Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have read some of the testimonies. Given that mental health hubs are pretty few and far between across the land, most people will be taken to accident and emergency or hospital in the first instance if harm is involved. There are stories of nurses having to ask the police to restrain people so that they can medically intervene.

What is your view on the role of the police in that environment versus that of the medical professional, whose job is to administer medication by whatever means possible? At what point are you asked to act as security guards and physically restrain someone who has become a danger to themselves? Indeed, there are examples in the evidence that I have read of officers and others being assaulted. When does the line get crossed?

I have a basic question. Is it time for fundamental reform of how people access emergency services? That picks up on the point about 101 versus 999. I have gone through the experience of calling both numbers in the past month, and those experiences were vastly different from each other. The 999 call involved a medical emergency to which the police turned up because there was no ambulance, and the 101 call involved a police situation in which an ambulance that was not needed turned up—that was utterly bonkers.

Is it time for fundamental reform? Could we have a proper triage system that deals with non-urgent access to all emergency services and public services? Things could be properly triaged and filtered out to the appropriate public service, and that would be a 24/7 service, so there would be no need to fall back on the police. If so, who would need to lead the charge for that? Which minister in Government should we lobby for it, and—this is the most important question—which fund should resources for it come from?

I see that ACC Hawkins is smiling at me, so I will go to him first.

It is lovely to see you, too—it is always a pleasure.

We do not have a lot of time, unfortunately, so I will try to keep my questions brief and to get through as much as I can.

I want to ask a more fundamental question. People who are watching from the outside, and who might not have been as involved in this topic as we on the committee or you as head of the working group on the report have been, might wonder what we are trying to do. They might have reservations about where the legislation might end up, because the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was hugely controversial. How do we ensure that we, as legislators in a Parliament, are not passing law for law’s sake as a direct response to public mood or pressure on a live issue that could be dealt with in other ways, such as through education or enforcement of other pieces of legislation? How do you think that we could scrutinise the new legislation in detail in such a way that we cannot be accused either of not supporting the principle of dealing with misogyny or of being misogynistic ourselves?

It is also illegal already.

I suspect that the debate will centre on what is and is not in the legislation—what it does and does not cover—and, more importantly, on how the law will be applied and enforced. Parliaments pass laws every day, but those laws are not always up to scratch and are often open to challenge. We like to avoid that in advance of passing a law.

How has the proposed legislation been received by the key stakeholders that will be involved in its application, delivery and enforcement? For example, how have Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation—the police will have to deal with inquiries and complaints on the front line—the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Lord Advocate responded to the practicalities of the legislation? Have they raised any concerns with you?

In principle, you are saying that there are holes or gaps in the existing legislation, hence the need for new legislation. That is the fundamental argument in favour of new legislation.

Sorry—just to press on—

I appreciate that negative instruments are usually waived through nice and quickly, so I apologise for taking up time. However, I want to refer to the policy note that accompanies the instrument. In essence, the instrument is about changes to electronic monitoring and bail conditions. Under the policy objective section, it says that the instrument makes

“a technical change to ensure that the policy intention of having electronically monitored bail includes specific reference to ... two further ways in which a person on bail can have conditions varied.”

What are those “two further ways”? What variations would the change induce?

The policy note says that there has been extensive consultation with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but neither the consultation nor the SCTS’s response is contained in the note. It also says:

“Extensive impact assessments were undertaken”,

and that the change will have

“limited ... impact on the wider ... use of electronic monitoring of bail.”

How will we know whether that will be the case? The note does not quantify or, indeed, define the change.

I do not know how much of an issue the change is, which is part of the problem. I would have preferred the Government to have explained what the variations are and the resulting potential changes to bail. Ministers could have done that in person, although I appreciate that doing so would be unusual for an instrument subject to the negative procedure. However, they could have at least done that in writing. As a committee, we are none the wiser as to what we would be agreeing to, so I am uncomfortable with agreeing to the instrument for that reason.

I appreciate that annulment is the only option that is available to us. However, I want to put on record that I do not think that it is suitable to simply provide a one-page policy note that does not explain what we are being asked to agree to. I am sorry, but that sets a bad precedent.

Good morning.

Given that the bill is not imminent and the Parliament has had a short debate on HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s comments about where people are sent to, I would find it helpful to understand the Government’s position on where people go and under what circumstances. There is a little bit of confusion as to whether, as a matter of principle, or as a blanket position, no one under 18 would ever be sent to HMP Polmont, for example, or whether there are circumstances when it would be an appropriate place for them to go to. If the Government is simply ruling that out, we need to know what its plan would be. It begs the question as to who goes to which institution under what circumstances and for how long.

I know that legislation is coming down the line, but, given that this is a live discussion, it would be helpful if the Government set out its current position, because people are sentenced frequently. If that identifies that there is a gap in, for example, secure care accommodation—that is why people are being sent to Polmont—the committee can press the Government to take action on the issue more quickly.

I do not think that it is appropriate to wait for the bill, as we are currently implying that we will do, to see what the Government is proposing. It would be helpful to understand where the Government sits in response to the comments that the wider public have made around the issue. We have pressed the issue in the chamber, but I feel that it is not quite clear exactly where the Government sits at the moment in terms of the suitability of certain places for certain crimes and people.