Chamber and committees

I saw amendment 1 as a probing amendment, and I imagined all the arguments against it. I acknowledge that we would not necessarily want to put it in the bill, and I can see the problems with doing that.

However, I have to confess that the term “running costs” alarms me. The minister is still asking the committee and the Parliament to vote for a bill when we do not know what those running costs will be. The minister does not know what the consultation will bring up. I wonder what ministers would do if the running costs turned out to mean that the fee would be set at £30 or £35, which would be between £20 and the upper limit of £50. Have you thought about that, minister? Where would that leave us?

I would not want to stand in the way of the Government running a consultation, but it concerns me that I would have to act in good faith, because we will not know the result until after we have passed the bill and the Government has run the consultation. What if the running costs of the scheme meant that the fee would be higher than £25? I cannot imagine that ministers would be happy with that. Would you then take the view that you might have to run the scheme at a loss? I would be grateful if you would answer that question, minister.

I endorse what you have said. The visit was fascinating, and I learned a great deal from it. I wrote to the convener, Audrey Nicoll, with three points that came out of the group discussion, which I think the committee should consider further. I can remember two of them. One was about prescriptions not being available on a prisoner’s release. For people who need drugs immediately, that almost puts them back in jail, because they cannot get the drugs on time.

The second point related to Friday release, which has always been an issue. Why can we not do something to ensure that people have the services that they need? We could explore whether there is another way round that issue.

I might need someone to remind me what the third issue was. Oh, I remember what it was. It related to eligibility for work.

It seems that there are commonsense things that we could do to address those issues. We should write to the minister about them to see whether there is a way forward.

Are there any gaps that need to be plugged that will not be addressed by the Online Safety Bill? Some social media companies such as TikTok, which is a big one for younger kids, are meant to have age restrictions, but I am fully aware that it is much harder to catch that when there is live streaming and ways that people can be ingenious around that. As a layperson, it strikes me that those companies are not doing enough, so do we need more laws? I appreciate that TikTok is not a UK-based company, so there would need to be international collaboration.

I have two questions. I want to explore what I have just heard about police officers being the first responders and, in effect, the last resort. What is the answer to that? I also want to ask about the resource impact.

The testimony that the federation has submitted to the committee is very useful but very difficult to read. It amplifies what we have perhaps always known, which is that the police service is the only service that cannot walk away. As a politician, I do not think that that is recognised enough and, however we have arrived at holding this round-table session, it is a crucial issue.

On the part of Professor Heyman’s submission about section 297 of the 2003 act, I do not understand why the police would even be involved when there has been no self-harm and no offence has been committed. Of course, I understand that police officers need to step in if there is harm involved. We have heard from David Hamilton about the long wait times for people to be seen by healthcare staff. It seems as though every other service can say, “We can’t take you,” but the police cannot. It is fundamental that we resolve that.

ACC Hawkins has suggested that multi-agency discussion seems likely, but we have heard that 101 services are now almost exclusively operated by the police. Is such discussion going to lead anywhere? From what I have heard, we need to make specific provision for the police not to always be the service of last resort. I do not know enough about mental health services to know what duties need to be imposed on them. Why should mental health services be able to walk away from a person who is at risk, yet the police cannot?

My question is for ACC Hawkins in the first instance. Do you not feel that, even if there is multi-agency discussion, the police will still be left as the last resort and we will get no further forward?

Would it not make sense for another service to pick that up?

Good morning. I want to explore any gaps that there might be in the law and what lies at the root of all this. I have to say that I found your submission quite shocking; the issue is shocking anyway, although it is perhaps not surprising or shocking to see the extent to which girls and females are the victims and men tend to be the perpetrators. That said, I was surprised to learn in your submission that the amount of

“self-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material”

has gone

“up 374% in the last two years, ... disproportionately affecting ... girls.”

We are talking about imagery that is produced on webcams by children themselves, but adults are taking advantage of it, and the child is still the victim. Can you attempt to give us any insight into why such a rise has happened over the past two years? What do you think is driving children to do this?

I do not know whether this is for you to answer, Professor Heyman, but you say in your submission:

“If no offence has been committed and there is not at immediate risk of life, police may not legally remove them from their home for assessment or safeguarding—from a Place of Safety”.

Can you tell me why the police are involved in cases like that?

That is the obvious thing to have, is it not?

I want to ask about resource implications, and I will put the question to David Hamilton. Rona Mackay asked about the distress to officers, and I will quote one of the statements that is made in the SPF’s submission:

“I have seen my hands shaking on my way into some nightshifts knowing I may only have 1 or 2 cars available, just that added stress of increased call volume and low staffing levels is shocking.”

Further on, there are comments from other officers about not being able to get leave, which impacts on the service. As we know, if we lose a lot of police officers under the McCloud judgment, we will be left with a lot of less experienced officers. That would have a huge impact on the mental health of officers, who are having to deal with other individuals who are experiencing mental health issues. Is resourcing for mental health a big issue in the police service?

I want to say in public what I have said in private: the work that you have done is tremendous and I thank you for it.

I am on record as voting for sex to be an aggravator in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. I felt strongly that that was missing from the legislation. However, I think that the rationale for not doing that seems to make sense. What problems do you think that we, as legislators, might come up against when we have to define something that is not already defined? The simple part of it is that sex is defined in the Equality Act 2010, whereas we will have to look at the idea of misogyny in some detail.

The working group’s definition of misogyny includes

“male entitlement, while subordinating women”,

and it is important that you talk about male power. To me, that is central to everything that the committee is doing, not only on this legislation but as it looks at the range of things that the Parliament should do. I know that you agree.

Do you have any concerns about how we go about defining? We obviously have to define misogyny and I presume that we also have to define ideas such as the subordination of women. We have an ordinary understanding of what that means, but we know that, when it comes to legislation, things may not be as simple as they first appear to be. Do you want to say anything about that to the committee? We will be dealing with it further down the line.