Chamber and committees

Our next item is consideration of the timetable for the implementation of the various provisions in the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022. As members will recall, we were the lead committee for scrutiny of the bill, and the Scottish Government undertook to keep us updated on the implementation of its various provisions.

I refer members to paper 3 and invite their views, questions or comments on the update that has been provided.

Perhaps I will come in at that point.

Our first and main item of business is to consider the criminal justice issues raised in the Scottish Mental Health Law Review. As members will recall, the Scottish Government established the review to examine existing Scots law, with a view to improving the rights and protections of people who might be subject to mental health, incapacity or adult protection legislation by virtue of having a mental disorder.

We are joined by Professor Colin McKay. Professor McKay, who is based at the centre for mental health and capacity law at Edinburgh Napier University, was a member of the Scottish Mental Health Law Review team. Welcome.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow around 45 minutes for this session. I invite Professor McKay to make some brief opening remarks.

That has brought us nice and neatly to our 45 minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Professor McKay, for attending today’s meeting. Members might have some follow-up questions, and we will write to you with them.

Thank you, Professor McKay. That has been a very helpful overview.

We move straight to questions. I will kick things off with a question about section 297 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which deals with an issue that I have been interested in for a number of years. That makes provision for an officer to take a person from a public place to a “place of safety”. The review highlights that much police time is spent dealing with such issues. You referred to the fact that, in May last year, the committee took evidence on that issue. You will know that many people who are in distress are in their homes and therefore in a private place.

The review report outlines a range of issues. That includes noting that the police are not best placed to respond to those situations and that the provisions of the 2003 act are being used to respond to people who are in distress, rather than those who are experiencing acute mental illness, as section 297 of the act refers to.

We note that your review makes some recommendations about that. One recommendation in the report is that the Scottish Government should

“work with health and care agencies to develop alternative places of safety for people who are in distress and at risk”,

and might not necessarily need psychiatric care.

Another recommendation is that the Government should

“review whether the place of safety powers should extend beyond suspected mental or intellectual disability to other people who may be at serious risk.”

That is a rather long-winded introduction to asking you to outline a little more about the review’s work on that particular part of the 2003 act.

We will come back to what those alternative options and places of safety could look like. I am conscious of the time, so I will bring in other members now and hand straight over to Russell Findlay.

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies, and Katy Clark joins us online.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take in private agenda item 4, which is consideration of the evidence that we will take under item 2. Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Fulton MacGregor, do you have a follow-up question?

I welcome the crime statistics that were released this week, which show a fall in the number of crimes recorded by police last year. The Scottish Government’s vision for justice aims to shift the balance from short-term sentences to community-based interventions, which we know are more effective in reducing reoffending. How will the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill help to reduce reoffending, crime and future victimisation?

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing this debate to the chamber. It offers us a real opportunity to discuss an issue that we should be debating a lot more: our national security. I want to reflect on what the Chinese balloon incident means for us all going about our daily lives and enjoying the freedom of living in a democracy.

There has been much commentary about that recent incident in the context of the wider threat that is posed to the west by China. Last summer, General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that China is

“increasing in their aggressiveness in their rhetoric, but also in their activity”,

noting that Chinese intercepts in the air and at sea have increased drastically over the past five years. Further, John Bolton, former US security adviser, recently described China as

“the existential threat in the 21st century”.

Other observers acknowledge that surveillance in the 21st century is an expected and everyday part of international relations. A recent commentary piece by the Royal United Services Institute described the event itself as

“neither new nor particularly notable”,

although it accepted that the balloon

“stayed in the country’s airspace for a longer period of time than its predecessors.”

Scotland is a safe place to live in, but the United Kingdom is not immune from the threat that is posed by bad actors. Many of us will recall the tragic terrorist murders of Jo Cox MP and David Amess MP, and the radicalisation of British citizens and their recruitment to Daesh during the Syrian conflict.

The current threat level for the UK is “substantial”, which means that an attack is likely. In his recent annual threat update, the director general of the Security Service, Ken McCallum, reiterated that

“No-one should be under any illusion about the breadth and variety of the threats we face”.

He said that those threats include

“Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine bringing war to Europe”

and

“an increasingly assertive Chinese Communist Party using overt and covert pressure to bend other countries to its will.”

He described how the

“Chinese authorities use all the means at their disposal to monitor ... and ... intimidate ... the Chinese diaspora”,

“from ... forcibly repatriating Chinese nationals to harassment and assault.”

Recent media coverage has focused on so-called overseas Chinese police stations, including one that was reported in Glasgow—a matter that Ross Greer raised with the First Minister late last year. I also note Alex Cole-Hamilton’s comments on his interaction with local students on their experiences.

The reach of the Chinese state also extends to using organisations such as the United Front Work Department to apply pressure on anyone who challenges the regime’s core interests, whether on democracy or human rights abuses. According to the director general,

“We can expect it to increase further as President Xi consolidates power on an indefinite basis.”

I welcome the establishment of the UK Government’s defending democracy task force, which will focus on protecting the democratic integrity of the UK from threats from foreign interference, including that of China. I ask the minister to provide an update on the task force’s engagement with the Scottish Government on its work.

In the meantime, I value and cherish the fact that we live in a nation in which police officers are not routinely armed; in which we can walk around our communities safely; and in which we can speak freely on the things that matter to us. We will not and must not be complacent as we maintain our focus on China’s growing sphere of influence in a volatile international environment, while defending our freedom and democracy.

I again thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing forward an important motion for debate today.