 I've very good morning and welcome members and staff back from summer recess and to the 23rd meeting of the criminal justice committee. We have apologies this morning from Pauline McNeill. Our first item of business today is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? Mae'r next item of business e is consideration of a negative statutory instrument, namely the Offensive Weapons Act of 2019, prescribed documents Scotland Order of 2022, SSI number 210 of 2022 and I refer members to paper number one. So this SSI adds a United Kingdom photo car driving licence as a valid form of ID for the purposes of a defence to two new criminal offences under the Offensive Weapons Act of 2019 operating in Scotland. So that is a section 39 offence relating to a delivery company delivering bladed products sold by UK-based sellers to a person aged under 18 at residential premises and a section 42 offence relating to a delivery company who has entered into an arrangement with a seller based outside the UK to deliver a bladed article to a person under 18 years of age. So can I just ask members if you have any questions on the instrument at all? No, okay. In that case, are members content not to make any recommendations to the Parliament on the instrument? Thank you very much. So our next agenda item is consideration of a number of items of correspondence that the committee received over the summer recess and I refer members to paper number two. So you will see that the clerks have made some suggestions for follow-up in the table at paragraph three in the paper. So I'd like to propose that we take each letter in turn and ask the committee for any views or and for agreement on how we wish to proceed with each of them. So just looking at the table at paragraph three, if we start off with the letter received from the Minister for Community Safety in relation to legal aid, so I'll just open it up to members who wish to make any comments on the correspondence. Russell? Just subsequent to the correspondence from the Minister, we've had something from the Edinburgh Bar Association, so it might be worth just incorporating some of their points that they've made in response to her if we are writing to her. That's about that. Okay, thanks very much. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Jamie. Jamie, and then Katie, I'll bring Jamie in first. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Yeah, I echoed that comment. The letter was quite received, so it may not necessarily be widely in the public domain, but nonetheless it's of relevance. I think what it does suggest though that it clearly is so still someone going to dispute a number of members have asked both in the committee but also in the wider chamber questions of the community safety minister responsible for that portfolio about this dispute around legal aid. I think the letter yesterday quite clearly showed that the matter is far from resolved, indeed quite the opposite. It's not necessarily just this agreement around the numbers or the quantity of money that's been offered by the Government, but it's clearly a disagreement around the facts and the historic journey that they've both been on to get to the point they're at. I think what I'm struggling with perhaps from a neutral standpoint is what are the facts. Who is right in this instance? They can't both be right if there's such a vocal and vehement disagreement between the two parties. So I'd quite like to perhaps ask perhaps Baby Spice or other colleagues to provide a timeline for us that would outline exactly what journey they've gone through with the assignment of budget to legal aid, any changes that were made, any additional funds that were made available by the Government, how that was received and so on. Just so we get to the point of today because I think there's two parallel conversations happening between those in the sector at the front line who are clearly in huge disagreement with the Government almost to the point of stating yesterday in the letter that the minister was being less than forthcoming with the facts, but the minister clearly has quite a robust point of view which I'll also hear that she feels that that's an inappropriate response. So before we go to the, before we hear any further, because we were just getting into tit for tat, I think, if we just keep writing back and forward between them, we're not the mediator in this, it's not our job to solve the problem. But I'm just getting to that point now where I feel like clearly the criminal lawyers are at their wit's end at the matter and warning all sorts of things down the line which I think should be of concern to the committee, but equally the Government seems quite robust in its defence and I'm just struggling to get to the nub of the problem here, what are the numbers and what was promised not delivered or what was over delivered but not promised and so on and so forth, so that's the only comment I make and it's not taking either side of the dispute. That's very much Jamie. Katie. I mean I would echo everything that's been said, I mean it seems to me that the Government keeps saying that the rates have been agreed and that's something that we've heard evidence on before and I mean I don't think that that's particularly fair, I think what the profession says, well they had no choice, that was what was on the table and if they didn't take that there wouldn't be any increase. I think that we do have some information in the papers particularly about early rates and I don't think we'd need to have a huge amount of kind of financial knowledge to understand what they mean at page 10. I mean obviously there's been an increase in the use of fixed fee arrangements but the early rates haven't kept up with the rate of inflation or any other indicator of what you would expect so I mean I think it's quite apparent that there's been massive cuts in legal aid and that solicitors in particular get paid a lot less in real terms than they would 25 years ago. Now it may be that the Scottish Government can provide some justification for that but I actually don't think we need a huge amount more evidence to know that's clearly the case and it's clear that there's a huge amount of anger in England and also the similar problems and baristers are now in strike and we've already had some strikes in Scotland from the legal profession in terms of decisions not to carry out certain types of work so it's clearly a very heated situation. I don't think we are mediators, I don't think we can perform that function. We're also going into a period of austerity, we were told that the cuts to the budgets in the justice sector were going to be approximately 20 per cent and that was when inflation was lower so I think the backdrop is one where this problem is probably going to get a great deal more serious because presumably the cabinet secretary and relevant ministers will have very little at their disposal in terms of flexibility financially so I think the situation is highly concerning and it's clear that there's been massive cuts. I'm not exactly sure what role we can play, we're not mediators but I think we have to accept that there have been massive cuts in the legal aid budgets and the consequences of that are that some of the most vulnerable will not be getting the support that really we would like them to have and I think that's the message that this committee should be giving that we recognise that there has been significant cuts and that that has an impact. I really just want to agree with Jamie Greene's comments. I don't think we do