���˿���

I reiterate that I am more than happy to work with Katy Clark and Sharon Dowey in advance of stage 3.

On the concerns about the phrase “lesser obligation”, the code must be compliant with the Equality Act 2010. However, amendment 48, which seeks to add that legislation as a source for the code’s preparation, would mean that the code needed to only “have regard to” the 2010 act, which would impose a lesser obligation than is already implied. I am happy to continue to discuss matters with members.

As for Ms Dowey’s and Ms McNeill’s points on consultation, it is crucial that there is clarity for the chief constable when it comes to consulting individuals or bodies that are able to represent people who have had direct experience of the complaints process, for example. The issue is how that can be done in a way that taps into a breadth and depth of experience, such as that of victim support organisations and perhaps others, but does not place an unworkable condition on the chief constable to consult every individual who has ever had an experience or who has ever represented someone who has had a very difficult experience. I am positive that we can work our way through those issues.

The European code of police ethics covers, for example, the rights of suspects, of witnesses and of victims; it places wider obligations on policing bodies and covers a range of other matters. I would be happy to provide in writing further detail on the UN codes, the UN basic principles and the code of police ethics.

We will do everything that we can to build consensus, but sometimes we must stick to our principles with a view to making progress. If we were to step back from what HMICS has recommended and the progress that the committee is looking for, that would be a step backwards, as opposed to a step forward.

It was very remiss of me, Mr Findlay, not to address the issue that you raised around whistleblowers. I agree that whistleblowers must be carefully protected, but the way to do so is by the application of whistleblowing protections, which sit elsewhere, and not by diluting vetting requirements.

I am happy to discuss more of that going forward, prior to stage 3.

I appreciate that people have seen the amendments only for a week, but that is the nature of our parliamentary process. It will cause us all to have to work hard and be somewhat testing.

The only thing that I would add is that, in all sincerity, I will continue to engage with members and stakeholders at an early opportunity.

I am conscious, Ms Dowey, that I must ask to intervene on you to answer Mr Findlay’s question, which is a bit odd.

I understand the issues and the care that members have taken in this area. For me, the bottom line is that there are various views about the scope of fatal accident inquiries. As a constituency MSP, I have looked closely at the matter, not in relation to police officers but in respect of the complexities of deaths abroad. I have looked at the coroners’ system in England, and the differences there are not quite as stark in practice. Although the systems look a bit different on the surface, I think that neither system always delivers the outcomes that grieving families would wish for.

There are two issues. I do not want to sound clumsy or disrespectful, but there is no short route to changing the process of fatal accident inquiries through the back door or through another bill. That would be a less than complete or satisfactory way to address matters, because the area would require much more in-depth consultation and scrutiny.

Tragedies happen in many professions—people who work in the health service take their lives and I have certainly known a number of social work colleagues who have taken their lives. Suicide stretches far and wide and it will have touched everyone in this room in some shape or form. We could get into unforeseen difficulties through the very understandable desire to address the issue that is related to serving police constables, which might create less than satisfactory outcomes because we are not looking at it in the context of a wider review of fatal accident inquiries. I am cognisant that many other professions stand in the line of duty and that the mental health of those professionals also suffers. My view remains the same—the issue is much wider.

Irrespective of one’s views on the merits or otherwise of the current legislation, what is suggested is a much bigger piece of work than can be done by trying to rectify matters by making amendments to a specific bill. I say that with respect. I am very conscious that this matter cuts to the core—it cuts deep—for many families.

There are complicated questions in relation to application and scope, so I will probably require a bit of consultation with legal officials and will come back to you in writing on what I have not answered.

On the phrase “reasonable assertion”, the privilege against self-incrimination can be properly invoked only when the person is suspected of a criminal matter. It can be invoked only if warranted and not if the person is not actually suspected of a criminal matter.

We will follow that up.

Thank you very much for that question. I made that point crystal clear in my statement to Parliament on 16 May. This is not a long-term solution. It is not a solution—it is breathing space. It buys us time. That is why I identified in that statement further additional action that I believe is required; we can make further improvements to the home detention curfew arrangements and bring forward proposals to reconsider the release arrangements for long-term prisoners, so that we can have a discussion with Parliament about the benefits of long-term prisoners spending longer supervised in the community before their sentence expiry date. There is important evidence that demonstrates the value of supervision in the community, as opposed to people spending only a very short time being supervised in the community at the end of a lengthy sentence.

I have also, in my two previous statements, addressed issues in and around the remand population and the work that is going on there. I know that GPS technology is of particular interest to some members, which is why we will pilot GPS technology in the first instance, in phase 1, for those who are released on home detention curfew.

I am exercised about the ageing population in our prisons. The population of over-50s has doubled in a decade. Those over 50 in the prison population will experience health inequalities, although I contend that people who are over 50 are not particularly senior or elderly. If you have long-standing health problems due to the inequality that you have experienced in your life, those factors have to be taken into consideration.

There is an exploration of modular accommodation, and there is an exploration of care arrangements. I would like to see more compassionate release, where that is appropriate.

I have spoken at length to Parliament on the need for a whole-system approach. As a Parliament and as a country, we took that whole-system approach on imprisonment of young people. Incarceration of young people—16 and 17-year-olds—has reduced by 93 per cent over the past year. We need that same approach being taken to the larger adult population.

On your specific question, I meet the chief inspector regularly—indeed, I will meet her tomorrow. When it comes to the Prison Officers Association Scotland, I meet regularly with justice trade unions; however, when I listened to Phil Fairlie’s evidence, it struck me that I probably need to write directly to more people to alert them to statements that are made in Parliament. I appreciate that not everybody follows proceedings in great detail, as we do, so I will change some aspects to ensure that people are better informed. However, I have been focused on issues of the prison population since I came into post.

The situation has been exacerbated further by the population increase of 400 in a few months. The rate of increase from March to May was double what it was earlier in the year, when it was high—too high—but stable. We now need to take this emergency short-term action, which will buy us time for additional measures to kick in.

No. I have looked really closely at the matter. I made an undertaking to do so in response to a question from Mr McArthur following my statement. In short, the legislative basis for remanding prisoners is very different. Scottish ministers have, under legislation, powers on release arrangements for sentenced prisoners, while powers concerning remand prisoners lie with the court. The mechanism for the arrangements to be revisited would be to do that through solicitors, whereby a person could request a review of their being on remand. That is the short answer.

The prisoners who will be released under the emergency arrangements will not be prisoners who are subject to compulsory supervision measures, because those prisoners are excluded from the release programme. People who are on extended sentences or are under sex offender notification requirements or supervised release orders—all arrangements that indicate additional risk—are not being released. We are talking about people who would be released within the next few weeks or months and without being subject to any supervision on release.

I will ask Teresa Medhurst to talk about the preparation for that, because extensive work is being done to do all that we can to prepare folk for release. I am not in any way trying to be glib.

There were statutory exclusions the last time people were released under emergency provisions, which was during Covid. The figures show that around 40 per cent of those people returned to prison. The recidivism rate for people who are serving a sentence of less than two years is 52 per cent, whereas the figure for those with a community disposal is 29 per cent.

We must remember that the people who could be eligible for release are the short-term prisoners who would be released in a few weeks or months anyway and who would not be subject to any monitoring or supervision.

It might be useful to give some information about who is eligible for release. The numbers vary depending on the prison population and will be determined by tomorrow’s population. I can give you some indication of the modelling that has been done. This is an estimate, but it is anticipated that almost 65 per cent of those who will be eligible for release will have 90 days or less left to serve, so the majority would be released in the next few months anyway, without the measures.