Chamber and committees

I would just like to clarify that what I understand to be the case is, in fact, the case. This picks up on some of the concerns that have been expressed to us, in relation to which Rona Mackay sought reassurance.

I think that I am correct in understanding that the aggravator relates to the motivation rather than the victim’s protected characteristics per se, although I recognise that, in almost every case, there will probably be a correlation between the two. In your letter to the committee, you cite the example of a crime that has been committed against a member of the Sikh religion, but the crime was motivated by Islamophobia. Are you able to confirm that it is what has motivated the individual, rather than the characteristic of the victim per se, that the aggravation depends on? There will almost always be a correlation between the two, but that will not necessarily be the case.

10:45

:On a related point, could there be more than one aggravating factor from across a range of protected characteristics?

:That is helpful.

:It seems that everyone supports the SSI so I will not labour the point and take up too much time.

It strikes me that we should not overcomplicate the process. The SSI looks to be an eminently sensible measure. The 2021 act always left open the possibility that an SSI of this nature could be introduced. We recognise that, if we could go back, we might have done it differently and included misogyny in primary legislation at that time but we did not. The Parliament should now ensure that we fill that gap. I am satisfied that adding the category of sex does not restrict or impede charging or, ultimately, prosecuting an individual. It does not disadvantage any other group specified so far.

I hear the disappointment that colleagues express about the misogyny bill not having been introduced. They are perfectly entitled to be disappointed about that and I understand why there is disappointment but that does not strike me as an argument against agreeing to the SSI. We should agree to the motion.

We understand that there will be circumstances, maybe when violence or criminal activity has been involved, in which it is appropriate for the police to be there. Part of the process is to understand whether the person could be charged and how the police would have to deal with it.

There are cases that I have been told about in which there was no suggestion that there had been any criminal activity—it is just that a person was in severe distress and might have posed a danger to themselves. Those are the situations that we are talking about.

Does that not speak to the point that I am making? I know that it is difficult, because there are a lot of people in A and E and they have to be triaged. Some of them could be in severe physical pain, and that needs to be dealt with. That speaks to my point: if what you have described is the police officers’ concern, how can the process of admission be dealt with as quickly as possible, so that the police officers’ concern can be addressed, they can see that the person has been admitted and they can leave?

I appreciate that. It is interesting to hear the evidence that you are giving, which—I know that you will take this in the sense in which it is intended—is anecdotal to a certain extent but is your own experience of telling police officers, “The person is here now. They are safe. We can deal with the situation,” and of the police officers still feeling an impediment. That impediment might be their personal perspective or a structural concern about their own procedures, but it means that they do not think that they can leave. That is interesting and we need to explore it further with Police Scotland.

Can I just ask something? You have posited my name, so let us just use it. In that scenario, am I, Mr Hepburn, the person you brought into hospital or am I the clinician who has said that it is safe?

I wonder whether it is about how you actually make it structural. There must be a way of recording it when someone says, “I’ve been told by a clinician that I can go.”

It strikes me that a lot of what you have spoken about touches on a much wider response to supporting people with their mental wellbeing and mental health, which is commendable. Clearly, the NHS should be looking at that, and you have said how it works with Police Scotland to ensure that police officers better understand the processes and the options. Again, that is commendable and welcome.

However, we are here to talk about the impact on Police Scotland. When I speak to officers in my area—indeed, when I met a local inspector not so long ago, we touched on this—the primary concern, which we will touch on when we speak to the Scottish Police Federation and Police Scotland, relates to how much time is occupied when officers feel that they have no course open to them other than to take a person to hospital. If they think that a hospital is the most appropriate place to take an individual, they might find themselves having to wait there for a long time, because hospitals are obviously very busy.

The key question is what more can be done to accelerate the process of assessing whether an individual who has been brought to a hospital needs to be admitted for some form of direct intervention or assistance and then admitting them if that is required. As I said, I recognise that hospitals are busy and deal with multiple things, but there is clearly an issue in the time of other professionals being occupied when they have a wider job to do. They are not able to get back to that job because they feel that they have to wait with the person they have brought to the hospital. How can that process be improved and shortened?