have all, I think there's an impasse clearly and I don't think we do have all the facts set out clearly to us. That said, we clearly aren't mediators but it would be good to know more about the background to it so I agree with, I think that's a sensible proposition to just ask for a fairly easy to understand timeline for us to know what's been going on and I think after we get that we can consider if there's any role for this committee in this or not not to say that it's not concerning but it's clearly work on going. Thanks, Rona. Fulton. Yeah, thanks, convener. Just wanted to briefly comment and take the opportunity to say that I've had some contact from some lawyers on this including constituents who have obviously raised concern and I think just saying what Katie Clark has just said there. There is concerns about, from their point of view, the funding of legal aid in the ability there for defence lawyers to operate and clearly when we're dealing with a backlog that wouldn't be a situation which would be good but similarly to Rona Mackay and Jamie Greene you know it also feels as if the government have got quite a robust response to that as well so we're not mediators as others have said but I do think it is worth, I think that the suggestion from the clerks is the right one that we take it into the budget scrutiny period that we're going into and have a look at it then and can perhaps ask stakeholders around the government more about this to see if this impasse which does seem to be there can be navigated around because I don't think it will be any of these infestations. We know that the government won't want a situation where the backlog can't be cleared because defence lawyers can't do their work either so I think that the suggestion is right but I did want to just take the opportunity to say because I have had several correspondences. I'm imagining that some have went to all committee members but I've also had about two or three constituents contact me as well so I wanted to take the opportunity to put that on the record today. Okay, thanks very much. I apologize, I don't want to prolong the debate too much but I think aside from the budget scrutiny aspect which is a valid one although there's limitations to our involvement in that we can only identify what the government has to offer and whether that's received well or not it's out of our control but I think the other issue more is about headcount and resource in the sector because clearly the paragraph I think that's of more importance to us given the other work that the committee's doing from the Edinburgh Bar Association yesterday is that when they stated that the government is presently consulting on proposals to give complainers and sexual offences cases the right to legally aided independent legal advice and the question is who does the government propose to represent them so they're obviously warning of clear delta between the number of people coming forward with cases and the amount of people available to represent them or indeed offer them independent advice. We already know that there are throughout the country and has been for a while not just because of the backlog but clearly resource or lack of resource lack of representation is already an issue across the country so that what we don't want I guess is a situation where people going through the justice system are facing unnecessary delays to cases or trials or simply not having access to representation on either side both the accused and the other the complainers and that is a different issue which I think we need to keep in mind a watchful eye on because if the warnings do come to fruition then you know a year during the lifetime of this parliament we could be looking at quite a substantial crisis in that sector and I think that that only has a knock on effect on clearing the backlog and people held on their mind and waiting for their day in court and so on and we know we know the consequences that that has on folks so I just wonder how we work that into our workload as well to ensure that that's not something that just creeps up on us in a year or two. Okay thanks very much Jamie Collette did you want to come in? Yeah just echoing really what everyone else has commented on in the fact that we shouldn't be the mediators but arguably or you know what more importantly is the impact it has on the victims you know I think that's at the heart of of this as well if this is going to go on and you know there's an end pass in some way and one of the things I just wanted to get clarification on is they're looking for a 50% uplift is that correct whereas I'm sure in England and Wales it's 25% but there was a paragraph as well talking about that somebody's been commissioned as well to look at it I'm just wondering if we could draw some comparisons as well from from I think it was a Sir Christopher Bellamy QC that was actually looking at to draw some comparisons to see before we get anywhere near going into a strike action that's the last thing we want. Okay thank you very much for that some very valid points made I think not least of all just a recognition of our role within the committee or of what our role is not within the committee at this point in time I found both sets of correspondence actually to be quite comprehensive and very helpful in a way and they've certainly set out this sort of historical context of where we are today with legal aid provision it's clearly not a straightforward situation and there are clearly challenges remaining in terms of everybody getting to the point that they would like to be at and I entirely agree with you Collette around the need for us to ideally reach a system where those working within it but those who are in receipt of the services provided within legal aid their needs are met so can I propose given I don't want to repeat what members have already covered more than happy for us to pick up the points that members have made and link with SPICE to get some further information on the context the timeline that Jamie mentioned more than happy for that I think that that would be very helpful for us and I do note that the minister had or the minister is currently in negotiations with the the Scottish Government's negotiations at the moment and has undertaken to update us on progress of the negotiations as well as the review of the public defender solicitors office but I'm happy of members in agreement that we write to the minister for an update on progress of the negotiations and refer obviously to the Edinburgh Bar Association letter that we received yesterday we also will cover of this issue in terms of our budget scrutiny that will be an important part of that forthcoming process so if members are in agreement I would propose that we link with SPICE and write to the minister on the points that we've raised members happy with that okay thanks very much okay thanks very much so moving on to our second letter which was from the Scottish Government outlining its plans following the consultation of the not proven verdict and other matters and obviously we heard the update in chamber yesterday in relation to the programme for government around the proposals to abolish the not proven verdict do members wish to make any comment on that correspondence rona really just to put on record my delight that the not proven verdict is is going to be abolished and as we heard yesterday I think this is good news for victims particularly victims of sexual crimes and yes I mean it's it's quite a historic quite a radical change but it's one I think is is long