Seòmar agus comataidhean

In principle, you are saying that there are holes or gaps in the existing legislation, hence the need for new legislation. That is the fundamental argument in favour of new legislation.

Sorry—just to press on—

I appreciate that negative instruments are usually waived through nice and quickly, so I apologise for taking up time. However, I want to refer to the policy note that accompanies the instrument. In essence, the instrument is about changes to electronic monitoring and bail conditions. Under the policy objective section, it says that the instrument makes

“a technical change to ensure that the policy intention of having electronically monitored bail includes specific reference to ... two further ways in which a person on bail can have conditions varied.”

What are those “two further ways”? What variations would the change induce?

The policy note says that there has been extensive consultation with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but neither the consultation nor the SCTS’s response is contained in the note. It also says:

“Extensive impact assessments were undertaken”,

and that the change will have

“limited ... impact on the wider ... use of electronic monitoring of bail.”

How will we know whether that will be the case? The note does not quantify or, indeed, define the change.

I do not know how much of an issue the change is, which is part of the problem. I would have preferred the Government to have explained what the variations are and the resulting potential changes to bail. Ministers could have done that in person, although I appreciate that doing so would be unusual for an instrument subject to the negative procedure. However, they could have at least done that in writing. As a committee, we are none the wiser as to what we would be agreeing to, so I am uncomfortable with agreeing to the instrument for that reason.

I appreciate that annulment is the only option that is available to us. However, I want to put on record that I do not think that it is suitable to simply provide a one-page policy note that does not explain what we are being asked to agree to. I am sorry, but that sets a bad precedent.

Thank you, convener.

We wrote to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office about the potential for police officer liability if an officer was involved in the administration of naloxone. We asked whether the Crown Office could make it clear whether it perceived any potential or theoretic liability if, for example, someone were to approach the procurator fiscal’s office with a complaint, and whether it would deem it to be in the public interest to pursue that in law, or even whether that was something that could be pursued in law.

The response states:

“It is for the Police Service of Scotland through training and policies to provide comfort and confidence to officers in relation to their legal liability”.

I find that a slightly odd comment to make. I am not sure which bit of Police Scotland’s training policies would address the issue of legal liability. Surely that would be for the Crown to decide, and not for the police service through its human resources and training processes.

I understand the point. There is a similarity with, for example, the good faith use of other medical interventions by police officers, but it would be fair to go back to the Crown Office and ask whether, in that theoretical scenario, there would be the potential for liability if a police officer administered the drug.

I would also be interested to hear the response to that comment from the Scottish Police Federation, which represents a large number of front-line officers, and whether it is content that the current Police Scotland training policies are adequate to provide reassurance to its members.

The idea that a victim should have to pay £3,000 or £4,000 to get access to records is utterly ridiculous. Everything that we have said this morning will be online by 9 o’clock tomorrow.

On the wider point about what we do next in relation to the discussion that we have just had, a number of issues have been raised, not just on the suggestions in paragraphs 11 to 13 of paper 2, which were made before we had the discussion. I would appreciate it if the clerks could help us to collate those issues so that we can write to the Government about the general feedback that we have given today.

I can cover page 26—[Interruption.] Excuse me. Everyone has a frog in their throat this morning—it is because we are all sitting close together.

Looking at pages 26 and 27, the first box is about information on the Government’s plans. We have identified that more clarity is still needed on the short-term measures that will be taken. Obviously, the issue is playing out in the wider domain, but there is still substantial disagreement between the sector and the Government. It is an area that we need to keep a close eye on, and we could invite representation from all parties to update us on their views on the matter. It is all very well reading about it in The Times, but it would be nice to hear from those concerned in a formal committee setting.

The other issue relates to the role of the PDSO. I was not going to butt in on the point that Pauline McNeill made about the Moorov doctrine but, in its response, the Crown Office made it very clear that it does not believe that it is the procurator fiscal’s role to inform complainers of potential outcomes and scenarios and why or how a certain outcome might arise. That shows the importance of the PDSO and its potential role in improving that. If the Crown Office is going to say that that is not its job and that it would be inappropriate for that to be part of the prosecutor’s role, that begs the question of whose role it is.

