Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 15 March 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 724 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Policing and Mental Health

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

It sounds to me as though this is part of the equation. You have taken the person to hospital, presumably because you think that that is the environment in which they will be safest and is the appropriate place to go to. I understand that an officer is accountable to, and will take their orders from, the superior officer—the supervisors, as you described.

However, I am thinking about what happens if a qualified clinician says, “You’ve brought the person here; it’s now safe.” How do we get to a place whereby officers, including supervisors—it sounds like they might be the key players here, from what you have said—are confident enough to say that they, or the officers on the ground, have been told by an appropriately qualified medical professional, “You can go now—you’ve brought them to the right place”? I can understand that the human instinct, in any profession, is to say, “I’ve got to cover my back here”. What needs to be done to get to that place? It sounds as though you are saying that some of the issues are at the operational end of Police Scotland.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Policing and Mental Health

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

I want to pick up on an area that I explored with the other witnesses, which you have touched on already. It is the bottleneck whereby officers will take someone into a hospital environment—more often than not, A and E—and then feel that they have to wait there with them for a long period of time. David Threadgold talked about the issue sometimes coming down to a superior officer not enabling officers on the ground to leave. You touched on that, ACC Paton—by the way, is your name pronounced Pay-ton or Pah-ton?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Policing and Mental Health

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

That is what I thought. You said that officers and staff should have the confidence and be empowered to leave a person in a hospital or a place in which they are comfortable. We heard directly from Dr Steel—I do not know how frequent an occurrence this is—that there are circumstances in which a qualified clinician will literally say to officers, “You can go now. You have brought this person to this place, and it’s safe to leave.” Yet, for some reason, they will not do that.

If officers have taken a person to hospital, they presumably think—or, at least, they thought in the first instance—that it is an appropriate place to leave them in the care of someone with professional expertise. That begets the question, at what stage should the officer think, “Well, that’s enough for me. I feel confident, now, that this person who understands mental health challenges better than I do is saying that I can go”? Why does the officer not leave at that point? Why are they not thinking, “This is the juncture at which I can leave”?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Policing and Mental Health

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

That speaks to human instinct. I think that it is an understandable human instinct. However, we are hearing about challenges that mean that officers are not able to be diverted to other forms of activity that we would expect them to be doing. I suppose the question is how we get them to move beyond what would be an understandable human instinct—I know that it is hard—and say, “Right. I’ve got a job to do, so I now need to trust this person who has told me I can leave,” so they can then do so.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

I suppose that we have to be a little cautious when we are talking about removing offences, which is what we are literally doing in this process. People out there might suddenly think that those offences will not exist any more, but, as you say, they will clearly still exist in law and have legal effect. No fixed-penalty notices have been issued, but are we aware of whether people are still being charged under those offences?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

Sorry, I mean outwith the fixed-penalty notice scheme.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

I understand that—that was the basis of my question. Are we aware whether people are still being charged under those offences?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

That would be helpful, as it would give us wider context about the utility of those offences in general.

I will pick up on Pauline McNeill’s point and the point that Robert made about officials continually keeping these things under review, as we would expect. I would like to understand a wee bit more about the work that is being taken forward in that regard. I presume that the process of adding or removing offences for which fixed-penalty notices could be issued is as straightforward as the process that we are going through right now—it would just be another affirmative instrument.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Policing and Mental Health

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

Okay. Please carry on.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Policing and Mental Health

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Hepburn

Okay. That is helpful.