overdue thank you thanks very much just to also echo the fact that this is a good development it was something that was in our parties manifesto during the last election and indeed was in my colleagues private members building this will push it forward and I think also we should be grateful to those who responded to the consultation now of course there was the those who you'd expect to respond but quite a lot of members of the public who have suffered from the verdict including miss m and indeed families who's who've lost members to murder and not had justice as they see it so some really compelling responses in there that are worth taking time to look at so yes thank you naturally this is of interest to me because it may have a knock-on effect on my own members bill as the abolition of not proven was one of the key pillars of it and I'll liaise with the authorities on what happens next in that respect and try and work constructively with the cabinet secretary on that I did however know and I'll say this for both my own bill and the responses to this one is that there weren't a huge amount of responses but I think those responses that were received were of quality and substance and again I can't say too much about the statistics in response to my own question in my own consultation on the issue of not proven because we haven't published them yet but they will be soon but they're not far away from the statistical responses that the government got and they weren't at necessarily overwhelming lane favour of the abolition 62% is a high bar but it's not the highest in terms of other responses to all the questions that were asked so I think it is fair to say that it's not quite and we all know this but it's not quite as simple as just abolishing a verdict it will require as part of the whichever bill it forms part of a whole raft of other changes and it's very clear I mean you know the immediate response to yesterday's news from a number of folk within the justice sector and a number of justice partners who we rely on as key cogs in the wheel you know have reservations about it they expressed that to me when I announced my plans as well and I hear them and therefore I think it's really important whatever happens next I know the bill will go through robust scrutiny and consultation as all bills do especially when it comes through this committee however what will need to be clear as the government moves forward with the not proven issue is is the what next what other changes may have to be made how will this have wider implications and it's really unclear at the moment it's it's you know it's an easy question to ask and a very difficult question to answer as to what effect that will have on trials on on outcomes within our courts and I think it is that which we will need to pay a huge amount of careful and considerate cognisance to the voices who work in that sector whether we agree with them or not whether they agree with us or not whether they agree with the government or not that's by the by they clearly have a lot of experience and I think we'll all we'll all experience that over the last few weeks of talking to judges talking to solicitors and barristers and advocates what effect these things will have on trials but I think overall yes it seems to be a step forward if it's if it's finally delivered after hundreds of years of discussion but time will tell okay thanks very much anybody else want to come in on that okay thanks I like everybody else I very much welcome the announcement I think it's moving Scotland in terms of our judicial system in the right direction which is a very good thing obviously the next steps will be around the bill and I think you're you're right the the issue of removing not proven will be a lot of work for sure and will require a review of jury majorities and possibly corroboration too but we'll just wait and see what comes forward in the bill and monitor that obviously in terms of content so thanks very much for that so a third letter is the letter from the minister for drugs policy on the new national drugs mission oversight group any comments on that correspondence just to say that the letter we received happened to be dated the same day as the first meeting of this new group and it does say that details will be made available on the government website I don't know if indeed that is the case but I certainly would like to know when they're next planning to meet and just rough idea of schedules and given those international members in the list of 20 that we have in front of us just what the format would be presumably they wouldn't be travelling to Scotland every time the group meets but just curious about that yeah okay any other comments nope okay happy to write and ask for that information Russell okay thanks very much next letter was from the cabinet secretary for justice and veterans on the funding for recovery cafes in Scottish prisons comments on that correspondence I think obviously we're aware of the statement on the national mission coming forward I think tomorrow in the chamber which I think will also possibly incorporate an update on work to progress provisions such as recovery cafes so if members are happy we'll just agree to the recommendations in the table yep okay thank you okay moving on our next letter was from the Scottish Prison Service on access to fresh air and so I think we had some confirmation of the provision in place at the moment around fresh air any comments on that okay Jamie I know it's perhaps a slightly wider issue but the issue around purposeful activity amongst the manned population I think is still on an unaddressed issue and I appreciate that's not the question that we asked therefore it's not in this answer but I'm not 100 convinced that there's enough being done in that respect and I appreciate their legal ramifications to that perhaps statutory duties that do you or do not take place but nonetheless I would like to think that the SPS are actively looking at even within the confines of what the law states people's rights are or not or what they can and cannot force people to do that they would go above and beyond in that respect because you know we all know the the statistics that yesterday pointed towards quite a dire situation in terms of people being held on remand for lengthy periods due to court delays so I'd like to think that there's more than just the bare minimum being done and I wonder if we can maybe ask more information about that thanks very much anybody else want to come in collect yeah thanks kinder I would just agree with with jamey I mean it's seen open air and also purposeful activity which are two completely different things my understanding of well I'd like to seek further clarification on what they're saying is purposeful activity because my understanding of it is it's PT time it's downtime not not you know it's different from open air there's also the work element when they go you know to the workshops and things like that as well so they're not out in the fresh air so there's two different elements to that all together so just to seek clarification on that okay anybody else got any comments nope okay I think the only thing I would raise is or mention is obviously we're reviewing this and other issues around prison in our action plan but I think we can expect access to activities for remand prisoners possibly to be covered in the bail and release bill coming forward so um but certainly we can monitor um the issues around um fresh air and purposeful activity as part of our wider work and I think it's appropriate