Chamber and committees

It was lodged in 2020 and then it was referred to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee.

Would legislation be required to introduce that, or is it more of an operational matter, with, for example, the police training a certain number of officers in Makaton or British Sign Language?

That is very helpful, thank you.

Good morning, Professor. I will ask you about chapter 5 of the report, which is on support in the criminal justice system, in relation to communication with people who have learning difficulties or additional support needs.

A constituent of mine has a petition going through Parliament; the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee talked about it yesterday—my colleague can confirm that. It relates to a member of their family who has experienced great distress trying to communicate with the police—and carers, actually—because she uses the Makaton signing system. My constituent is trying to promote that system and says that legal advocates and those who deal with people who have those needs should have that ability—or at least that some of them should. What is your view on that?

I am conscious of time. Would newly remanded prisoners who go to the establishment of their birth gender be segregated as a matter of course or could they be segregated if they requested it? I am thinking about their human rights in a situation where they have not been convicted of anything.

In the lessons learned review, you said that

“newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoners will initially be placed in an establishment commensurate with their birth gender.”

Is there a timescale on that? Does the individual have to appeal to be moved to a different prison?

For clarification, you talked about setting up the operating procedure. In the interim period, what would happen to a newly remanded or convicted transgender prisoner? Would they go to an establishment for prisoners of their birth gender?

I agree with Jamie Greene, in particular regarding paragraph 16, which states that

“The SPF raises a concern that the SPA bases its oversight on evidence provided by Police Scotland”,

and that the SPF does not have much input. I agree that we should take up that point.

I do not agree so much with Jamie Greene’s first point about going back to Police Scotland. We have been there, and Police Scotland knows that we are not happy with the response, as does the SPA. The SPA governs Police Scotland, so the onus is on the SPA to get this right for the police and for us, and to give us the information.

Paragraph 11 states:

“In response to the Committee’s request, the SPA undertook an urgent review of the number of cases where officers and staff retired due to mental ill health ... The SPA confirms in their response that additional resources have been assigned and are having a positive impact on reducing the number of officers awaiting approval”.

We have had no update on that urgent review, so we do not know what the outcome was.

Paragraph 11 goes on to note that

“The SPA’s People Committee is to consider the outcomes of the review at its meeting of 28 February”.

It might be timely, therefore, for us to contact the SPA and ask what the outcome of the review was. I am not sure of the value of going back to Police Scotland, because I think that we will just get the same response.

Would the person’s wishes be taken into account?

I agree with what you have said about data collection—that is crucial. I have no objection to our going back to Police Scotland; I simply the question the worth of that.

I definitely think that we should go back to the SPA to get an update on the review that it is doing. We should also ask about the point that is made in paragraph 16 of our paper, which is about why the SPF does not really have a voice at SPA meetings and why the SPA takes Police Scotland’s evidence as read. In other words, we should ask the SPA how robust it is being with its governance. I would like us to see whether we get anywhere with that.