The fact that the relevant recommendation has not been agreed to leaves a gap. I think that the committee should consider pushing the Government on that. If the Crown Office is not the right body to better inform complainers, what is? How are we going to address the issues raised by the Moorov doctrine question?

Are we still on page 8?

For the benefit of people who are watching and are not sure what we are staring at on our desks, the table is publicly available.

The table says:

“No information from the SPS currently provided”.

That is the answer to the question whether the Scottish Government agreed to the recommendation. That is the first point. Are we waiting for the Scottish Government to respond or for the Scottish Government to ask the SPS to respond to it or to us, or is the SPS responding to us directly?

I would prefer quite a detailed plan from the SPS. I think that the SPS should provide a Covid recovery plan to the committee that addresses each of the points, because there are more than half a dozen specific asks of the SPS. I am not fussed whether that comes through the Government or directly from the SPS. However, as an organisation, the SPS has a direct and quite important responsibility to come to the committee directly and say, “We hear what you’re saying.” We published the document months ago, and the SPS has had plenty time to look at it. We are now in the coming-out-of-Covid phase—we can see that from the arrangements in the room today—and I am really surprised that we have not had even a relatively short document from the SPS that responds to each of the points.

I think that we should press the SPS through the means that are available to us, and even perhaps set out a timetable for when we would expect such a document. That we should be sitting here with a table that says, “To be decided”, or saying that we do not know or have not heard is not a good place to be at this stage, and it will not provide any comfort to anyone who reads the paper.

Once you start us, we do not stop, convener. I apologise. However, there is a lot in the paper and it is our first day back. I appreciate your forbearance.

The letter from the Crown Agent goes through our recommendations in great detail. It would probably merit a little bit of written analysis in due course. Some of the points that the committee made are broadly accepted and some very comprehensive responses are given; for others, that is perhaps less the case.

Two issues stuck out for me. One was our question about the role of the Crown Office in the victim notification scheme and its relative success. The response seems to imply that that is not really its responsibility but that it will keep an eye on what the Government says in terms of its proposals. That is fine, but the committee thought that the Crown Office had an important or substantive role in the VNS and it seems to think otherwise. We would not have asked the question in the first place if we did not think that the Crown Office had a role to play, so the next question that I would ask is, if it is not responsible, who is?

At paragraph 307 of our report, the committee asked the Crown Office for

“details of how outcomes, such as reducing re-offending rates, are to be captured.”

Again, there is a very short and polite response, which is that

“The application of sentencing guidelines ... is for the judiciary only.”

I would therefore ask which bit of the judiciary is responsible, as sentencing guidelines are a relatively new feature of the justice system in that respect.

Finally, to pick up on Pauline McNeill’s point, we would not really be doing justice to the evidence that we received from the survivor if we did not refer to it in today’s meeting. I read it last night. There may be elements of it that individual members or the Government would disagree with in terms of some of the policy proposals, but it was quite sharp and pointed and I do not think that it can go ignored.

I will just quote briefly from it. The survivor says:

“I truly believe that everyone here thinks that they want to help end violence against women—but your inaction is violence against us.”

If that is how someone feels, it is true to them and perhaps to others, too.

On the third page of the submission, there is a long bullet list of recommendations that the survivor, who has broad experience of the justice sector, would like us and the Government to consider. I know that many of those have already been looked at in Lady Dorrian’s review and that the Government will respond in due course, but I think that the committee needs to put those recommendations, along with other comments that are made in the submission, front and centre in our work.

It is fair to say that, for many years, we and others have been going around in circles on this, and that is a point that was made, quite valiantly, in the submission. The survivor states:

“This is an emergency and urgent and drastic reform is required.”

That sums up where we are at, and I hope that the committee will make swift progress.

I will not oppose the SSI—who am I to stand in the way of someone’s retirement? However, we could request that the Government and Police Scotland outline their strategy on recruitment and provide some data, including on the time lags involved. We could ask about increases in intake at the Scottish Police College and when those people could become operational, so that we can look ahead to ensure that there will not be a lag in resource at Police Scotland. We need to keep our eye on any potential for that.