Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is perhaps a slighter wider issue, but I think that purposeful activity among the remand population is still an unaddressed issue. I appreciate that that was not the subject of the question that we asked so it is not covered in the answer, but I am not 100 per cent convinced that enough is being done in that respect.

I appreciate that there are legal ramifications in that regard, and perhaps statutory duties that apply, but nonetheless I would like to think that the SPS is actively looking, even within the confines of what the law states, at what people’s rights are, and at what it can and cannot force people to do. I would like to think that it would go above and beyond in that respect. The statistics that came out yesterday point to a dire situation with people being held on remand for lengthy periods due to court delays, so I would like to think that more than just the bare minimum is being done. I wonder whether we could ask for more information about that.

May I make a suggestion, convener?

If the responsibility for healthcare before, during and after someone is in the custody of the SPS is not its responsibility at any point during that journey, asking the SPS more questions about it will probably elicit very little. It may be more helpful for us to write the health secretary, who is responsible for the NHS.

Each health board will be responsible for the institutions in its area. From a nationwide point of view, however, it is evident that, although people have access to certain levels of care and treatment—especially around addiction, mental health and so on—while they are in custody, there is a disparity of services when they leave custody, especially if they were held somewhere that was not in their home health board area, meaning that they were, if you like, a visitor there. There are issues with data and records moving around. The system is not as seamless as some people might like us to think it is. However, those are not only justice questions; they are ultimately health questions because the NHS is responsible for folk in custody.

That seamlessness, which we are not seeing, is part of the throughcare conversation that we have been having, as we saw at first hand on our committee visit to the Wise Group. It is important for keeping people on the straight and narrow, which it is easy to do in a managed environment and less easy to do it out in the real world. Those are questions that perhaps only the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care could answer.

I found the letter to be very helpful—it certainly speaks to my personal lack of understanding of the status quo. Who is placed where and why can often be confusing or confused, and the letter was eye-opening. Clearly, there are enough beds in Scotland—there are 78 of them. The letter provides a snapshot of use. At that time, only 39 were being used. Interestingly, of those, the majority were there on care and protection grounds and only one was sentenced. That is important, because it is the responsibility of local authorities to fund those who are placed through care and protection and it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to fund those who come through the justice system. I do not know what the numbers are today but, at that time, in January 2022, only one young person was in secure care, having been sentenced.

Those of us who have less experience of the system than others could maybe do with some help in understanding, especially in the context of the children’s care and justice legislation that was announced yesterday. On what grounds would someone be placed in secure care, in a young offenders institution or in an adult prison? Clearly, there is crossover. Clearly, there are also people in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, that does not seem to make sense, given that we know that secure care is available. I have a lack of understanding of that flow chart and journey.

As we will be looking at the new legislation, it would be helpful to understand the landscape, so that we know what the right path is for people and what the Government wants to do next, if changes are to be made. Clearly, the Government is getting some flack about young people being seen to be in the wrong institution, yet we are hearing that there is plenty availability—so much so that we are shipping people up from south of the border, presumably because that is being funded by others. I would like more understanding of that.

I am also interested in the short-term model that is mentioned in the letter—a six-month trial will start this month. I do not really understand it, although I see what it does. The letter says:

“the Scottish Government has agreed to pay for the last bed in each of the four contracted secure centres, as it becomes available.”

I am not 100 per cent sure what that means.

Perhaps we could have an offline session so that we could have someone explain to us what happens. They could explain the difference between someone who is in protective care and someone who has gone through the justice system, having committed some form of offence. They could also tell us what options are available to people who interact with the criminal justice system during childhood. I do not know whether that falls within the remit of the committee, but the letter has raised a bunch of questions for me.

That is a useful idea. It is always more powerful to hear from people who have been through the journey than people who turn up with briefcases and suits and tell us how wonderful everything is.

It might also be helpful to keep the Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee abreast of what we are doing in this space or, indeed, invite it to participate somehow by writing to the convener and copying it into the correspondence that we send on the matter.

Naturally, that proposal is of interest to me because it might have a knock-on effect on my member’s bill, as the abolition of the not proven verdict is one of its key pillars. I will liaise with the authorities on what happens next in that respect and I will try to work constructively with the cabinet secretary on that process.

There were not a huge amount of responses to my bill and to the consultation, but I note that the responses that were received were of quality and substance. I cannot say too much about the statistics from the responses to my question and my consultation on the issue of not proven, because we have not published them yet, although we soon will. However, the results are not far away from the statistical response that the Scottish Government got. Respondents were not overwhelmingly in favour of abolition—62 per cent is a high bar, but it is not the highest when compared to the responses to other questions that were asked.