that we would do that okay thanks very much okay the next correspondence was from the prison service again on the issue of medical slips to prisoners on release any comments on that sorry yeah I mean the response tells us what we knew basically um I'm not sure that I'm not sure that um it's really helpful in that respect because we we knew this but what we were what we were saying was is that the correct framework not not for the NHS not to be involved but there needs to be more um connection there I think to to to um with regard to a number of issues so it's quite a short response and it basically tells us what we know but it would be good maybe to probe a wee bit further into how how it could work better thanks for that that's helpful I mean given that if the responsibility of health care both before during and after someone is within the custody of SPS is not the responsibility of the SPS at any point during that journey then clearly asking the SPS more questions about it will probably elicit very little it may be more helpful we write to the health secretary to whom the NHS is under responsibility instead because obviously every health board will be responsible for the institution within their own board but from a nationwide point of view it is I think what is evident is that there is a you know people have access to certain levels of care and treatment especially around the Diction of Mental Health and so on whilst they're in custody but when they leave especially if they're in held in custody in an area which is not their home board so they're if you want a visitor in that health board that there's clearly a disparity of services as issues around data around records moving around I don't think it's as seamless as people perhaps would like us to think it is but I think these are questions therefore they're not justice questions then they're certainly health questions if it's the NHS who are ultimately responsible for for these folk because what we're not seeing is in its part of the through care conversation that we've been having and I think we saw that at the first hand on our committee visit it's actually really important to get people you know keep keep people on the straight and narrow that's quite easy to do in a managed environment and less easy to do out in the real world so I think these are questions that perhaps only the health secretary could answer okay any other comments no I entirely agree I think it's one that we do follow up I'm minded perhaps to suggest that we write to the chief medical officer really just because I see this more as a sort of operational delivery issue and ask for some information about what changes can be made and improvements can be made because this has obviously been raised on more than one occasion with the committee I think it was raised during our visit to the wise group and also during our recent visit to the women's custody new custody unit in Glasgow so I would certainly be suggesting that we write just be a question of who we write to as I say my proposal would be perhaps starting with the chief medical officer and ask for some appropriate information that was made to us during the trip to the new facility Maryhill was that each health board has seemed to have a different approach so the frustration of the SPS was that there wasn't a consistency so it would be interesting to make that point if we're writing to them yeah exactly I think that was that was highlighted a couple of times that sort of issue around health boards as opposed to NHS Scotland's oversight because one of the things that I think I asked at the time was when they're transferring from one health board to another when they're transferring from one prison when they're progressing through as well there is still an issue and despite Theresa clarifying that their records go with them their medical records go with them I'm not entirely convinced that it's as seamless as what what they're saying it is and at the heart of it a lot of these people are suffering from varying degrees of mental health and addictions and and that should be a seamless approach yeah yeah I agree with your suggestion that we write you know it's a and I agree with Jamie is a health board but depending on the responses from that correspondence you know if we had time in our schedule would it be possible to have a you know a round table session with everybody to discuss it or you know net you know with health board representatives for scottish prison service etc because sometimes more gets done if it's a face-to-face conversation and that might because clearly it is an issue and as you say we hear about it a lot and the wise group have concerns about it but I'm not sure whether that's a practical suggestion but rather than just correspondence I wondered whether that would move things on a bit yeah I think that's a really good idea Stephens just reminding me that we've got a sort of kind of plan in progress to have a sort of round table looking at mental health and we could maybe incorporate that into that discussion but certainly I think that's a very valid suggestion to me because you say that face-to-face yeah I mean it doesn't need to be a full a full morning session but you know even just for an hour or an hour and a half to get people together and say you know here are the issues from our side and and this is this is the the process just now um you know and on the basis of that we could follow up with it with the cabinet secretary of you know what what was said um but you know just just put it out there but I agree with your initial plan to to write thanks Rona Jamie two things one is I think that's a very useful idea as always it's more powerful to hear from those who've been through that journey than people who turn up with briefcases and see and tell us how wonderful everything is secondly it might be helpful if we keep the parliament's health committee abreast of what we're doing in this space or indeed invite them to participate somehow by writing to the convener and copying them in the corner respondents that we send on this matter yeah good good suggestion okay so can we agree then that we'll look at maybe the clerks will help us look at an opportunity to incorporate a discussion about this particular issue within our forthcoming session looking at more policing and mental health but this is a very relevant and related issue that I would certainly be happy that we incorporate into the discussion just briefly convener yes so that the session I was referring to was not so much policing mental health it was the session that you'd agreed to ought to look at the overlap between health criminal justice and mental health issues of prisoners and perhaps wrapping the medical issue in relation to drugs and health board issues you could incorporate into into that convener perfect members happy with that idea yep perfect thank you very much okay our next letter is the correspondence from the crown agent on centralisation of case marking any comments on that correspondence i think this was an issue that our colleague Pauline McNeill first raised happy with the bristle for what it's worth i think it's quite a useful letter it's something that we've heard there are problems or objections to from some quarters but i think it it does lay out quite clearly the benefits there's greater consistency and i think efficiency so quite reassuring yep no i would i would agree i actually found it very helpful um it set out quite a lot of um information that i'd either slipped off my radar or i wasn't aware of so i