Chamber and committees

I endorse colleagues’ points about the value of the visit. I have to be honest and say that I did not know much about the Wise Group’s work before the visit, and I learned an awful lot, particularly about its throughcare provision.

I am interested in learning a little more about the wider reach of the Wise Group across Scotland. For instance, I am interested in what work it is doing or planning up here in the north-east. Obviously, we have HMP Grampian near my constituency. I would find it helpful to have a bit of background on that wider work.

I want to ask a quick follow-up question. I am happy to go back to Inga Heyman and ACC Hawkins. We know that, if officers use the provisions in section 297, they can take someone to a place of safety, and they are often turned away for lots of different reasons that we know about. That can be for very legitimate reasons. Essentially, they are left holding the baby. I know that you are working on that and that there is progress across Scotland on pathways. Bearing in mind the challenges of remote and rural areas, what should we be thinking about as the optimum pathway in local areas?

Good morning to the panel. I hope that you can see me—I have a wee bit of a problem with the light in my room. I would like to pick up on the current legislative provision in Scotland. I will come to Inga Heyman first on that.

Dr Heyman, I very much welcomed your comprehensive submission. You picked up on the challenges with the current legislative provision in Scotland, and the legislative barriers that exist. At present, one of the barriers appears to be the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. When officers come to assess an individual to decide whether they might wish to take them to a place of safety, the 2003 act allows them to take someone only from a “public place”, whereas we know that a lot of people are in their homes at the time.

Secondly, the wording of the 2003 act refers to a situation where a police officer

“suspects that a person ... has a mental disorder”.

We know that police officers are not trained to make such an assessment, and it would be inappropriate for us to expect them to be able to do so.

The main issue that officers currently face concerns situations in which individuals are in some distress. I am interested in what you feel that we, as a committee, should be thinking about with regard to making the legislative provision more appropriate, and more of a fit for the growing number of scenarios in which officers encounter someone who is in poor mental health. I will come to Inga Heyman first, and then bring in ACC John Hawkins.

I am pleased to open in the debate on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee, which is a secondary committee on the bill and has considered its justice provisions. At the outset, I thank the witnesses who took the time to give evidence on the bill. Their views have helped to shape the committee’s views on the proposals. I also thank the committee’s clerking team for its support in leading us through the stage 1 process and producing our stage 1 report.

The justice provisions in the bill can be divided into two types of measure: permanent and temporary. The permanent changes are those that were put in place during the pandemic and that the Scottish Government has decided are worthy of permanent retention. In general, those attracted limited comment and were fairly non-contentious. For example, the bill proposes the establishment of a permanent system whereby interim payments can be made to lawyers for legal aid work.

The temporary justice measures in the bill attracted more interest. The bill sets out what “temporary” means in practice. All the temporary justice measures will expire on 30 November 2023 unless an extension is agreed by statutory instrument. The temporary measures cannot be extended beyond 30 November 2025.

I will briefly highlight four of the temporary justice measures. First, the bill proposes to extend the current temporary measures that supported electronic court business—sometimes referred to as virtual courts or virtual trials—during the pandemic. The committee heard from some in the justice sector who see the advantages of virtual working; however, the committee heard other, more sceptical, views, including fundamental concerns about how that impacts on the solemnity of justice and practical concerns about digital exclusion. The committee’s view is that more virtual trials need to take place in the criminal courts before a properly informed view can be taken about making them permanent. In particular, we are concerned that only a limited number of virtual summary trials had gone ahead. In effect, there needs to be an expansion of the pilot so that more evidence can be gathered as to their effectiveness.

If the Scottish Government seeks to extend the temporary provisions beyond 2023, the committee would expect to see robust evidence to justify that. The committee notes in the Scottish Government’s response its intention to consult more broadly on virtual proceedings and on improving victims’ experiences in the justice system, such as with the use of virtual trials in summary proceedings.

A second temporary measure in the bill relates to fiscal fines. The bill will temporarily increase the maximum level of fiscal fine that is available to prosecutors from £300 to £500. A majority of the committee supported those temporary provisions. However, the committee’s view is

“that there should be more transparency and improved reporting on the use of fiscal fines”,

which, importantly,

“may help the victims understand the process.”

We would also question any moves

“to extend the fiscal fine provisions to include more types of crime.”

The committee notes the Scottish Government’s response, which highlights existing reporting on fiscal fines and the reassurance that is provided by the temporary nature of the measure.

