Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. I apologise to everyone for being online today, but it is fortunate that I am able to use this facility.

I am looking forward to being part of the committee. In answer to the convener’s question, I have no relevant interests to declare.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and the rest of the panel.

This relates to Rona Mackay’s line of questioning on remand. It seems to be an area where some of the pressures on prisons could have been relieved, and it has been really helpful to hear you put on record the reasons why you cannot consider that population.

In your thinking, have you been considering any further legislation in the area that might mean that the remand population could be considered in the future? You said just now that any such consideration would need to be on an individual basis through solicitors and so on, and would be very much in a legal context. Is there anything that could be brought forward by the Government to ensure that the remand population could be considered in the future if such circumstances were to arise again? Is that in any of your thinking?

To follow on from what Katy Clark said, I do not necessarily agree that it is a rushed process—it is emergency legislation, so things must be done and evidence must be taken on an emergency basis.

From what we have heard over the past couple of weeks and from the statements to the Parliament, I believe that, for an emergency situation, the draft order is pretty well thought out, with various safeguards in place, such as the governor’s veto; Victim Support Scotland was very positive about that when it met us last week.

It comes down to the fact that those people will be released anyway, at some point. We have to look at it in that context. Prisons need to be safe for our hard-working staff and for the other prisoners. They also need to be places in which rehabilitation can take place. Last week, we heard clearly—this is also common sense—that that will not happen where there is overcrowding. Whatever the reason for more people getting sent to prison in Scotland—and I understand that we are trying to deal with that through other measures—we have an overcrowding situation right now, which means that rehabilitation is not done to the extent that we would like. That perpetuates the cycle.

I know that it is a tough decision that is being put on us today, and we are being asked to step up to the plate—I get that. Nonetheless, we owe it to the staff in our prisons, to the prisoners and their families and to the victims, who want these people to get help when they go into prison. All those people look to us to do the right thing today, and that is why I will be supporting the motion.

I have a few questions, but I will try to be as quick as possible. Good morning, cabinet secretary and the officials.

The bill does not address the recommendation in the Angiolini review around holding gross misconduct hearings in public. We have heard mixed views on that in taking evidence, with some police organisations being completely opposed to the proposal and stating good reasons why that should not happen, while other organisations, such as HMICS, think that such hearings should be held in public, and they cite examples where that is the case for other professions.

What is your view on that? You have said that you will not bring about such a measure through the bill, but that you might introduce other legislation. Is that still the Government’s view? Has there been any change on that?

I turn to the other area that I want to ask about. The bill confers a duty on the SPA to establish and maintain police advisory and barred lists. Why did the Scottish Government choose the SPA, not Police Scotland, to establish and maintain those lists? Is it the intention to publish the barred list? Both Police Scotland and the SPA told us that they would rather that the list was maintained by Police Scotland.

I think that that would be good.

Yes—thank you.

Finally, I know that the cabinet secretary and her officials will be aware from having watched our evidence sessions that, last week, I raised the case of a constituent who came to my surgery to detail their experience of the complaints system. For clarity, they consider the case to be closed. I sent them a link to the video of last week’s session and they reviewed the evidence. I want to highlight that they feel assured that things are moving forward and that changes have been made since the time that they went through the complaints process. I express the gratitude that they have passed on to me to all committee members, the Government and the clerks that the issue is being looked at, because it had a significant impact on my constituent’s life and wellbeing.

I want to go through some of the thoughts that they shared with me in correspondence. There is probably no need for the cabinet secretary to respond to all the points that I will raise, because members have already covered some of them. My constituent made further comments on the PSD. They said that they had to sign a heads of complaint document and were told that, if they did not do that, no further action could be taken. My constituent felt as though they were being put in a position with that, because they were also told that, by signing the heads of complaint, if anything criminal was suggested about the complainer’s behaviour, criminal action could be taken against them. They feel that something needs to be looked at in that part of the process. They also said that they do not feel that the PIRC is particularly independent. The sergeant who dealt with their case constantly referenced knowing senior officers who were involved in the case.

I know that many of those points have been covered. However, I want to get a response on my constituent’s final point in their email to me. They said that, in their experience, no front-line resolution was offered, no apology was given and there was a complete blanket response from the PSD. When cases have come to an end, can anything be done to reflect the experience of complainers, whatever the outcome? I said at the outset last week and today that I will not go into the rights and wrongs of the case, because my constituent does not want me to do that; they want me to raise their case in a general sense. There must be a better way to bring things to a close that reflects the experiences that people have had, whether they are complainers or officers, or whether the complainers are officers.

Yes—I will just get it up on my screen and I will be able to tell you exactly what I was told.

Good afternoon. I think that each of you was in the room when I asked my question at the end of the previous witness session. I broadly raised the case of a constituent, which I will not go over again, but I want to ask you about the emotional impact of complaints processes on officers and members of the public. That links to evidence that we have heard about the possible weaponisation of the complaints system by PSD, and tactics of intimidation that are used against complainers. We have heard of that from people who have given us evidence. Included in that is the length of time that the processes take. Is PSD best placed to do the job, or can it be done in another way? Have improvements been made and can further improvements be made? What can be done to support people’s emotional wellbeing as they go through the system?

Good morning. I want to raise the case of a constituent who came to me this week. I will not go into any detail, obviously, and I do not know the rights and wrongs of the issue, but I will speak to the process as they experienced it, which might touch on some of the issues that have been raised today, and perhaps some others.

The main issue that my constituent said that they experienced when making a complaint through the process was the length of time that the whole process took. There was also a feeling that they were intimidated by police while the process was on-going, whether that was intended or not; my constituent accepts that it might not have been, but there was a feeling that my constituent was up against the whole of a local police station, that the PIRC did not have teeth to any great extent, and that their concerns around the complaint were minimised and not taken as seriously as they merited. In fact, the process had an impact on my constituent’s health, particularly their emotional health. The complaint was made some time ago, and my constituent has been triggered by the evidence that this committee has been taking.

I realise that my question is quite general and that we cannot comment on the actual facts of the situation or the rights and wrongs of it—and it is important to say that my constituent accepts that the matter is now closed and is trying to move on—but what I have said about their feelings and experiences reflects what we have heard from witnesses. These are general concerns that we have heard from other people who have experienced the process. What do you think that the bill will do to help people with those experiences, particularly on the emotional health aspect? That is probably quite a big thing, particularly if something has taken a long time to come to any sort of resolution.