certainly found it helpful um if katie yes one of the issues that we discussed um at the away day events was the consistency in relation to the crowns position on bail and we presumed that that wasn't dealt with at the centralisation you know process because of the fact that people would be appearing from custody at short notice and it therefore simply wouldn't be practical but it would be quite helpful to get a clarification on that about how they attempt to ensure that this consistency across scotland in relation to the crowns position on bail um and bail applications is it which i suspect is dealt with in a slightly different way than is outlined in this letter yeah i'm assuming that that i think i would agree with you i would assume that's not something that the unit would or the centralised process would consider but that's maybe something that may come up in the bail and release bill yep okay i mean it's just that i would have thought there might well be a process to try and ensure that there is consistency uh you know even if it's in retrospect i don't know it just would be interesting um maybe in time for the bail and release bill to have that information before us okay steven do you want to come in on that just to remind members that um we'll be bringing forward a paper 21st of september on the approach to the bail and release bill and there are some ideas in that paper for how to engage with the crown office around how they make their recommendations on bail decisions so it maybe if we can take forward miss clark's suggestions for how to get some sort of clarification as part of that process of engaging with the crown office on on that bill yep members happy with that yep okay thanks very much okay our next letter was from cosla on the funding provision for secure care um comments colette yeah i'm going to set a focus in on the actual procurement process in which the local authorities go through and the only reason why i'm going to do that is because i've been i've experienced of it myself the one concern i've got is about the cross-border placements it doesn't actually align with the promise um and that ties in with that as well and whilst i welcome what what was said um and the programme for government i'd be keen to get more clarity on how much secure how many secure beds there are within scotland is there enough um placing young people um cross-border is a challenge and i know even from we're having working in a children's care home myself there was a substantial amount of requests from down south to place young people up here as well and i just feel that that at the heart of it um we're not looking after their wellbeing by doing that um so i would i'd like to seek more clarity on that and see if we're like producing more and and scotland's excel are the ones that have got the framework for this and they are very robust in terms of how they go about doing it um obviously they've got to me certain aspects from the care inspectorate as well as triple sc on this as well but um and a lot of the times as well the local authorities are jumping at the bit trying to get its secured beds on a friday and there's no staff available within the local authorities over the weekend as well so that can be a challenge so it's just making sure that there's a more seamless process and that the procurement and that there is more secure beds available so that they're not getting put into a prison estate okay thanks very much i'll bring in rona and then Jamie and then Fulton okay thanks convener yeah i mean i can only really speak for the situation in the care secure care home in my constituency in st mary's and in that instance yes that there are enough beds there are always enough beds and the cross border placements coming up from england we're part of the financial um solution to to the to the funding so i think we're definitely moving in the right direction i'm really pleased to see a focus in this at last i think you know we are heading in the right direction um it's quite i think it's maybe quite a timid start um the the scourge government has agreed to pay for the last bed in each of the four secure centres as it becomes available and there is always a bed available in st mary's um and the short term objectives of funding are to reduce the number across um border placements as required by the promise i mean collects right mean we have to we have to completely um think about the the young people involved in this you know that said that there aren't enough secure places in england that's why that's why they're coming up here but we've been using that as a you know a way to fund our system which hopefully we're we're looking at it and saying well you know it needs to be a different framework but you know i'm quite optimistic that this is hopefully the start of a journey for getting that process better and i'm quite you know glad to see that something's been done um done at last thank you thank you no um jimmy yeah i find this a lot very helpful actually and i think it maybe speaks to certainly my own personal lack of understanding of the status quo i think it can often be confusing or confused as to to to who's placed where and why and this letter was quite eye-opening um clearly there are enough beds and the snapshot that we had were there were 78 secure beds in scotland at that time only 38 were being used but interestingly of those uh the majority were there on care and protection grounds and only one were sentenced and that has that's important because those who are placed through care and protection are funded or their responsibility to be funded by local authorities and those who come through the justice system are the responsibility of funding through the scottish government and at that time well january 2022 i don't know what the number is today only one young person was in secure care having been sentenced the question is therefore and i think this is something we maybe could do with some some help and understanding for those of us who are less experienced in the system than others is is especially in the context of legislation that was announced yesterday around children in uh care and justice as they interact with those those sections of government is on which grounds would someone be placed in secure care versus a young fendes institution versus an adult prison and they're clearly as crossover they're clearly people in the wrong place at the wrong time but it doesn't seem to make sense given that we know there is there is availability in secure care and i think my lack of understanding of that that journey with that flow chart leads us to believe that it can be quite as we as we will naturally have to go in and and look at this legislation it would be helpful to understand the landscape out of knowing what the right path is for people what the government wants to do next if there are changes that are going to be made because clearly the government's getting some flack about young people being seen to be in the wrong the wrong institution but yet we're hearing that there's plenty of availability so much so that we're shipping people up from south of the border presumably because that's been funded by by others so i would quite like a little bit of understanding about that i'm also interested in the short term model that they talk about which starts this month for six months as a trial i don't really understand it i see what it does but it says that the short the Scottish government has agreed to pay for the last bed in each of the four contract secure centres as it becomes available