Chamber and committees

The safe treatment of mental health issues of all those in custody, whether in Polmont or elsewhere, is a key priority for Scotland’s prisons and our Prison Service. We take the mental health of all those in custody very seriously. The SPS is developing a new health and wellbeing strategy for the service that recognises the increasing complexities and the underlying health conditions of the prison population in comparison to the wider population. The strategy will focus on a public health approach through the organised efforts of the SPS in partnership with those who have responsibilities for the delivery of healthcare in prisons.

The new health and wellbeing strategy will provide the overarching framework for all health-related strategies, which includes mental health. We are also undertaking a substantial study in relation to the complexity of needs in the area. We will produce a report on that next year, which will inform the strategy that I have mentioned.

My previous answer acknowledged the urgent need with regard to both the situation before Covid-19 and how it has been exacerbated since. It is true that we have to consider matters such as the people who are held on remand because the court is not certain that they will be available or that they will come to a subsequent hearing.

Colin Smyth is right that we have to increase the pace of cases going through the courts. We have done that through remote jury courts and through the substantial expansion of sheriff courts this month. The fact that we are taking legislation through in the first year of the session shows the urgency with which the Government is treating that issue.

Again, I point out that there are different views on the issue. People in the legal profession in particular, but not uniquely, favour the solution that John Mason has mentioned. Those verdicts are considered ones that juries would understand, as is the case with guilty and not guilty.

We also recognise that a distinction between proven and not proven might be too lawyerly and not quite as obvious to the general public, and that it could perpetuate the stigma and confusion that some people believe the system currently produces. It is right that we consider that as part of the consultation.

We believe that every eligible child victim or witness has the right to consistent and holistic support that enables them to have their voice heard, to access specialist services and to recover from their experiences. We have an unashamedly bold aspiration to create our own bairns’ hooses in Scotland. That commitment is obvious in our programme for government, which says that

“all children in Scotland who have been victims or witnesses of abuse or violence, as well as children under the ... age of criminal responsibility whose behaviour has caused ... harm, will have access to a ‘Bairns’ Hoose’ by 2025”.

Yesterday, we published “Bairns’ Hoose—Scottish Barnahaus: vision, values and approach”, which sets out in broad terms our vision of how the barnahus model should be implemented in Scotland, the values that should underpin the model and our approach to its practical implementation.

Our next steps are to establish a national governance group to oversee delivery of the bairns’ hoose model in Scotland, to bring forward standards for the bairns’ hoose and to develop an approach that will build on the momentum of the new Scottish child interview model for joint investigative interviews, which will be introduced nationally over the next three years. Further plans on that will be published at the end of this year.

I agree with the thrust of what Pauline McNeill says. I cannot answer that in advance of knowing the recommendations, but it is a serious issue and we will look at it seriously. Of course, Parliament and the member will have the chance to question us on that. We take very seriously anything that might improve the situation for prisoners in that area.

The two examples given by Mr Findlay are not comparable at all—we are not at that stage. It is not open to me to comment on any potential further cases. However, it can be assumed by the approach being taken by the Scottish Government in relation to the other case that the member mentioned, that we do not want to see the police budget impacted. We want to safeguard resource budget for the police. The Government is not involved in or informed about potential actions in those areas, so I do not want to say more than that at this stage.

I have already mentioned the fact that we have spent extra money on the police throughout the past 10 years, when public finances have been extremely squeezed. I think that everyone, especially Daniel Johnson, will acknowledge that fact.

We have maintained capital funding, which Daniel Johnson mentioned. As well as giving capital allocations to the police when they were requested—and none was challenged by any other party in the chamber—we have given additional capital funding for specific purposes, such as body-worn cameras, which I have mentioned.

We remain alive to requests from the police, but it is all one pot of public money, notwithstanding the difference between resource and capital, and we have to make choices. We have chosen to have a higher number of police officers, to pay our police officers better and to provide the equipment that I have mentioned. There is always debate about that, and perhaps Daniel Johnson has a different view on how the funds should be disbursed. I accept that, but we stand by the allocation of resources that we have made to the police and we will try to maintain that throughout this session of Parliament.

I point out that the HMICS independent assurance review did not examine the circumstances of this incident, but instead provided wider independent assurance of the operation, systems and processes in place in police contact, command and control—C3—facilities across Scotland.

I mentioned that 30 key recommendations were made in 2018 and HMICS has provided an update on the progress that has been made; that progress was not left to Police Scotland or the SPA but was inspected by HMICS. It made further recommendations and has confirmed that all eight of those recommendations have now been closed.

Those who have taken the time to read the inspectorate’s recommendations will know that they are not soft recommendations—they are very serious and have been delivered by people who are experts in the area. HMICS notes that

“considerable priority and effort has been applied to ensure that progress has been made”

and that

“the management and staff of C3 Division have continued to be strongly committed”.

HMICS also points out that

“Police Scotland now has a single national command and control system in place which allows oversight of all incidents across Scotland from any of the three Area Control Rooms or Service Overview functions providing resilience and more effective management of national incidents, as well as providing a complete picture of activity.”

I mentioned the information communication technology legacy systems. Substantial work has been undertaken to further stabilise the ICT infrastructure and systems and provide an effective medium-term environment. I am grateful to the inspectorate for its work, which gives us confidence that, as far as conceivably possible, we will drive down the risk that something similar could happen again.

I mentioned that in response to Collette Stevenson’s question. Yes, there have been substantial upgrades, because that has been a huge problem. I say candidly that that is not true across all the IT systems that the police rely on. Those systems require substantial investment and anybody who has been involved in public or private sector procurement of IT systems for very large organisations knows how complex it can be.

However, in relation to that particular area of work, I am confident that the work is being taken forward. That confidence does not derive only from an assurance from the police—serious though that would be—but the assurances that we have received from the SPA, who this month will hold another public session on the matter, and from the inspectorate, as I have mentioned previously. That provides a very strong level of reassurance.

I suppose that Jamie Greene highlights the difference between opposition and government. Of course, the Opposition can demand those things, but the Government has a responsibility to take on board the views of stakeholders and to ensure that, should legislation follow from that process, it is sustainable and well founded. It is right that we take on the views of the legal profession; indeed, many of the people on the member’s own back benches and across the chamber have reservations about the abolition of the verdict as well, and it is right that we hear those views. That is the sensible way in which to proceed.