Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise for having instigated the conversation about the correspondence, but LCMs are important.

The convener’s suggestion is very helpful, and I appreciate it. Whatever our views on the substantive elements of the bill, such as the commission and other aspects, that would give us the opportunity to seek more information.

Specifically, it would be helpful if the Northern Ireland Office was pressed to respond to the DPLR Committee on its feedback. There was a very late submission to members of that committee last night from the Law Society of Scotland, which raised a number of valid points.

The DPLR Committee will also need the opportunity to respond to the Lord Advocate’s letter. We have not seen that letter and do not know its content, but it sounds like it could be a productive and helpful piece of communication. There might be a question as to whether we could get sight of that letter and of any response in due course, or whether we could at least get confirmation about whether any impasse is insurmountable or whether there could be a positive way forward that would alleviate some of the Lord Advocate’s potential concerns. We have not heard directly from the Lord Advocate, and I do not want to put words into her mouth, but, from what the cabinet secretary said, it seems that she has some concerns that have led, in due course, to the Government’s position. The Lord Advocate might wish to write to that committee or to the Government and then to us; I am not that fussed which it is. However, if we could look at all that correspondence, that would help us to make a better-informed decision about whether to agree with the Government’s position.

The passage of the bill through Westminster—I am not sure of the timeline for that—might present an issue, given that recess is nearly upon both Parliaments. We would not want to stand in the way or affect that.

That is certainly a middle ground, if nothing else, given that this is quite a big and, as members have pointed out, sensitive issue. We all want to do the right thing.

I want to clarify something. Are papers 2 and 3 part of the publicly available pack of meeting papers or are they restricted to members?

The clerk has confirmed that they are public papers. That will save me some time in my comments. The summary notes in paper 2 go into great detail on the nature of the meetings that we had. It is worth putting on the record our huge thanks to the officers and ex-officers whom we spoke to, and to the Scottish Police Federation for mediating and attending meetings with them.

The evidence that we heard is all fairly self-explanatory. Many of the issues that were raised were no surprise to us, but they still came as a shock. I was struck most of all by the sheer scale of the trauma that the individuals whom we met had experienced and the effect that it has had on their lives and the lives of their families.

As Russell Findlay said, we have unfortunately lost a number of officers who have seen ending their lives as the only way out of their trauma. Others are still suffering. It is clear that, in so many aspects of how the police assist officers not just in their day-to-day work but in dealing with post-traumatic stress, so many have been let down. We met only half a dozen officers, which is probably a drop in the ocean. That was reaffirmed to me last week, when I attended the Scottish Police Federation awards just across the road. I spoke to officers there who repeated quite a lot of what we heard, although I think that what we heard was often at the extreme end.

On what should happen next, it is really important that the SPA and Police Scotland read in detail the notes that the clerks have produced about our sessions, and that they respond specifically on the many issues that we have raised. I will not go into them all in detail, but they include dealing with the trauma and stress of the job; the organisational culture; how the SPA and Police Scotland deal with complaints; lack of resources; lack of time off; financial pressures; mental health; how the human resources systems, including the employee assistance programme, deal with the issues; and how HR deal with people who are on sick leave. We heard a number of frank—and quite shocking, actually—comments about how such people are dealt with. A private employer in that position would be looking at a number of serious civil cases being brought against them.

Paper 3 asks us to consider what we should do next. All the questions that have been posed are relevant and it is really important that Police Scotland responds to them in great detail. I do not want to get a one-page response that thanks us for our work. Police Scotland really needs to be open and frank with itself. We have had evidence sessions where quite senior people from Police Scotland and the SPA have sat in front of us and said that they hear what we are saying and they hear the feedback. They told us about a range of steps that they are taking to make things better, but that was very high-level feedback. I would like to see much more detailed, in-depth information on how they are addressing each of the issues that we are presenting to them and their direct response to the criticisms. That is key.

It is only fair that Police Scotland and the SPA are given the opportunity to respond. They may not agree with everything that we report or with the assumptions in the summaries that we will give them in the papers, but it is entirely appropriate that they at least say so. If they agree and accept responsibility in some of the areas, it is important that we give them the opportunity to say what they will do moving forward, because it is the moving forward that is really important.

We know that mental health and work stress are among the key drivers for retirement and early retirement from the force. We have had a lot of discussion around that. It is really important that that plays into our wider remit of keeping a watching eye on police numbers and churn and generally supporting those who are on the front line, which is important to all of us on the committee.

