Chamber and committees

I will be corrected by my official if this is not the case, but I think that I am right in saying that we already have that legal basis in Scotland. Down south, they do not have that; common law is used. It is a case of trying to make those things consistent. Previously, the point of disagreement was whether the provision could be extended to people who had died. That was the point that the Lord Advocate was interested in, and we have some assurances on that. It will not be agreed to by UK ministers at this stage, but we have some assurances around that, which we are willing to accept.

A draft code of conduct is not the same as a final code of conduct. If we know that the UK Government is saying, “This is our final version,” there is nothing that will give us cause for concern. As background, the committee’s predecessor went over this area quite exhaustively when it considered cyberkiosks and so on. There is a parliamentary sensitivity about that, which we are trying to be sensitive to by saying, “Let’s see what the final one says.” If it says what the draft one says, I think that we are okay.

That is a good point. It is almost the obverse of Jamie Greene’s question about what has been done during Covid that we could continue to do. There are things that we have had to do that we should not continue to do, which is a good thing for ministers to keep in the back of their minds. It might be tempting to say that, because a restriction makes things easier in some regard, we should keep doing it. We must guard against that. However, the Parliament and its committees are a pretty good watchdog in that regard. I am thinking about the recent discussion that we had about the extension and elimination of many of the measures, and there is provision for further and regular reporting on those things, so there are democratic checks and balances.

However, if your point is that the Government should also be looking to and checking itself—with Jamie Greene’s caveat—we want to see whether any change that has been forced by circumstances might be of benefit in future. If that is the case, we should get parliamentary approval.

The only thing that I will say beyond what I have already said is that, as you know, a commitment has been given that there will be a full inquiry, which will look at the actions of all those involved. I do not want to go beyond that.

You will know that the current community justice infrastructure was set up in 2016. At that time, we committed to a review of it, which we are starting now, as we said we would. You might also be aware that an element of the national care service proposals might have an impact on community justice. Those two matters are on-going, and all members can contribute to them. We are in discussions with Community Justice Scotland and our local authority partners on that.

However, there are some areas in which alternative disposals will never be appropriate. With organised serious crime, in which I know Mr Findlay has a particular interest, such disposals are never going to be a suitable solution—for example, as I mentioned earlier, for people in Saughton who are looking to visit violence on each other.

The bottom line, as I think Ms Stevenson highlighted, is to do the right thing for a particular person but also to do what will give us the right outcome for society, because we have to bear in mind the rights of victims and the right of society to be protected from crime. If the best solution for a person is a disposal that takes them away from the path that they would go down if they went to prison, we should be willing to consider such a move and ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to make it possible.

That is where we are with community justice. You are right to identify it as a big area for all of us, as we move forward.

I would be grateful if we could get Neil Rennick’s input on this. I think—you will know this better than I do, convener—that the police are now being asked to do much more than they were in the past. For example, we ask them to log whether a person who is admitted to custody is an armed forces veteran, and we ask them to be much more aware of addiction issues and mental health issues, which are not always obvious to people who are not trained in such things. We ask a lot of our prison officers and police officers. As we would all acknowledge, we have to do more in this respect. The same is true across society.

There are interventions such as the navigator programme, which members might not be aware of. Essentially, navigators go into custody cells in police stations and can talk to the person in question, provide support and look into their issues without prejudicing on-going legal proceedings or their custody situation.

I cannot remember its name, but there is a group that I recently met that works with the police in Edinburgh that includes police officers and people who have served time in prison and have had issues with addiction, for example. They do a lot of diversionary work, but they talk to people in the custody system, too. Generally, we realise that there is more that we can do, but we should acknowledge how much more police and prison officers are already doing.

Underlying all that—this brings us back to Pauline McNeill’s question about the fundamental change that is needed—is that at the start of the process there is what might be called triaging. First of all, as I keep emphasising, we need a solution that keeps society safe. There might well be an element of punishment in sentencing, but beyond that, the question is this: what is the best solution for society? When someone has addiction issues, do we deal with their addiction to ensure that criminal activity does not continue afterwards? What is the best way of dealing with someone who has mental health issues? It will be no revelation to the committee if I say that we recognise that there is much more to do on the matter. Perhaps Neil Rennick has something to add.

Yes, we will do that, convener, although we have to recognise the huge constraints on the Scottish Government’s budget, which Ms Clark raised earlier, and the austerity budgets that we have to live under just now. That sometimes means that we have to be quite innovative about how we get additional funding. Cashback for communities was one of the ways in which the programme in Lothian that I mentioned before is funded.

We have to continue to consider that and other streams of funding, too. There is no question but that we do not have the human resources to deal with everything in the public sector, and the third sector is an extremely important ally in relation to that as well.

It would be useful to have one of the officials come in on the equipment, which I am unable to name, and whether that would help the situation. I cannot give a commitment to reinstating that policy, because there may be human rights implications. I imagine that there probably would be, but in the spirit of consensus, I am willing to consider Russell Findlay’s suggestion.

I know that these proceedings will be watched or, if not, the Official Report will be read afterwards by the Scottish Prison Service. I would imagine that that suggestion is something that has occurred to the SPS, but if it has not, should we not consider the possibilities? In the spirit of a positive suggestion being made, I am very grateful for that and we will treat it seriously. It may be that we cannot do it for the reasons that I mentioned, but we will certainly consider it.

As you suggest, I will let Graham Thomson answer part of that. We have agreed to the thrust of what is proposed, but the bit that we have a concern about is the code of conduct that will be used in relation to the extraction of data from devices. We should see that before we agree to it. We have seen a draft version, as has the Northern Ireland Executive, but we want to see the final version before proceeding and giving our consent. I think that that is the situation.

The first and usual caveat has to be, as Neil Rennick has said, that the courts and prosecution authorities decide on that; we do not. People get very nervous when politicians try to tell the courts what to do—other than through legislation, as we are entitled to do.

I am happy to look at that particular case and come back to Fulton MacGregor.

One problem during the pandemic—I do not know whether it relates to that case—was that cases that involved more than one person were substantially delayed because of the Covid implications of getting numbers of accused into one room. Even if the court system gave priority to certain types of case, that was sometimes limited. The situation is better now than it was, because we have more capacity. However, it may account for what has happened. In any event, I am happy to come back to Fulton MacGregor on that individual case if I have not already done so or if there is anything that I can add in the light of his questions.

I will let Neil Rennick answer that, but it is worth pointing out first that, to have carried on with some of the disposals would have been a Covid threat. I reiterate the point that the decisions that were made—not solely by me, although I imagine that I voted for them, as perhaps we all did—were made in the knowledge that we were trying to balance the different risks.

I do not know whether Neil Rennick wants to answer the specific question, although I imagine that the answer is no.