Chamber and committees

As we mark anti-bullying week, what guidance does the Scottish Government provide to help schools to tackle bullying?

Before we move on to part 2 of the bill, I have a final question that relates to the British Transport Police, which sent in a written submission. In relation to parts 1 and 2, it questioned why the BTP was not considered to be a justice agency in the same way as Police Scotland is.

You will be aware that BTP representatives were in the Parliament just the other week. They spoke about a range of things, including the BTP’s railway guardian app, which enables travellers to report crimes and offences while travelling. In conversation with me, they were keen that the app be extended to women, and felt that it was relevant to safe travel for women.

Are there difficulties in and around that? If so, is the Scottish Government looking at ways to ensure that the BTP’s status, if you like, does not hinder the objectives of the bill?

We will move to part 3 of the bill, which is about the proposal to extend special measures to vulnerable witnesses in civil cases.

We received evidence from Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland arguing that the categories of witnesses who are deemed to be vulnerable should be broadened beyond what is in the bill and that special measures should be available automatically for those witnesses. Will the cabinet secretary consider amending part 3 of the bill in recognition of that evidence?

For the record, I clarify that we received the letter that you sent earlier this week, which provides an update on previously passed legislation, including the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. That correspondence is now available online.

With that, I draw the session to a close. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for joining us.

There will be a short suspension to allow a changeover of witnesses.

Our next agenda item is an evidence session on His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland’s report, “Policing Mental Health in Scotland—A Thematic Review”. I am pleased to welcome Craig Naylor, chief inspector with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland; Mr Brian McInulty, lead inspector with HMICS; and Dr Arun Chopra, medical director at the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and HMICS advisory group member. A warm welcome to you all.

I refer members to papers 3 and 4. I intend to allow up to an hour for this session. I invite the chief inspector to make some opening remarks.

Dr Chopra, the Mental Welfare Commission published a report on “The role of police officers in mental health support: a review of repeated uses of police place of safety powers under the Mental Health Act”. In your key findings, you state:

“Rates of conversion from all s297 detentions to emergency or short-term detention are about 15%. This is about three times higher than the rate among those being repeatedly detained under s297 which is at 5.34%.”

I know from my past experience that recourse to a place of safety is not an uncommon course of action for police officers, so that figure of just above 5 per cent is incredible. Could you say a bit more about that particular finding?

I completely agree with that. I would like to ask lots of follow-up questions, but a good number of members want to come in.

Quite a number of members want to come in. I know that that is a crucial issue, but perhaps I can bring in Jackie Dunbar and then Fulton MacGregor.

I beg your pardon. Sorry, Mr McInulty.

I apologise for my lapse. I bring in Fulton MacGregor.