i'm not 100% sure what that means so maybe this is a session perhaps an offline session that we have someone could just explain to us what happens you know if you're what's the difference between someone in protective care versus someone who's gone through the justice system having committed some form of offence what options are available to people how they interact with the criminal justice system as children and i don't necessarily know if that's been the full remit of this committee or not but i think this letter certainly raised a whole bunch of questions for me okay thanks jamey um Thornton were you wanting to come in as well thanks convener like others i'm broadly welcome that this letter but i think is as rona Mcai said it's it could have went a bit further i think excuse me i think that you know after the announcement the programme for government yesterday i do think that it's probably the trial the trial period is to set ourselves up for that where there'll be nobody under the age of 18 and a custodial setting and you would imagine that if some of these young people are going to secure care on the through the criminal justice system then there'll be an implication for Scottish government funding because as jamey green rightly said the the letter does state there's only only one young person insecure care who was sentenced in terms of the cross border issue i've raised this before in committee you know is my time's a social worker this isn't new so i've got some concerns with this and when i used to work as a social worker i tripped down to the north of england wasn't an uncommon occurrence also to the north of scotland similar distance and similarly i've been going out to visit secure care centres here that young people were making relationships with people from various places in england so that it was a two-way thing so it's going to be particularly difficult i think to just stop that when both partners are clearly relying on it and i'm not saying that it's going to just be stopped because obviously it says to reduce the number of cross border placements which i'm assuming they're referring to um the scotland kids going cross border but in that in either scenario i think that the government will need to be speaking to the relevant stakeholders in england and wales about that because if young people don't have space in england then they're going to continue to use it and nobody no government is going to turn away a young person if that makes sense as well but we are obviously needing to increase capacity here to meet the policy objectives you know that it's going to be how we treat our young people who are sentenced so i think there's big discussions there because this is not new but not new this is going back decades cross border thing it came i think it came i might be wrong when some of the stakeholder watching this might might feel free to to help me up with this but i think it came historically you know from decades old assumption that kids who were maybe needing secure care it was better to get them way out the community of which they were in you know the thinking's changed around that but the historical placement of kids is not if that makes sense so i think it came from that basis maybe 70 something like that you know if a kid's you know needing some time away you get them a couple hundred miles away so i think it's came from that but that'll be a real issue to deal with across border then okay thank you very much any other comments okay thanks for that very helpful views i absolutely agree again for my own sort of professional experience the the historical rationale for cross border placements may probably made sense at that time but we're now in 2021 and our thinking has moved on so definitely a real issue jayme you mentioned the children's justice bill that was mentioned in the programme for government yesterday so i'm wondering if members would be in agreement that we come back to this perhaps in the autumn once we sort of see where that is going and in the meantime we can sort of flag our interest in this to the the lead committee on that and also the bureau once the bill when the bill is referred so members happy with that proposal yep okay thanks very much thank you okay we're getting there so our next letter is from the scotch fire and rescue service just providing an update on their use of naloxone again happy to open it up yourself yeah so seven months ago the first minister and the drugs minister attended a fire station and the headlines stated that firefighters are to start carrying naloxone with an announcement came 90 000 pounds of funding to train officers and what this letter tells is that 1226 members of staff have been trained but what it doesn't tell us is how many are actually carrying naloxone it also admits to make any reference to what i believe is some form of disagreement or dispute between the fire and rescue service and the fabricated union about this issue i think there's perhaps a sense among some officers this presumption that they should carry it without any reassurances about liability for use and misuse and and those questions being unanswered so i think it'd be useful to ask the fire and rescue service what is actually happening is it being used and what are the issues if any okay thanks for that anyone else no i think i think you're right there doesn't seem to be any indication that naloxone is being used at the moment or certainly carried i'm more than happy to write and ask erase the points that you've made just to get a bit more detailed update on progress around that members happy with that yep okay thanks very much so our next letter is our correspondence from martin evans chair of the scotish policing authority about changes to the police pension scheme and also the associated letter from david page deputy chief officer at police scotland again i'll open it up to comments and that was in relation to some correspondence that we had written requesting an update on the progress around the impact of the pension scheme changes to go first there's a lot in both letters we're taking both at the same time effectively yeah just as easy well i know it's primarily about pensions but there's the other issues in there in the up top of the david page letter there's talk about the importance of being mindful of police officers physical emotional mental well-being but you know back in june we heard evidence of suicides among police officers and what appeared to be a lack of any meaningful attempt to get the bottom of that there was a particular phrase that was used in an exchange between the spa in police scotland that they'd asked police scotland for some information this had been explored and the direct quote was based on information available at that time there was nothing to suggest any of the recent cases were caused directly by the pressure of work now i think that's not the case and i think it's worth revisiting there's cases i'm familiar with where it very much looks like the pressure of work and the work environment and other issues around that did or were contributory factors so it's just to put that on the record going back to the pension issue one of the two officers senior officers who are chairing the operational priorities capacity and resilience group into this issue of the change in pension rights and the large numbers of officers who have left and may continue to do so now this particular officer bull care has ironically also just announced that he is leaving to take a post with another police force so it's interesting to know who's