As we all know, it is fair to say that it is not quite as simple as just abolishing a verdict—through whatever bill it is done, it will require a whole raft of other changes. It is very clear from the immediate response to yesterday’s news that a number of folk in the justice sector and some justice partners who we rely on as key cogs in the wheel have reservations about it. They expressed that to me when I announced my plans as well, and I hear them.

Therefore, it is really important that, as the Government moves forward with the not proven issue—I know that the bill will go through robust scrutiny and consultation, as all bills do, especially when it comes through this committee—it makes clear what will happen next. In other words, what other changes might have to be made and what wider implications will the change to the system have? That is really unclear at the moment. “What effect will it have on trials and on outcomes in our courts?” is an easy question to ask and a very difficult one to answer.

We will need to give a huge amount of careful and considerate cognisance to the voices who work in that sector, whether or not we agree with them, whether or not they agree with us, and whether or not they agree with the Government—that is by the by. They clearly have a lot of experience, and over the past few weeks of talking to judges, solicitors, barristers and advocates, we have all heard about the effect that these things will have on trials.

However, overall, it would seem to be a step forward, if it is finally delivered after what seems like hundreds of years of discussion. Time will tell.

Collette wants to come in first.

First, I associate myself with Collette Stevenson’s comments. I have long believed that the police are mopping up the jobs of other emergency and public services. We know that—we have heard it from the police in this room. For example, that might involve social care dealing with health situations, such as driving people to hospital and dealing with overdoses, mental health breakdowns and so on. That is taking up a lot of the police’s time at work, which adds to stress levels.

That leads to my point on the letter from David Page, which is of the sort that I would expect to see from the Scottish Police Federation rather than from the police force itself, given its tone. The first point that I would like to make is on a matter that should be of concern to the committee. We know about the issues around pensions and retirement, but the letter flags it up to me that we are seeing the loss of a large number of officers with considerable experience.

We have talked about that issue in the past, and there is no easy fix for it, as it takes time on the job to accumulate experience. However, if we are losing 718 officers who have more than 25 years’ experience, that is a huge chunk of the 1,137 officers who have left or are planning to leave. We should also note that one in 10 of those who are leaving the service are not doing so through normal attrition; their primary reason for doing so is the lack of resources. One in 10 is quite a lot. The letter goes on to explain why that is the case. That should be of concern to us, and we should ask the Government what it is doing to address it.

I am also worried that Police Scotland says that, given the available budget, it will focus on the three key business areas that involve its statutory duties, which are:

“C3, response policing and public protection”.

The letter explicitly states that

“some work in other business areas may be stopped or scaled back as we prioritise our work”,

and that those

“are not decisions that will be taken lightly”.

I understand why. The letter continues:

“our focus will always be on the most vulnerable in society.”

However, the letter does not elucidate what other business areas will be scaled back; what other capital investment projects will be stopped or paused or will not go ahead; and what other projects the police are involved in, such as education projects, that the police would say are superfluous to the core product that they must deliver by statute. It is unclear what those things are, and I am worried that they include important things. Especially in relation to the preventative agenda, scaling back will simply lead to problems down the line, because problems have been delayed.

The letter also says that the police are seeing

“the impact of fewer officers across a range of operational areas, including our responsiveness to calls from the public.”

My question would be: which operational areas? Does that mean the ability of the police to respond to emergency calls? Does it refer to the timescales that it takes for them to respond to calls, or whether the calls are answered, or how long it takes for them to be answered? As we know from information that came out last week, there is an issue with whether calls are even being processed—we heard last week that data was being entered in the system that was not even being recorded. Was that a result of human error, or technical issues due to lack of investment in information and communications technology?

Those are all questions that I have. All that the letters have done is to flag up the need for us to have a conversation with the police force and the minister, because this is quite serious stuff. One of the letters says that, if what was put out in the resource spending review comes to fruition, it

“would have a serious impact on Police Scotland and our likely ... workforce numbers”.

We hope that it does not. We know that there might be an emergency budget, in which I think the committee would have a role to play. We need to be quite nimble in responding to the letter, so I would like to hear from Mr Page and/or others, by having them come to the committee and tell us more about some of the issues, because the letters have opened up a can of worms.

The second forum is appropriate, because it is on budget scrutiny, and we will have valid cause to question our witnesses on the implications of the budget, whether that is the planned budget or any emergency budget that arises. The other session is perhaps more informative, which is not the right climate for getting into the nitty-gritty of some of the questions that I raised, as those are geared far more at management level.

I would be minded to thank Mr Page for his letter, but to go back to him in writing with all the questions from across our membership—which will be set out in the Official Report—and to say that we would like a little more information from him in advance. We should not wait until the end of October before we hear from them again. I politely request that we go back to ask for further clarification on what some of this means, because a lot of things have been said, but the detail is not clear.

What is the format of this item?