Seòmar agus comataidhean

In relation to my earlier exchange with Jamie Greene, I note that, when we first examined the remand figures, the then cabinet secretary—I think—specifically referred to section 23D as one of the restrictive provisions and implied that that might have been one of the reasons why the remand figures were high. On close examination, although we do not have the figures, it does not appear that section 23D is used in many cases, so I am not concerned that it is increasing the remand population per se.

I do not want to pre-empt the cabinet secretary’s response to our post-legislative scrutiny, but I wonder why the point about the domestic abuse provision was not even drawn to our attention by anyone, bearing in mind that the exceptional circumstances test relates to when there has been a previous analogous conviction. I thought that the cabinet secretary might address that in her remarks, but she did not. We are talking about people with analogous convictions—that means that, if the offence relates to drugs, the previous conviction must relate to that and not to a summary offence. I assumed that the fact that someone had a previous conviction made it more likely that they would cause harm or abscond and that that was why an exceptional circumstances test was built into the 1995 act. I am probing the issue, and the Government needs to set out what the equivalent of the exceptional circumstances test is.

As I said in my opening remarks, I am sympathetic to the Law Society’s view in that the fact that someone has an analogous conviction from 20 years ago does not necessarily indicate that there is cause for concern. However, if the previous conviction was, say, five years ago, there might be more concern in that it might be more likely that the person will offend while on bail.

Similarly to Katy Clark, I would like to tease out the issues on the subject. On the face of it, the provision seems good, but we have heard evidence that suggests that further clarification is needed. As Katy Clark said, amendment 49 would simply remove the requirement on the court and would mean that the information “may” be provided. I have provided an alternative to that in amendment 53, which would give the sheriff the right to determine a period of time for the information to be provided.

I would like to say why I have lodged the amendments. The provision in section 1 states:

“Before determining whether to admit or refuse to admit the person accused or charged to bail, the sheriff or judge must also give an officer of a local authority an opportunity to provide (orally or in writing) information relevant to that determination.”

Our committee report refers to the evidence from Dr Hannah Graham of the University of Stirling, who rightly said:

“There are acute time pressures at the point of bail and remand decision making.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 January 2023; c 25.]

We can see that there is already a highly pressurised point in court proceedings, but there will now be this mandatory requirement. As Katy Clark said, in principle, the requirement seems good, because we would want all the information to be available to the sheriff. Of course, currently, if the sheriff wants that information, they can request it. The first issue that the committee raised concerns about was the resourcing of the provision. I realise that we have a new cabinet secretary, but the current cabinet secretary has probably seen the Official Report of the meeting at which the committee asked for clarification on resourcing.

More importantly, there is some confusion not as to why, but as to how. I will quote the Lord President:

“The prescriptive nature of what is proposed is likely to make submissions to the local sheriffs lengthier, increase the time taken to determine the issue of bail, result in some accused persons being detained unnecessarily while inquiries are carried out, produce more errors, increase the opportunities for appeals and add to the heavy burden on the sheriffs and the staff who are tasked with the management of what can be extremely busy custody courts.”

I am sure that the cabinet secretary can understand that that gives cause for concern on a number of fronts. The provision could potentially undermine the principle of the bill, if it was to result in unnecessarily long detentions in order to gain the information as described in the bill.

I put on the record that I had a meeting with the previous cabinet secretary’s officials, who said that those concerns were a misunderstanding of the provision. The follow-up that I received indicated that there was no suggestion that it should be cause for additional time to be taken to determine bail. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will share my concerns. Why did the Lord President, on behalf of the judiciary, think that? What went on between Scottish Government officials and the judiciary? I presume that they discussed how the provision was going to operate. That needs to be clarified.

At stage 3, when I come to vote on the bill, I want to make sure that we have achieved the objective of providing relevant information to the courts but that that does not result in lengthy delays and, if it is a mandatory provision, that we are able to resource it.

Let us face it: it is a complex area of law, especially for us legislators to get our heads round when we are not practitioners. [Interruption.] Yes, cabinet secretary, please intervene on me.

I re-emphasise Russell Findlay’s points. It is not clear what the blue-light collaboration means and whether it is practical. My major concern is the roll-out of body-worn cameras. We have talked to the Scottish Police Federation, and there is a need for body-worn cameras in the Scottish police force, but the length of time that it will take to roll them out is concerning. I am also concerned that it will be done division by division. That would indicate that one division will benefit from the roll-out straight away but another division will not benefit until the end of the programme.

That speaks to my concerns about the overall police budget. Police numbers, although not as bad as they could have been, have fallen to the levels that have been announced. I have a deep concern about where we have ended up on the overall police budget.

I thank Russell Findlay for bringing those cases to the attention of the committee.

Would you agree that the accounts that you have given seem to cross over into the area of how police officers are treated in the disciplinary process? You have outlined more than one thing. It is a cause of concern to me if it can be two years into an internal process before any allegation is made. I can understand how that would affect officers’ mental health. Is there another element to what you have outlined, which is that the internal processes of disciplinary action against police officers should not take two years?

But I am asking why—is that 93 per cent reduction a coincidence?

But the question that I am asking is: why is that, and are you confident that that trend will continue? What I was trying to get at in my first question was whether you have planned adequately for your policy position, which I fully support. If you are saying in your evidence to the committee, “We’ve got a good starting point, because the policy is resulting in vacancies,” I just want to be clear that that is the case.

Has it been a policy impact?

Good morning. I welcome the minister to her post. I think that I have already welcomed the cabinet secretary.

I totally and whole-heartedly agree with your statement. In the Parliament, I have raised horrible cases in which people took their own lives because they should have been in secure accommodation, so let us be clear that this is something that I support. However, I am concerned—and I wonder whether you will address my concern—about how the Government will achieve this. Do you have a plan?

Given the very strong statement that you made, how will you create the spaces and the funding to make it happen? Will there be a stepped approach—for example, this year, will you create so many additional places? I realise that you cannot do it in one go, but the only way that your statement can have any validity is if you can tell the committee that you have a plan to reach, albeit incrementally, the number of places that you would need.

This has been a controversial issue in Parliament for some time. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of how far back the issues and sensitivities go around who gets a secure place. It is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed by Government.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to get a clear answer to the question whether it is a policy change that has resulted in a reduction in custodial sentences and is the reason for our having 12 vacancies. Have I understood that correctly?