taking his place on that committee but i think the main issue and i'm sure other colleagues will have plenty to say on this is the very stark warning from david page page towards the end of his letter about the proposed budget and the impact that will have on policing in scotland i won't read it out here but it's clearly extremely concerning and comes just a couple of months after the chief constable told the SPA that the proposed budget would have a significant impact on the numbers of officers who will be serving communities so thank you okay thanks thanks so did you want to come in kitty yes thank you um and it was really i presume this is something that we will look at in detail as part of our budget review process and scrutiny of the budget process um as was i said earlier in the meeting my understanding is the budget um the budgets for the justice sector across the board are being cut by approximately 20 percent so that obviously won't necessarily be an even cut um and that was before the levels of inflation that we currently are expecting so i presume we will get a lot more detail about this and we'll be able to scrutinise it in more detail about what the impact of that is likely to be in specific sectors but particularly place in our budget scrutiny process so um it was just to see i think you know we do want to be calling for more evidence so that we can look at that because um i think we do want to know how the police intend to respond to that and where it is that there's likely to be cuts because again they're going to make strategic decisions about how they're going to respond to that and it may be that certain types of work are given more protection than others and certain you know staff are prioritised over others and it would be interesting to get more information about that as part of the budget making process. Thanks Katie, Jamie, did you want to come in and then i'll bring it in. For clarification i'm sure the pressure on the police has come up before and i my understanding is there's several pilot schemes being run where there's like a fifth emergency response service being piloted in like Zedundi and what not where it's like mental health responders so it takes the pressure of police who have in the past and are still the first responders to cases like that so it'd be interesting to see how that pilot scheme runs out and i know i've had conversations and written correspondence from the minister for mental health so that's maybe something that we could follow up on and something that could possibly mitigate the challenges that police scotland are facing in terms of that as well. Okay thank you, Jamie. First of all associate myself with those comments i've always been a long believer that the police are mopping up the job of other emergency and public services we know that we've heard that in this room from them be it you know social care dealing with health situations, driving people to hospitals dealing with overdoses, mental health breakdowns and so on and that's really taken up quite a lot of their time and work adding to their stress levels which i think leads me on to my points about the letter from David Page which is the sort of letter i would expect to read probably from the SPF rather from the police force itself given the tone of it. The first point i'd like to make is that it should be of concern to the committee i think is we know the issue around pensions and retirements but one thing that flags me is is what we are seeing is proportionally a loss of quite a large number of officers with considerable experience and i think we have talked about that in the past but and there's no easy fix to that you know it takes time on the job i guess to accumulate experience but if you are losing 718 officers who have more than 25 years experience out of the 1137 who left or planning to leave well that's a huge chunk we also should know that one in 10 of those retired leaving the service are not doing so through normal attrition they're doing so because of a lack of resources has been their primary reason one in 10 is quite a lot and i think the letter goes on to explain why that is the case but that's something that should be of concern to us as well and that's something i think we should be asking the government what they're doing to address that. The other point is what i am slightly worried about is they're obviously saying that with the budget available to them we're focusing on the three key business areas of which most probably are focusing on their statutory duties C3 response policing public protection they state quite explicitly that some work in other business areas may be stopped or scaled back as we prioritise our work these are not decisions that will be taken lightly i understand why and our focus will always be on the most vulnerable in society what it doesn't really do is elicit what other business areas will be scaled back what other capital investment projects will be stopped or or not go ahead or paused what other projects of the police involved in whether it's education whether it's you know what else do the police do that they would see as superfluous to the core product that they have to deliver by statute and it's really unclear what these things are and i would be worried that there may be things in there that actually are more important especially in the preventative agenda it will lead simply just to problems down the line are we just delaying those problems they also would say that we're seeing the impact of fewer officers across a range of operational areas which operational areas would be my question including our responsiveness to calls on the public well does that mean their ability to respond to emergency calls does it mean the time scales that it takes them to respond to calls whether the calls are answered how long the calls take to be answered and as we know from information that came out last week whether whether those calls are even being processed we know we learned last week that data was been entered into system that wasn't even being recorded are these are these a result of human errors or technical issues due to lack of investment in ICT and at these are all questions I have so all this done is all this is done is flagged up a whole conversation that we need to be having with the police force with the minister because this is quite serious stuff they say that we'll have a serious impact on Police Scotland and our likely workforce numbers if what was put out in the RSR comes to fruition we hope it doesn't but we know there may be an emergency budget which I think this committee will have a role to play in and I think we need to be quite nimble in responding to that so I would like to hear from Mr Page and or others come to the committee and tell us more about some of these issues because I think this is just opening up a kind of worms okay anybody else want to come in yeah I mean james james right this is exactly the sort of issue that would have been you know would have drilled into in the police subcommittee and so I think we need to definitely set some side of time some time aside to you know to try and get some answers thanks very much for that yep Russell I mean I do agree with Rona that that is probably necessary but I do think that the Scottish Police Authority that is their job and it's at least supposed to be and you know they should be asking these tough questions thanks very much so really just to kind of pull this together I mean in terms of both pieces of correspondence obviously Mr Evans updated that their one of