Chamber and committees

Similarly to Katy Clark, I would like to tease out the issues on the subject. On the face of it, the provision seems good, but we have heard evidence that suggests that further clarification is needed. As Katy Clark said, amendment 49 would simply remove the requirement on the court and would mean that the information “may” be provided. I have provided an alternative to that in amendment 53, which would give the sheriff the right to determine a period of time for the information to be provided.

I would like to say why I have lodged the amendments. The provision in section 1 states:

“Before determining whether to admit or refuse to admit the person accused or charged to bail, the sheriff or judge must also give an officer of a local authority an opportunity to provide (orally or in writing) information relevant to that determination.”

Our committee report refers to the evidence from Dr Hannah Graham of the University of Stirling, who rightly said:

“There are acute time pressures at the point of bail and remand decision making.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 January 2023; c 25.]

We can see that there is already a highly pressurised point in court proceedings, but there will now be this mandatory requirement. As Katy Clark said, in principle, the requirement seems good, because we would want all the information to be available to the sheriff. Of course, currently, if the sheriff wants that information, they can request it. The first issue that the committee raised concerns about was the resourcing of the provision. I realise that we have a new cabinet secretary, but the current cabinet secretary has probably seen the Official Report of the meeting at which the committee asked for clarification on resourcing.

More importantly, there is some confusion not as to why, but as to how. I will quote the Lord President:

“The prescriptive nature of what is proposed is likely to make submissions to the local sheriffs lengthier, increase the time taken to determine the issue of bail, result in some accused persons being detained unnecessarily while inquiries are carried out, produce more errors, increase the opportunities for appeals and add to the heavy burden on the sheriffs and the staff who are tasked with the management of what can be extremely busy custody courts.”

I am sure that the cabinet secretary can understand that that gives cause for concern on a number of fronts. The provision could potentially undermine the principle of the bill, if it was to result in unnecessarily long detentions in order to gain the information as described in the bill.

I put on the record that I had a meeting with the previous cabinet secretary’s officials, who said that those concerns were a misunderstanding of the provision. The follow-up that I received indicated that there was no suggestion that it should be cause for additional time to be taken to determine bail. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will share my concerns. Why did the Lord President, on behalf of the judiciary, think that? What went on between Scottish Government officials and the judiciary? I presume that they discussed how the provision was going to operate. That needs to be clarified.

At stage 3, when I come to vote on the bill, I want to make sure that we have achieved the objective of providing relevant information to the courts but that that does not result in lengthy delays and, if it is a mandatory provision, that we are able to resource it.

Let us face it: it is a complex area of law, especially for us legislators to get our heads round when we are not practitioners. [Interruption.] Yes, cabinet secretary, please intervene on me.

I re-emphasise Russell Findlay’s points. It is not clear what the blue-light collaboration means and whether it is practical. My major concern is the roll-out of body-worn cameras. We have talked to the Scottish Police Federation, and there is a need for body-worn cameras in the Scottish police force, but the length of time that it will take to roll them out is concerning. I am also concerned that it will be done division by division. That would indicate that one division will benefit from the roll-out straight away but another division will not benefit until the end of the programme.

That speaks to my concerns about the overall police budget. Police numbers, although not as bad as they could have been, have fallen to the levels that have been announced. I have a deep concern about where we have ended up on the overall police budget.

I thank Russell Findlay for bringing those cases to the attention of the committee.

Would you agree that the accounts that you have given seem to cross over into the area of how police officers are treated in the disciplinary process? You have outlined more than one thing. It is a cause of concern to me if it can be two years into an internal process before any allegation is made. I can understand how that would affect officers’ mental health. Is there another element to what you have outlined, which is that the internal processes of disciplinary action against police officers should not take two years?

But I am asking why—is that 93 per cent reduction a coincidence?

But the question that I am asking is: why is that, and are you confident that that trend will continue? What I was trying to get at in my first question was whether you have planned adequately for your policy position, which I fully support. If you are saying in your evidence to the committee, “We’ve got a good starting point, because the policy is resulting in vacancies,” I just want to be clear that that is the case.

Has it been a policy impact?

Good morning. I welcome the minister to her post. I think that I have already welcomed the cabinet secretary.

I totally and whole-heartedly agree with your statement. In the Parliament, I have raised horrible cases in which people took their own lives because they should have been in secure accommodation, so let us be clear that this is something that I support. However, I am concerned—and I wonder whether you will address my concern—about how the Government will achieve this. Do you have a plan?

Given the very strong statement that you made, how will you create the spaces and the funding to make it happen? Will there be a stepped approach—for example, this year, will you create so many additional places? I realise that you cannot do it in one go, but the only way that your statement can have any validity is if you can tell the committee that you have a plan to reach, albeit incrementally, the number of places that you would need.

This has been a controversial issue in Parliament for some time. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of how far back the issues and sensitivities go around who gets a secure place. It is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed by Government.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to get a clear answer to the question whether it is a policy change that has resulted in a reduction in custodial sentences and is the reason for our having 12 vacancies. Have I understood that correctly?

I just want to be clear about this. What you are both saying is that, with regard to the number of under-18s in young offenders institutions, there are about 12 vacancies. That has not really been the case before; indeed, I know for certain that William Lindsay or Brown did not go to secure accommodation, because there was no place for him, and he took his own life in Polmont—on remand, I have to add. I also want to ask you whether remand is included in all of this, too. Is it your position that it is the reduction—the policy change, if you like—that has resulted in the vacancies? I just want to be clear about why the vacancies exist.