Chamber and committees

Given that we are being asked to agree to the instrument, we should ask the main protagonists who responded to the consultation whether they are happy with the framework, or whether they have any observations or reservations that they want us to consider before we agree to the instrument.

I apologise to committee colleagues and the Wise Group for being unable to make the visit. I make an open offer that I would be very willing to go with other members or to visit on my own at a suitable time. I am happy to arrange that through the committee clerks or directly with the Wise Group.

In your written evidence, you say that you struggle to quantify the demand on police to deliver services that you probably should not be delivering but which you are happy to deliver as a first port of call, and that that comes down to issues with recording systems, information technology systems and how an incident is interpreted. What is being done to improve that?

Good morning.

It is lovely to see you, too—it is always a pleasure.

We do not have a lot of time, unfortunately, so I will try to keep my questions brief and to get through as much as I can.

I want to ask a more fundamental question. People who are watching from the outside, and who might not have been as involved in this topic as we on the committee or you as head of the working group on the report have been, might wonder what we are trying to do. They might have reservations about where the legislation might end up, because the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was hugely controversial. How do we ensure that we, as legislators in a Parliament, are not passing law for law’s sake as a direct response to public mood or pressure on a live issue that could be dealt with in other ways, such as through education or enforcement of other pieces of legislation? How do you think that we could scrutinise the new legislation in detail in such a way that we cannot be accused either of not supporting the principle of dealing with misogyny or of being misogynistic ourselves?

It is also illegal already.

I suspect that the debate will centre on what is and is not in the legislation—what it does and does not cover—and, more importantly, on how the law will be applied and enforced. Parliaments pass laws every day, but those laws are not always up to scratch and are often open to challenge. We like to avoid that in advance of passing a law.

How has the proposed legislation been received by the key stakeholders that will be involved in its application, delivery and enforcement? For example, how have Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation—the police will have to deal with inquiries and complaints on the front line—the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Lord Advocate responded to the practicalities of the legislation? Have they raised any concerns with you?

In principle, you are saying that there are holes or gaps in the existing legislation, hence the need for new legislation. That is the fundamental argument in favour of new legislation.

Sorry—just to press on—

I appreciate that negative instruments are usually waived through nice and quickly, so I apologise for taking up time. However, I want to refer to the policy note that accompanies the instrument. In essence, the instrument is about changes to electronic monitoring and bail conditions. Under the policy objective section, it says that the instrument makes

“a technical change to ensure that the policy intention of having electronically monitored bail includes specific reference to ... two further ways in which a person on bail can have conditions varied.”

What are those “two further ways”? What variations would the change induce?

The policy note says that there has been extensive consultation with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but neither the consultation nor the SCTS’s response is contained in the note. It also says:

“Extensive impact assessments were undertaken”,

and that the change will have

“limited ... impact on the wider ... use of electronic monitoring of bail.”

How will we know whether that will be the case? The note does not quantify or, indeed, define the change.

I do not know how much of an issue the change is, which is part of the problem. I would have preferred the Government to have explained what the variations are and the resulting potential changes to bail. Ministers could have done that in person, although I appreciate that doing so would be unusual for an instrument subject to the negative procedure. However, they could have at least done that in writing. As a committee, we are none the wiser as to what we would be agreeing to, so I am uncomfortable with agreeing to the instrument for that reason.

I appreciate that annulment is the only option that is available to us. However, I want to put on record that I do not think that it is suitable to simply provide a one-page policy note that does not explain what we are being asked to agree to. I am sorry, but that sets a bad precedent.