Chamber and committees

I felt that the response that we got was inadequate. It could have been written by anyone, but it should have been responding to the police officers who, we have heard, are serving on the front line in specialist units where, without even hearing the evidence, you would surmise that being in those undercover situations or dealing with weapons would be challenging mentally. There is no acknowledgement of that. I would have expected the Scottish Police Authority to recognise in its letter that it is responsible for a service in which police officers, who are in a profession that is on the front line, are probably more challenged than people in other professions. It is certainly among the professions that have the most far-reaching mental health challenges. There is no admission of that.

The SPA’s letter is very dry, in that it responds to some of the administrative issues. It says that it will review the situation. I would say to the SPA that if it is going to review the situation, it should take a different attitude from the one that it is taking with the Criminal Justice Committee. I want to hear more from the SPA about how it understands what we have heard from officers. Obviously, that is a snapshot. I want to hear more from the SPA that shows that it understands.

As I have said before, the fact that police officers were not categorised as a priority by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation always astonished me. That probably had a psychological impact on the police officers who served in the middle of Covid. Nobody seemed to bother about the fact that they were not vaccinated. I want to hear more from the SPA than what is in the letter. We should send a strongly worded response.

That is helpful. Put simply, is it fair to say that to take those powers away from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish criminal justice system and place matters entirely in the hands of the commission would place too much trust that the commission would achieve its objectives and not undermine any interest that we might have in Scotland?

That was a helpful contribution from Jamie Greene. I start from the viewpoint that the commission’s central purpose is a good one in principle. However, if it achieves what it wants to do, it will have wide-reaching implications, especially in indemnifying anyone against criminal prosecution and, as we have heard, civil proceedings.

I am clear in my own mind now, having read the DPLR Committee’s report and listened to the cabinet secretary. That committee noted that

“There is no requirement in the Bill that the UK Ministers obtain or seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers in the Bill within the Scottish Parliament’s devolved competence.”

It is important to uphold the principle that Westminster should seek the consent of this Parliament when seeking to do something on a UK-wide basis that is within the competence of the devolved Parliaments, such as criminal legislation. That principle needs to be upheld.

There is a lot to consider in all this. There are a number of substantial issues and, for that reason, I would like us to take more time. I am sympathetic to the Government’s position, now that I have heard it, but I would like us to take time over it in order to balance the overall objectives against some of the principles. However, it is really hard to overlook that principle because, at the end of the day, if we were to give up the powers of independence of the Lord Advocate, we should seek Parliament’s consent to do so.

It is important to pursue an update on that, because it is a case of “Maybe aye, maybe no,” depending on the local area. We wanted progress to be made and we wanted an acknowledgement that, if we really want to tackle the wider issue of released prisoners getting medication, which, in many cases, they need for five days, because they cannot get to their GP, we must monitor that. Given that we have started something, we should pursue the issue vigorously and see whether we can get some real action to be taken.

Therefore, the inquiry will hold the Crown Office to account over those decisions.

You said “if”, but I want to be clear. Is there going to be an inquiry?

My question is on the police budget.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have said to Jamie Greene twice that you have no intention of presiding over a drop of 4,500 officers. I am pleased to hear that.

I want to drill down a bit on the discussions that you are having with the Deputy First Minister about the issue. I am sure that you have shared the same concerns that the committee and I have. Police Scotland’s submission said—and the chief constable has said this openly—that it is not only the drop in numbers that is a big concern. As we have discussed many times, the Scottish police service is special in the UK and internationally because of the type of policing that we have here. It is not only the 101 service that is special. Perhaps only 26 or 28 per cent of calls are crime related. The police are very much the line of last resort. You know that, and you have heard that in many exchanges that we have had.

What discussions are you having in the Cabinet and with the Deputy First Minister about how we can avoid that drop in officer numbers? It seems to me that, even if you could find money in the budget, given the period ahead, it is important to protect and preserve that model of policing for the future. Are you getting that across to the Deputy First Minister? We are not talking about just a straight flat cut and a cut in numbers; we could lose that model of policing for ever because, when things are changed, they do not come back to where they were.

I have a final question. There are many areas of the budget that you could look to and find savings in. The area that always comes up is court time for police officers, who have to give up their rest days and all the rest of it. To what extent is that being resolved by the ingenuity of technology? How far down the road are we with that? Can technology assist with that?

I did not know that this issue was going to be raised, but it has been. Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that, at the moment, effectively, no one can say anything about the case because it is a live issue, so I will not press you on that.

However, Russell Findlay is right about accountability. A Lord Advocate took a decision some years ago that has massively impacted on the credibility of the Crown Office, not to mention the huge sums of money that are involved. When everything has been settled, what scope do you have as cabinet secretary to satisfy yourself that there will be accountability? I hope that you agree that, at least, somebody has to hold the Crown Office to account for that decision. A former Lord Advocate took that decision, and I do not think that that can be allowed just to dwindle out once the court case is finished. Surely, that cannot be allowed to happen again.