Chamber and committees

Our first and main item of business is to consider the criminal justice issues raised in the Scottish Mental Health Law Review. As members will recall, the Scottish Government established the review to examine existing Scots law, with a view to improving the rights and protections of people who might be subject to mental health, incapacity or adult protection legislation by virtue of having a mental disorder.

We are joined by Professor Colin McKay. Professor McKay, who is based at the centre for mental health and capacity law at Edinburgh Napier University, was a member of the Scottish Mental Health Law Review team. Welcome.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow around 45 minutes for this session. I invite Professor McKay to make some brief opening remarks.

That has brought us nice and neatly to our 45 minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Professor McKay, for attending today’s meeting. Members might have some follow-up questions, and we will write to you with them.

Thank you, Professor McKay. That has been a very helpful overview.

We move straight to questions. I will kick things off with a question about section 297 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which deals with an issue that I have been interested in for a number of years. That makes provision for an officer to take a person from a public place to a “place of safety”. The review highlights that much police time is spent dealing with such issues. You referred to the fact that, in May last year, the committee took evidence on that issue. You will know that many people who are in distress are in their homes and therefore in a private place.

The review report outlines a range of issues. That includes noting that the police are not best placed to respond to those situations and that the provisions of the 2003 act are being used to respond to people who are in distress, rather than those who are experiencing acute mental illness, as section 297 of the act refers to.

We note that your review makes some recommendations about that. One recommendation in the report is that the Scottish Government should

“work with health and care agencies to develop alternative places of safety for people who are in distress and at risk”,

and might not necessarily need psychiatric care.

Another recommendation is that the Government should

“review whether the place of safety powers should extend beyond suspected mental or intellectual disability to other people who may be at serious risk.”

That is a rather long-winded introduction to asking you to outline a little more about the review’s work on that particular part of the 2003 act.

We will come back to what those alternative options and places of safety could look like. I am conscious of the time, so I will bring in other members now and hand straight over to Russell Findlay.

The next questions will come from Colette Stevenson and Pauline McNeill.

Our next item is consideration of the timetable for the implementation of the various provisions in the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022. As members will recall, we were the lead committee for scrutiny of the bill, and the Scottish Government undertook to keep us updated on the implementation of its various provisions.

I refer members to paper 3 and invite their views, questions or comments on the update that has been provided.

Perhaps I will come in at that point.

I concur with pretty much all the comments that have been made. Jamie Greene made a good suggestion that we look at some data in relation to the provisions on emergency workers and proxy purchases. I am happy to take that forward.

The letter is a bit light touch, so it would be helpful for us to have more detail, in particular on some of the key points that members have raised. Across the committee, there are various levels of concern about pretty much all the key updates that have been provided.

I am happy for us to write back to the minister to seek not only some data, as Jamie Greene outlined, but more detail on the key points that were outlined in the correspondence and a reassurance that every effort will be made to keep the timescales on track and minimise slippage. There is public interest in this issue. Pauline McNeill’s point about costs is well made, and we will incorporate that in our correspondence.

I think that Katy Clark agreed with the suggestion that we contact the minister by way of a follow-up letter. I see that she is nodding.

Okay. That is noted.

Thank you all very much. That concludes our public items of business.

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies, and Katy Clark joins us online.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take in private agenda item 4, which is consideration of the evidence that we will take under item 2. Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.