Chamber and committees

I thank members for their comments.

To summarise, we are looking to strike a balance. There is our desire to deal timeously with the LCM, and, as has been pointed out, we have to take into consideration timescales elsewhere. However, it is important that all members are comfortable that we have fully considered the implications of the bill and, accordingly, feel that we, as individual members, can take a position on it.

On that basis, I propose my initial suggestion to delay putting the question of consent to committee members today so that we can obtain more information. I note Jamie Greene’s comments about seeking copies of correspondence, if possible. He also mentioned the Lord Advocate, which is entirely appropriate, given her role in this. We will come back to the matter at a future meeting, when we will give it further consideration and, I hope, come to a conclusion. Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item of business is consideration of some recent work that we have undertaken on policing and mental health. I refer members to papers 2 and 3.

Before we begin our discussion, I record our thanks to all the police officers who spoke to us privately. Their brave and incredibly helpful testimony is really invaluable to our ability to question Police Scotland on how it supports its officers and staff.

In paper 3, the committee is invited to agree to a series of recommendations on follow-up actions as a result of our conversations. I invite members to comment and give their views on the suggested actions.

That is a fair comment. I am happy to do that.

If there is nothing else on that letter, we will move on to the letter from Police Scotland on cyberkiosk training. Do members have any comments on that? Did you want to come in on that, Collette?

I have a quick update on the point that Jamie Greene raised about the correspondence that was sent to the UK Government from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in relation to the bill. I can confirm that, to date, there has been no reply to that letter, which was dated 10 November.

In view of the questions that were raised in response to the update given by the cabinet secretary and some of the comments made by his officials, and also in view of the Scottish Government’s position on the LCM, I propose—I am happy to discuss this further with members—that we do not put the question of consent today and that we consider the matter as a committee, so that we can obtain more information for further consideration. That is my proposal, and I am interested in hearing members’ views on it.

I call Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Russell Findlay.

No worries. Thank you.

We will ask the clerks to support that follow-up work and to keep on top of that piece of work into the new year.

My ever-helpful clerks have just confirmed that that appears to be connected to a freedom of information request that was submitted by our Liberal Democrat colleagues. It should be in the public domain, but we will see whether we can find it, circulate it to members and incorporate it in our on-going correspondence.

I have jotted down some of the points that members have made. It is clear that concerns still exist about the response that we received from Police Scotland. In relation to that correspondence, I still have questions about training, which I am very interested in, and, in particular, supporting operational supervisors to recognise and respond to changes in a member of their staff, and to instigate the appropriate support before things escalate for them.

In the correspondence from the SPA, I noticed that some of the timescales for processing retirements seem exceedingly long. That raises a concern, particularly where there is a health and wellbeing issue connected to that. For me, the other question that remains is around access to, and referral to, specialist support in circumstances in which the mental wellbeing of an officer or a member of support staff has declined to a point at which referral and access to more specialist support is appropriate. The timescales around that are difficult. Those are some of the issues that I am interested in continuing to scrutinise.

We have covered a number of issues: obtaining data on suicides; establishing whether there is a link with officers’ work roles and the collection of data on that; and the possibility of FAIs. It is important to acknowledge that HMICS, the SPA, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation are committed to addressing the issue, but the view that there is a lot more work to be done is loud and clear. Fulton MacGregor spoke about widening access to the police treatment centres, which is a good point, and the situation with regard to vaccinations, which Pauline McNeill raised, is an issue that has attracted scrutiny and criticism in the past.

Going forward—to pick up on Jamie Greene’s point—it is important that the SPA and Police Scotland have an opportunity to respond. I am happy to propose that we give them some time to respond on the notes of meetings with officers and the suggested follow-up. We could also invite the federation and even the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents to comment, perhaps in 2023. In the meantime, I am keen that we write again to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to request a full and detailed response to the correspondence that we have sent them.

I also propose that we engage with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, perhaps on cases around FAIs, which Russell Findlay raised, and suicides, and raise those issues with it. As I said, we can certainly track down the information around the FOI that was referred to earlier.

Are members happy with that proposal? There is still a wee bit of work to do, but it is all important stuff.

Okay. Perhaps what you were referring to was in relation to the previous agenda item, but we picked up the key points that you were making on that.

A very good morning and welcome to the 31st meeting in 2022 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies this morning, but I should say that Collette Stevenson has had to leave the committee room. Hopefully, she will be able to rejoin us soon.

Agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session on the legislative consent memorandum to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans Keith Brown and, from the Scottish Government, Helen Nisbet, deputy director, defence, security and cyber resilience; Michael Sim, defence policy manager; and Nicholas Duffy, senior principal legal officer. I refer members to paper 1.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

I missed a bit of what you said, Fulton. Did you suggest exploring opportunities for retired officers and staff to access the treatment centres?