Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, cabinet secretary and our other guests. I have two short questions, but first I congratulate the city of Glasgow on its successful bid to host the Interpol event in conjunction with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

My primary question is on the comments that the cabinet secretary made about road traffic accident exemptions. Is that a blanket exemption to all delegates for the duration of their time in Glasgow, or, if an incident occurred, could the proposition be made that it occurred while they were exercising their duties, which I think was the language that you used, and they could, therefore, claim immunity in such circumstances? I was a bit unclear as to how that would be handled by Police Scotland in the unfortunate event that what we hope does not happen were to happen.

Thank you very much, convener. The update from the First Minister is very helpful. It perhaps even goes a step further in its language than the letter that we received. As well as timescales, perhaps we could seek a broad sketch of what the pilot might entail so that we can manage expectations among stakeholders. If there is a large cohort of people who feel that this would be of advantage to them but later discover that the pilot is limited in nature, that will be disappointing for them. To make sure that we are heading in the right direction, this should be made as broad and comprehensive as possible.

I will continue on the same topic. We have been having a conversation about it as middle-aged adults. Is there perhaps a sense of naivety in our discussion, given that there is a huge amount of normalisation of such behaviour among young people? We know that from speaking to parents, teachers and, of course, young people themselves when we do visits to classes in schools. Sometimes we engage in conversations about the realities of life as a young person. I have not been a young person for a very long time, but some of the charitable organisations and other third sector organisations that are represented here work with young people on a daily basis.

Are we trying to police the unpoliceable? I am not talking about the issue of people committing horrific serious online sexual assault, exploitation and abuse. I am very interested in the subject of the peer-to-peer world and how it affects the lives of young people—in some cases, we are even talking about children in primary school, rather than teenagers. Such behaviour has become normalised because of technological advances and the fact that children have a mobile phone before they get to primary 1. I did not get one until I was 17.

The world has changed hugely over the past decade, and I wonder how realistic we are being in having such conversations and in our messaging and education. Does there need to be a reality check at our level among politicians, stakeholders and policing as to whether we are taking the right approach on the issue? Are we attempting to police something that is simply unmanageable? Should we be thinking differently about how we deal with it? I simply chuck that out there; I do not mean to be controversial.

Let us start by hearing from some of the children’s charities.

Thank you. I will perhaps come back in later.

It was more in relation to somebody, for example, commuting from their temporary place of residence to the conference centre and something happening in that environment, whereby they could argue that they had immunity. However, that is fine.

The other question is more general. What discussions has the Scottish or UK Government had with Police Scotland about policing the event? Has there been any analysis of the resourcing levels that will be required, or has there been a finger in the air on the financial cost? That is not an issue as such, but it is important for the committee to keep a watching eye on such things.

Thank you—you make an interesting point, which touches on the one that Stuart Allardyce made about the language that we use and the need to not put young people off coming forward when there are actual issues, as opposed to day-to-day behaviour that they do not deem to be inappropriate, for example.

Who is best placed to get that message across? Should teachers do that in the classroom? Should it be done peer to peer? Is it a case of educating parents on how to have very frank and normal conversations about these things without being embarrassed? Given that, as you said, we are in an integrated world where Snapchatting in the playground to someone who is 3m away is normal behaviour, when we are putting together all these wonderful strategies and getting Governments to come together and legislate for change to improve things, surely a grass-roots approach that involves talking to young people on the ground at the earliest opportunity is the best way to get positive messages across on how to deal with problematic situations.

I will bring in Joanne Smith, because she probably has a lot of experience in this area.

It is fascinating and we could probably have a whole-day symposium on that subject alone.

I have one final question. I feel a bit like an audience member on “Question Time” with this one. What does the panel believe would be an appropriate level of sentencing for someone who is charged and prosecuted for possessing indecent images of children? I will start with the police.

That is very diplomatic of you. The reason why I ask is that the last time a survey was done on public perception of sentencing—it was pre-Covid and I do not know whether there has been one since—77 per cent of the public believed that someone should receive a custodial sentence for a crime of that nature. Very few believed that something such as a community payback order or some form of educational mandatory statutory treatment would be an appropriate sentence.

I am not putting forward a view; I am simply asking for your opinion. I appreciate that it is difficult for policing to comment on what are independent guidelines by the Scottish Sentencing Council, but I am sure that others have a view. Stuart Allardyce, you must have a view on this.

I will try to rattle through the letters. On the SPS letter that we have just discussed, I have the same question as Russell Findlay on in-cell telephony.

My second point is about purposeful activity. There seems to be a bit of confusion around what the reality of that is versus what the law says. The letter gives the impression that purposeful activity is available to all prisoners. That point was reiterated during last week’s scrutiny of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, when the cabinet secretary said—I am just checking the Official Report:

“Prison rules do not exclude remand prisoners from work or purposeful activity, and the Prison Service will, where possible, offer access to work and educational opportunities to those on remand.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 May 2023; c 57.]

I wonder what the reality is on the ground versus what it says in the letter and what we were told. If nothing else, there seems to be a perception that remand prisoners participate in much less purposeful activity, including education, counselling, training and work. I appreciate that, when it comes to forcing someone to work, there is a difference between someone who has been sentenced and someone who is on remand, but we need more clarity around that because the situation is a bit unclear. The perception and the reality seem to be two different worlds.

We cannot look at the correspondence without noting the letter from COSLA, in conjunction with community justice partners. It is quite detailed and a lot of work and time have obviously gone into it. The letter is quite stark and makes clear something that we already know through budget analysis, which is that almost every aspect of the justice sector received more money in the 2023-24 budget than in the 2022-23 one, with the exception of criminal justice social work, which had a flat cash settlement despite pre-budget scrutiny that warned of the consequences of that.

The letter goes into great detail, which I will not go into, about what the consequences might be. In effect, we are talking about a substantial real-terms cut, year on year, in the criminal justice social work budget. The letter makes it clear that that cut makes it incredibly difficult for COSLA and its council partners to deliver the Scottish Government’s national strategy for community justice and that it widens

“the existing ‘implementation gap’ between national policies/legislation and local delivery”.

I know that that sounds like technical jargon, but it is a really important point. It is all very well having a national ambition, but if the people on the ground who are tasked with implementing that are saying that they cannot do it with what they have been given, there is an issue. I would like the Government to respond in detail to this specific letter from COSLA and local criminal justice social work. It is the kind of letter that the Government ought to reply to, and its response should also come to us. The conversation is not just about money: the letter goes into workload and the issue of people retiring.

My last point is about the letter from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which was short and sweet. I note that the deputy assistant chief officer writes that

“50 per cent of all operational staff ... have voluntarily completed the training”

on overdose awareness. It is not quite clear from the letter how many operational staff actually participate in the scheme or carry pouches of naloxone to administer. There must be some difference between the number who have done the training and the number who actively hold the product. The letter just says that

“there has been limited progress”,

but 50 per cent does not sound like limited progress. There is clearly a difference between the number doing the training and the number carrying the product, and it would have been helpful if the fire service had been more explicit about that.

I feel slightly nervous about language that says that a delivery plan will be in place once

“broader agreement to deploy is confirmed”.

Agreement with whom? I presume that that means front-line workers or their union representatives, but it is a bit unclear and I can only read between the lines. It would be very helpful if the fire service could keep us up to date.

I am sure that that will become clear when I get to visit. Thank you for that.