Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would be grateful if we could get Neil Rennick’s input on this. I think—you will know this better than I do, convener—that the police are now being asked to do much more than they were in the past. For example, we ask them to log whether a person who is admitted to custody is an armed forces veteran, and we ask them to be much more aware of addiction issues and mental health issues, which are not always obvious to people who are not trained in such things. We ask a lot of our prison officers and police officers. As we would all acknowledge, we have to do more in this respect. The same is true across society.

There are interventions such as the navigator programme, which members might not be aware of. Essentially, navigators go into custody cells in police stations and can talk to the person in question, provide support and look into their issues without prejudicing on-going legal proceedings or their custody situation.

I cannot remember its name, but there is a group that I recently met that works with the police in Edinburgh that includes police officers and people who have served time in prison and have had issues with addiction, for example. They do a lot of diversionary work, but they talk to people in the custody system, too. Generally, we realise that there is more that we can do, but we should acknowledge how much more police and prison officers are already doing.

Underlying all that—this brings us back to Pauline McNeill’s question about the fundamental change that is needed—is that at the start of the process there is what might be called triaging. First of all, as I keep emphasising, we need a solution that keeps society safe. There might well be an element of punishment in sentencing, but beyond that, the question is this: what is the best solution for society? When someone has addiction issues, do we deal with their addiction to ensure that criminal activity does not continue afterwards? What is the best way of dealing with someone who has mental health issues? It will be no revelation to the committee if I say that we recognise that there is much more to do on the matter. Perhaps Neil Rennick has something to add.

Yes, we will do that, convener, although we have to recognise the huge constraints on the Scottish Government’s budget, which Ms Clark raised earlier, and the austerity budgets that we have to live under just now. That sometimes means that we have to be quite innovative about how we get additional funding. Cashback for communities was one of the ways in which the programme in Lothian that I mentioned before is funded.

We have to continue to consider that and other streams of funding, too. There is no question but that we do not have the human resources to deal with everything in the public sector, and the third sector is an extremely important ally in relation to that as well.

It would be useful to have one of the officials come in on the equipment, which I am unable to name, and whether that would help the situation. I cannot give a commitment to reinstating that policy, because there may be human rights implications. I imagine that there probably would be, but in the spirit of consensus, I am willing to consider Russell Findlay’s suggestion.

I know that these proceedings will be watched or, if not, the Official Report will be read afterwards by the Scottish Prison Service. I would imagine that that suggestion is something that has occurred to the SPS, but if it has not, should we not consider the possibilities? In the spirit of a positive suggestion being made, I am very grateful for that and we will treat it seriously. It may be that we cannot do it for the reasons that I mentioned, but we will certainly consider it.

As you suggest, I will let Graham Thomson answer part of that. We have agreed to the thrust of what is proposed, but the bit that we have a concern about is the code of conduct that will be used in relation to the extraction of data from devices. We should see that before we agree to it. We have seen a draft version, as has the Northern Ireland Executive, but we want to see the final version before proceeding and giving our consent. I think that that is the situation.

The first and usual caveat has to be, as Neil Rennick has said, that the courts and prosecution authorities decide on that; we do not. People get very nervous when politicians try to tell the courts what to do—other than through legislation, as we are entitled to do.

I am happy to look at that particular case and come back to Fulton MacGregor.

One problem during the pandemic—I do not know whether it relates to that case—was that cases that involved more than one person were substantially delayed because of the Covid implications of getting numbers of accused into one room. Even if the court system gave priority to certain types of case, that was sometimes limited. The situation is better now than it was, because we have more capacity. However, it may account for what has happened. In any event, I am happy to come back to Fulton MacGregor on that individual case if I have not already done so or if there is anything that I can add in the light of his questions.

I will let Neil Rennick answer that, but it is worth pointing out first that, to have carried on with some of the disposals would have been a Covid threat. I reiterate the point that the decisions that were made—not solely by me, although I imagine that I voted for them, as perhaps we all did—were made in the knowledge that we were trying to balance the different risks.

I do not know whether Neil Rennick wants to answer the specific question, although I imagine that the answer is no.

I would be happy to hear from that individual about those issues. It would be useful to get that information.

I think that we do not have information on that because, perhaps surprisingly, the funding comes from the equalities portfolio. I think that the £5 million that was to be allocated in the first 100 days has been allocated. Obviously, justice has an interest in the issue, but the allocation was handled by equalities ministers.

It is very good that we have the scheme, which, for those who might not be aware, gives victims of crime and, in certain circumstances, their close relatives greater rights to information about the status of an offender. We have legislated to make more victims eligible. In 2014, we extended the criteria to include victims of those serving more than 18 months’ imprisonment instead of only victims of those with prison sentences of four years or more. In 2015, we extended the criteria further to allow certain information to be given to victims of offenders who are sentenced to less than 18 months in prison.

In relation to the numbers, we have agreed that we will bring together all the relevant partners to review the victim notification scheme and to determine whether further improvements can be made. That move—alongside the previous measures that were taken to introduce and expand the scheme, our commitment to establishing a victims commissioner and some of the other comments that I have made—shows that we very much have the interests of victims at heart. Of course, it is always for the victims and their relatives to decide whether they participate in the scheme.

Yes, although, as I said, the former Lord Advocate expressed concerns because of the interrelationship with his functions. However, if the code of conduct is sufficient—we have had an assurance about that from the UK Government, and it will come back to us in future—and if the final version reflects what is in the draft, it should not be an issue for us.