that there is only one female on the group, who is currently on maternity leave. I wonder what actions you have taken to see whether there could be a better gender balance and representation of women.

I echo everyone else’s comments and, in particular, emphasise the point that we should not be the mediators. More important is the impact on the victims, if the situation goes on and this impasse remains. That is what lies at the heart of the matter.

I want to get clarification on something. Am I correct in saying that the lawyers are looking for a 50 per cent uplift? I am sure that the figure is 25 per cent in England and Wales. There was a paragraph in the correspondence saying that somebody had been commissioned to examine the issue. Could we draw some comparisons from the work being done by Sir Christopher Bellamy QC before we get anywhere near strike action, which is the last thing that we want?

It is just for clarification. I am sure that the pressure on the police has come up previously. My understanding is that several pilot schemes are being run—for example, there is one in Dundee—in which a fifth emergency response service is provided by mental health responders. That takes the pressure off the police, who have been, and are still, the first responders in such cases. It would be interesting to see how the pilots work out. I have had conversations with, and written correspondence from, the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. Perhaps we could follow up on those. Using such an approach could mitigate the challenges that Police Scotland faces.

I will focus on the procurement process that the local authorities go through, because I have had experience of that myself. My one concern is to do with cross-border placements, because they do not align with the Promise, which ties in with all of this. Although I welcome what was said in the programme for government, I am keen to get more clarity on how many secure beds there are in Scotland. Are there enough?

The cross-border placement of young people is a challenge. Having worked in a children’s care home, I know that a substantial number of requests were made from down south to place young people up here. I feel that we are not looking after their wellbeing by doing that—that is the heart of the issue. I would therefore like to seek more clarity on that aspect.

Scotland Excel sets the procurement framework, and its approach is robust. It must meet certain requirements from the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Social Services Council. A lot of times, local authorities are champing at the bit trying to get secure beds on a Friday. I also add that no local authority staff are available over the weekend, which can be a challenge. We need to ensure that the process around procurement is more seamless and that more secure beds are available so that young people are not getting put into the prison estate.

I agree with Jamie Greene. The letter mentions time in the open air and purposeful activity, but they are two completely different things. I would like to seek clarification of what the SPS says is purposeful activity. My understanding is that it includes physical training or down time, which is different from time in the open air. There is also the work element when people go to the work sheds and things like that. At that time, they are not out in the fresh air. I seek clarification of those two different elements.

There is still an issue when prisoners transfer from one health board to another if they transfer from a different prison and are progressing through. Despite Teresa Medhurst clarifying that their medical records go with them, I am not entirely convinced that the process is as seamless as the SPS says that it is. At the heart of the matter is the fact that many of them suffer from varying degrees of mental ill health and addictions. The approach should be seamless.

You have just touched on the issue that I want to raise. To put it in context, I have a Ring doorbell, which captures people passing by the door and whatnot. I have spoken to the police about that, as there was an incident in which people were loitering about outside at 2 or 3 in the morning, and the police said that they use the system a lot. Are you saying that that could be open to a complaint, because it involves facial digital technology? Could a complaint come back to me under data protection or GDPR legislation? In addition, the company, Ring, also holds that information. I suppose that I am going down a bit of a rabbit hole here, but where does it end?