Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would Karin or any of the other witnesses like to comment?

Sorry—I am talking about situations in which the court has ordered that those measures take place, but they do not happen. For example, a court will say that there is to be electronic monitoring—I am referring to the electronic monitoring system that we use, because we do not have GPS yet—but that does not happen. The same can apply to apply community service orders. A court order is made, but the sentence is never implemented, so the offender is never asked to carry out the sentence, through no fault of their own. Do you have any insight into why that happens so often?

My office has submitted a number of freedom of information requests in relation to the implementation of some community-based disposals and electronic monitoring. For example, the issue is not just about the implementation of measures such as community service orders when they are ordered by the court but about whether electronic monitoring happens when the court orders that it should happen. Some of the figures are quite shocking—in half of the cases in some parts of the country, there has not been implementation of the measures.

I am not quite sure who would be best to answer my question. Karyn McCluskey, do you have any insight as to why that might be, from your experience of the system?

The responses that I have had to my freedom of information request have been in the media, but I will provide them to the witnesses, and you might be able to respond in writing afterwards. It would be helpful to understand why, in such a high percentage of cases, there has not been implementation.

I will pick up Rona Mackay’s powerful point about women. I want to get an understanding of the availability of alternatives to custody for women and the geographical spread of that availability. Sheriffs have raised with us the issue that, in some parts of the country, alternatives are unavailable, but that might be partly because there are fewer women offenders in many parts of the country. In more rural parts of the country, there are no alternatives available to sheriffs. Will you say a little about that, and where there is good provision and where there is not?

Is there more provision for men, or is it, again, the case that, in certain parts of the country, there is better provision and, in others, it is not as good? Will you give us a bit more detail on where there is adequate—or something approaching adequate—provision on offer, so that sheriffs have alternatives available to them? If there are large parts of the country where that is not available, is that something that you can talk about today or share with the committee in writing?

You have spoken about the cost of a new prison. We know that prisons soak up huge amounts of money and that the stated policy of the Scottish Government is for a shift to non-custodial disposals. After years of cuts or flat budgets, there was a slight increase in funding last year, which might be partly due to the work of the committee. Given the prisons crisis, to what extent is that new money having an impact, and how much more would it require in the coming budget to make a dent on prison numbers?

I will support the Government’s and Sharon Dowey’s amendments, if they are pressed to a vote. I do not intend to press my amendments 48 and 49 to a vote today, but I might bring them back in some form at stage 3, after further consideration and discussion.

As the cabinet secretary has said, amendment 48 seeks to include reference to the Equality Act 2010 in the bill. That act’s requirements are important considerations in relation to the conduct of police officers. Amendment 48 has come about partly as a result of discussions with equality campaigners.

Section 2 of the bill relates to the principles, standards and legislation that the chief constable must have regard to in preparing the code. I note what the cabinet secretary said about a lesser right. I will look at the interrelationship of my amendment 48 with the cabinet secretary’s amendments. However, as she is well aware, it would not be possible to dilute in any way the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 in the bill. I would be happy to work with her to see whether it is possible to come up with a form of words that might be acceptable to all at stage 3.

My amendments in the group relate to the preparation of an equality impact assessment. Amendment 63 relates to complaints handling reviews and amendment 64 relates to the call-in of complaints. In both situations, the preparation of an equality impact assessment would be required. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response to the amendments.

I support the Scottish Government’s intention to attempt to strengthen and codify the duty of candour. The duty of candour for public officials is a live issue in all parts of the UK and in many different settings. Perhaps we know more about what the duty of candour might be in, for example, a health setting, where a lot of work has been done on the issue over many years.

It would be helpful for me and perhaps other members of the committee to get a better understanding of the Scottish Government’s view on what the duty of candour will look like and whether, as a result of the bill, it will be different in the police setting, specifically for officers but also, in the light of the evidence that we heard, for other staff, particularly civilian staff. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary will be able to say more about that, but it would be helpful to get more clarity from her before stage 3 so that we can better understand the issues.

Therefore, in relation to amendment 5, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which the Scottish Government believes that the bill will have an effect in relation to the duty of candour specifically for officers, and whether that will extend to anyone else. I would also like more information about the types of settings and scenarios in which the cabinet secretary believes that the bill will make a difference, or whether the provisions are simply a codification of the existing position.

I am very sympathetic to what the Scottish Government is trying to do. It is clear that we need to strengthen the vetting processes that existed historically in the police. The Sarah Everard case is perhaps the most high-profile case, but many cases have come to light where greater vetting would have led to different outcomes. In particular, the cabinet secretary is aware of the number of domestic abuse and rape allegations against serving police officers, both south of the border and, no doubt, in Scotland.

However, given what has been said and the fact that there does not seem to have been consultation with, for example, the Scottish Police Federation, I think that it would be helpful if we could come back to this issue at stage 3.

When we took evidence on the bill, one of the pieces of evidence that I most strongly welcomed was when we heard that the Scottish Government had put greater resource into vetting and that more staff had been employed to do that work. It is clear that a great deal of attention has already been given to ensuring that we have better vetting now and going forward. However, it would be helpful if we could ensure that that is done on a cross-party basis. Rather than deal with it in this way at this stage, we could use the time between now and stage 3 to look at what the Scottish Government is proposing. That would give us the opportunity, for example, to speak with serving police officers and campaigners for better police accountability and better vetting of the police, which would ensure that the Parliament can support the detail of the amendments.