The bill proposes a temporary relaxation of the statutory time limits that criminal proceedings are subject to. Some witnesses described those provisions as “a necessary evil”, given the need to ensure the delivery of justice. The committee’s view is that the further extension of time limits is concerning, and that there are good reasons for returning to normal time limits as soon as feasible. The committee seeks reassurance that the use of extended time limits will be monitored and used proportionately. The committee notes that, in its response, the Scottish Government agrees that

“the extended time limits ... should not become the ‘new normal’”.

Finally, there is also a temporary power in the bill to allow Scottish ministers to make regulations to release certain people from prisons and young offenders institutions early. Various safeguards around the use of that power are included in the bill. The committee’s view is that a balance must be stuck between the risks that are associated with the early release of prisoners and the risks that are associated with a Covid outbreak in prison. We consider that the power should be used only in the case of a significant deterioration in the Covid-19 position in Scotland and where a Covid outbreak cannot be managed through any measure other than reducing the prison population. The cabinet secretary has provided reassurance that he has no current plans to use the power. Any regulations on the early release of prisoners would be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny by the committee.

In the time that was available to it, the Criminal Justice Committee gave careful consideration to the justice provisions in the bill. If the bill passes at stage 1, we stand ready to consider those justice provisions line by line at stage 2.

Yesterday, two events drew my attention, both of which are relevant, in their own way, to this afternoon’s justice debate. The first was the Queen’s speech, which outlined the UK Government’s plans to cut crime. The second, which I attended—and this was perhaps the more pleasurable of the two—was the Scottish Prison Arts and Creative Enterprises event in the Scottish Parliament, which showcased the art and creative work of prisoners. The range of work that was displayed was inspiring and humbling, reflecting the fact that there is a rich body of creative talent in our prisons. I will return to those points.

The motion offers a list of non-contextualised random statements that extol the woes of violent crime, police numbers, underfunding, community sentencing, bail and release and “dangerous criminals”. The issue is serious, and I want to pick up on a couple of those points.

The motion refers to violent crime being

“at its highest level in a decade”.

As we have already heard, according to the Scottish crime and justice survey, crime in Scotland is down by 40 per cent since 2007 and is at one of the lowest levels since recording began.

I will come back to the member if I have time at the end of my speech.

Let us look at homicide. The Scottish Government national statistics publication on homicide records 55 homicides in Scotland in 2021, which is a decrease of 10 from the previous year and the lowest number since comparable data became available in 1976. By contrast, in England, 691 homicides were recorded in the same period, which is an increase of 14 per cent on the previous year.

On police funding, despite the cuts to its central budget from Westminster, Scotland has around 32 officers per 10,000 of the population compared with around 23 per 10,000 of the population in England and Wales. They are also better paid. In England, an officer’s starting salary is £21,500 compared with almost £27,000 in Scotland.

On police numbers, in the Queen’s speech, we heard all about the UK Government’s commitment to put 20,000 extra police on the streets. What was omitted was that the UK Government is simply replenishing the 22,000 officers that it cut in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019.

The motion refers to “bail and release”, and, as Pauline McNeill mentioned, only this morning, members of the Criminal Justice Committee visited the Wise Group and heard powerful testimony about the life-changing and life-saving throughcare work of mentors supporting people who are serving short-term sentences. We heard that

“people want to change, they just don’t know how”.

We also heard that

“mentors inspire to help others aspire”.

One customer, reflecting on his own childhood and pathway into prison, said:

“it was always going to happen”.

I express my thanks to Charlie Martin and all at the Wise Group for hosting the committee.

We should contrast that with the narrative in yesterday’s Queen’s speech about tagging burglars, robbers and thieves; putting rapists behind bars; and pinning criminals to the scene of their crime—hardly a contemporary 21st century approach; more “Life on Mars”. There was not a shred of a mention of prevention—something that Jamie Greene talked about—and there was no mention of Covid.

Not for one second should we downplay the challenges that the justice sector faces. I welcome the new vision for justice, which sets out our contemporary and wide-ranging strategy, which has trauma-informed and, more importantly, trauma-responsive approaches and the needs of victims at its heart. Given the election results across Scotland last Friday, it seems that the people of Scotland do, too.

I mentioned Scottish Prison Arts and Creative Enterprises, which provides therapeutic opportunities for prisoners. I draw on the words of Professor Fergus McNeill, who said:

“if imprisonment and release are to be crafted around ‘Unlocking Potential’ and ‘Transforming Lives’, then we need creativity to be at the heart of the process—reaching into prisons to support personal change, and reaching out of prisons to support social change.”

The Conservatives might call that soft justice. I call it doing the right thing.

Will the member take an intervention?

What has been the impact on the sector of the £2 million funding boost that was announced in March for services that provide mental health support for veterans?

I take Russell Findlay’s point in relation to my comments around rapists. My point was about the language that is used, not the context of it.