their committees I think their people committee is leading oversight if you like around police numbers they received an update back in June and at that time they were sort of satisfied with where work was taking Police Scotland in terms of responding to the numbers leaving I think they had asked for further information particularly around the reasons for levers which to some extent is set out in the correspondence again in terms of performance that Mr Evans updated that their appropriate committee policing performance committee is monitoring that and I took a little bit of reassurance from that in terms of policing performance and then obviously the a very important area as well is wellbeing which we have been looking at recently within the committee on that note members will know that we have a obsession coming up looking at the issue that I mentioned earlier around policing and mental health both in the context of the response to poor mental health which we've spoken about in communities but also the impact of the demands of policing on police officer and staff mental health so I would certainly be looking for us to probe within that session on the issues that we've spoken about today in terms of the financial issues that we've raised and the constraints of certainly the forthcoming constraints around budget we will obviously be looking at that closely within our forthcoming budget scrutiny process which will be around about late October so there's a lot for us to think about and discuss and I would anticipate that both Mr Evans and Mr Page will be invited to give evidence at our evidence sessions on budget so if members are agreed we'll take the issues that we've discussed today forward within those two forums Jamie? I think the second forum is appropriate because it's budget scrutiny and we'll have valid calls to question our witnesses on the implications of the budget whether it's the planned budget or an other emergency budget that arises but I think the other session is perhaps more of an informative one which I don't think is the right climate for getting into some of the integrity of some of the questions that I raised for example which are geared far more at the management level. I would be you know minded to thank Mr Page for his letter but go back to him with all the questions and they'll be on the official report that we have from across members and go back to them and writing say we'd like some a little bit more from you in advance but I don't think we should wait till the end of October before we hear from them again so you know I would politely request that we we do go back asking some further clarification on what some of this means because there are a lot of things being said but it's not clear what the detail is. I mean on that note we have I mean Stevens reminded me that we have already started to seek some of that information so I agree I think that's a good point that you raise another option would be following the session that we have on policing and mental health we can then have a follow-up session to consider the session and other issues that we've that have been raised. Members be in agreement to that Rona. We also follow-up collect suggestion about finding out how the pilot indeed is going with it. Yep absolutely yep sorry that yep so members happy with that. Yeah okay okay thanks very much okay and our final letter is from again from Police Scotland and that was a response in relation to tackling online child abuse grooming and exploitation. Again I'll open it up to members. Just one point I'm obviously this is one of the most serious subjects in the areas in which the police are working and the letter in front of us does touch on the point Jamie Greene made about the bigger budget concerns and the letter writer acknowledges that in these financial circumstances putting more money into it is probably not going to address the issue and probably isn't a feasible option so it will be very interesting to see what they're proposing in December so I think we should be just putting that in the diary and giving it a good look when it comes along. I'm happy to take that suggestion forward. I thought the update was very helpful. This is a growing and serious area of police work and I think it's right that we maintain a sort of watching brief over how things progress in terms of the policing response and policing resource around it. Related to that we had an opportunity to or I had an invitation extended to visit the Stop It Now offices so we can certainly take that forward. I'm not sure if that's in the diary or if it's... I think we don't have a diary date yet but we're looking to do that this side of this calendar year so we're just going to approach Stop It Now team and see what dates they might have available and then come back to the committee to see who might be available for that visit. That's very much Stephen Vilton, do you want to come in? Thanks, I would welcome that visit and I welcome the letter as well. I'm just wondering as well convener if this is something that we'll be able to tie into our session that you mentioned earlier on policing and mental health within policing because the reason why there might be some tie-in it might be brought to us by officers themselves but you know as you rightly said this is a growing area of concern so more and more officers are probably experiencing it at some level whether it's the initial contact or and you wonder you know with the nature of some of these offences or alleged offences that the emotional impact that that could have on people so I wonder if it's something that we could get some information from in a sensitive manner in the session coming up. Absolutely, I would agree with that Fulton and also maybe thinking about staff members as well as police officers in that regard so we'll certainly just propose that we very much keep this particular issue on our work programme and come back to it down the line. Can you give me some clarity and remind me what that organisation does? I have it in my head that it's about the rehabilitation of pedophiles and abusers, is that what it is? You're correct. They work with offenders in this particular field so yes that's what I mean. I would take in what we're talking about here online, abuse and things. Yeah it's a campaigning organisation is maybe too strong. They certainly work in this field both with offenders but also as a deputy convener saying there with early intervention so people would approach them who are perhaps feeling such desires but haven't actually offended and they will be able to provide sessions, advice, signposting to prevent those people offending in the first place. If you recall the director of Stop It Now came along to the committee's previous evidence session but we can provide members with just a quick reminder obviously before you go on that visit about Stop It Now and its work so that you're briefed before you go. Okay thanks very much. Okay I think that's our final piece of correspondence so thank you very much for your forbearance so it was a bit to get through. So that concludes our public part of the meeting but just before we move into private session just a reminder that our next meeting will be a joint meeting with the health and social justice committees next Thursday the 15th of September when we'll hear evidence from Angela Constance on tackling drugs deaths and problem drug use. So this will be in place of our scheduled meeting on Wednesday the 14th of September so thank you very much and we'll now move into private session. Thank you.