I hope that those comments are helpful in some way and that they set the bar for what I would like to see from Police Scotland and the SPA.

Let me pose a hypothetical question: what if a solution were to be found to those barriers, namely the interaction between the role of the Lord Advocate and the role of the independent commission? First, are you aware whether the Lord Advocate has made her views on the matter open to the Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, if so, whether she has had any response and whether the Government has been privy to that correspondence? Has that approach been in any way helpful or constructive in, perhaps, finding a possible solution?

If a solution could be found through whatever means—I am sure that there are a number of means by which that could take place—would that make the bill as a whole more palatable to the Scottish Government? Even if the issue were addressed and further advice given on ECHR matters, would the Government still have a problem with the fundamental premise of the legislation?

I am happy to finish there.

If it is all going so swimmingly, why are people hanging up? Are they waiting for too long? Are the calls not being answered? Is there a lack of resource in the call centre? Is it anything to do with the centralisation of the service? What is the Government doing to get underneath the root of the problem? So many calls are being lost.

People phone not for the sake of it but because there is an issue. Often, they are unsure as to whether they should call 101 or 999. We are trying to alleviate pressure on 999 calls; clearly, that is the point of the 101 service. People are not phoning for fun. If they are hanging up, or simply not getting through to someone, that is a matter of concern. We all know of the grave repercussions when call handling goes wrong. We have had that debate in the Parliament many times.

What exactly has the Government done to find out why so many 101 calls are not being answered, and what exactly is being done to improve on that? Just a broad commitment that it will get better is probably not good enough.

—in how you manage Government and how you and your colleagues manage public services. I know that you are keen to divert attention to England and Wales, but I am not. This is the Scottish Parliament, it is a Scottish committee and you are the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans in Scotland. If we could keep our focus on the budget, that would be great.

People call the police because they are desperate. They phone for an ambulance and are told to wait for hours, so they phone for the police to take them to hospital. They phone the police because they have phoned local authority social work departments that are closed out of hours. They phone the police because other public services have let them down. That is why people call 101 when they should not do so—because they are desperate, and the police are the first and last point of contact.

We have heard evidence from numerous officers, and from the SPA and the Scottish Police Federation, that the police have become a catch-all service. That simply adds to the pressures, and it is directly down to a failure to deliver the other vital public services that people need in an emergency. What conversations have you had with your Cabinet colleagues about relieving those pressures on the police?

If the political direction of travel is to send fewer people to prison and offer alternatives, that policy will rely on the adequacy of those alternatives and on there being not just public faith but judicial faith and confidence in them. We have heard from sheriffs and judges who do not trust that those sentences will be carried out or delivered properly. Therefore, that leaves them with little alternative but to send people to prison. We cannot simply divert people from prison if there is nothing to divert them to; otherwise, we will absolutely lose public confidence in the service. Are you mindful of that as well?

Good afternoon to our guests. This was not going to be the question that I was going to ask, but, after listening to that last exchange, I think that it should be.

Given that local authorities have statutory duties to perform these functions, in another model where a centralised nationalised service provides that service either directly by employing people—and becomes an employer of choice—or through some form of tendering, outsourcing or even direct awarding to preferred suppliers through a national contract or otherwise, it sounds as though the end scenario might be some form of privatisation of services that are currently delivered by the public sector. That sounds great if you are just about to buy shares in a private company that profits from that type of service, but not so great for those who currently work in it. My first question, therefore, is whether that is a genuine risk or just a perceived one. Secondly, what representations will you be making next to the Scottish Government, given all the concerns that you have voiced today and previously? I will start with Unison and then ask COSLA and Social Work Scotland to respond briefly.

Clearly, however, the loss of 4,500 officers would have a stark effect on Police Scotland’s ability to perform not just its statutory duties but its basic functions. We heard that the police simply would not turn up to certain types of crime—low-level crime, as it is often called—and would respond only to the most serious of events, due simply to being short of bodies, or boots on the ground. Clearly, that will be of concern to the public.

Therefore, the issue that the Government faces is that it must either concede to the demands for pay rises or simply say that there is a cap on how much money is available and accept the consequences. Those consequences could be industrial action, as we have seen already, officers leaving the force or, indeed, firefighters and other public service workers looking elsewhere for employment. How will the Government approach those negotiations, given that it is under substantial pressure to concede to the demands of not just the unions but others, too?