I thank all members from across the Parliament for their support for the motion, and I extend my thanks to the members who will speak today in support of international day of the midwife, which will take place tomorrow, on Thursday 5 May. I realise that members will want to get up the road quite quickly this evening. I acknowledge the support for preparing for today’s debate from Fiona Gibb of the Royal College of Midwives and Andrea Lawrie, a former colleague of mine at Robert Gordon University.

I want to celebrate the role that midwives play globally in the holistic health and wellbeing of mothers and babies; the outstanding care and professionalism that was shown by midwives during the Covid-19 pandemic; and the important role of education in supporting the global midwifery body in their practice and in providing holistic maternal healthcare.

The theme of this year’s international day of the midwife is 100 years of progress. The theme marks the centenary of the International Confederation of Midwives, which currently comprises 143 midwives associations, representing over 1 million midwives across 124 countries. European midwives first came together at international meetings in the 1900s. In 1920, they formed the International Midwives Union, which later became the International Confederation of Midwives.

The ICM works closely with the World Health Organization, the United Nations, the International Council of Nurses and other global healthcare and non-governmental organisations to advance midwifery globally and improve sexual and reproductive, maternal, newborn and child and adolescent health through the delivery of a range of projects, including supporting education and training, strengthening services and capacity building, and developing leadership and advocacy skills, particularly for young midwives.

The publication “The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland” sets out a vision for maternity and neonatal care that puts women, babies and families at the centre. The plan aims to support strong family relationships and to help reduce inequalities and deprivation, which can have longer-term health consequences for families.

Over the past two years, midwives have faced the extraordinary challenge of the Covid-19 pandemic. During a recent debate on perinatal mental health, I spoke about constituents who were worried for the mental wellbeing of their partner, sister or daughter who had just given birth or who was struggling with the choices that they faced as they awaited the birth of their new baby. Women have faced difficult decisions about the Covid-19 vaccine and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Black, Asian and minority ethnic women are at disproportionate risk of adverse outcomes from Covid-19, which is compounded during pregnancy.

There have been modifications to services such as home births. Sometimes, no birth partner has been present or women have attended scans or received devastating news alone, all of which profoundly impact on maternal mental health. The removal of choice and the prospect of giving birth alone significantly impact on holistic maternal health. Women in rural areas, who are already more likely to experience perinatal mental health problems, have faced particular challenges in accessing services. In that debate, I welcomed the minister’s response regarding the Scottish perinatal mental health pathways into care. In this week, which is also perinatal mental health week, I am delighted to acknowledge the new NHS Grampian community perinatal mental health team.

I turn to the wider global context. Although nearly 300,000 women die annually from preventable causes at or around childbirth, progress has been made to reduce preventable maternal deaths. According to the United Nations Population Fund, since the year 2000, the global maternal mortality ratio has fallen by 38 per cent, from 342 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the year 2000 to 210 in 2017. Many countries have halved their maternal death rates in the past 10 years. However, every death is a tragedy.

The United Nations report “The State of the World’s Midwifery 2021” highlights the positive impact of high-quality midwifery care on women and families and recognises midwives as core members of the sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn and adolescent health workforce. In the face of Covid-19 restrictions and overburdened health systems, midwives became and remain vital for meeting the sexual and reproductive health needs of women.

Of course, delivery of high-quality care relies on high-quality education and training. I commend all our educators for the crucial role that they play in developing and delivering high-quality contemporary education to undergraduates, those already in practice and those returning to practice.

Scotland has a long history of innovation in midwifery education, with Joseph Gibson appointed the world’s first chair of midwifery by Edinburgh Town Council in 1726. The textbook for midwives that was written in the 1950s by Margaret Myles, a one-time resident in Aberdeen, has become a globally recognised essential text, which is now in its 17th edition.

The school of nursing, midwifery and paramedic practice at Robert Gordon University in my constituency has a strong reputation for producing skilled and compassionate graduates. The university was the first in Scotland to receive the United Nations Children’s Fund baby-friendly initiative gold award. That was a recognition of the university’s world-class training and commitment to global best practice.

Although today’s debate is celebratory, it is right to acknowledge the challenges that the profession faces with workforce shortfalls and service transformation. The Scottish Government has been committed to addressing those and other challenges, and I look forward to perhaps hearing a bit more about that from the minister in her response.

I could not be prouder to stand today for midwives and their associations ahead of international day of the midwife, as they stand for the rights, dignity and health of women, newborns and families everywhere. I hope that this milestone will offer an opportunity to value how global midwifery has evolved over the past 100 years and to acknowledge the next 100 years and what we as members can do to ensure that midwives in Scotland and beyond receive the enabling environment and support that they deserve.