Chamber and committees

Thank you. Perhaps you cannot answer my next question and it needs to be asked of the chief constable. I raised the issue before. We can see how concerning the situation is, based on those numbers. One of the reasons that police officers are choosing to retire is the conditions that they are working in. For example, as I said, they are having their rest days and holidays cancelled at the last minute.

Do not answer this question if you feel that it is for the chief constable, but has there been any response to that? As an organisation, you would want to try to retain those police officers and their experience given the stark points that you have outlined to the committee. Are you able to say about how you will try to address that?

The letter contains very little information for us to go on. I take the view that there is a wider issue about access to criminal and civil justice and that people should have affordable access to what happens in their court cases. I do not know what the charge is—I do not know anything about that—but I assume that it is quite expensive, because a scheme would not otherwise be being created. I cannot comment further on that.

For me, there is a wider issue. Constituents have told me that they found it really difficult to get the transcripts of their court cases. There is probably not enough time in this committee’s agenda to deal with the wider issue but, if a commitment has been made and the Lord President is commenting on the matter, we probably need to pursue it, to make sure that that element of the system is in place.

Okay, I will wait to see what the Wise Group says.

Are members satisfied with the response? It took one half-hour meeting with the Wise Group for the matter to be raised with us, and I presume that it was not a one-off issue, or the Wise Group would not have raised it. I find it hard to believe that the issue is not being picked up, because it is quite a problem. The letter tells us that, on a Friday,

“the prison healthcare team would write a prescription for the patient to cover a week or so of opioid substitute treatment until the CAT team can pick the patient up.”

That is so lax.

I am not really content with the response because, to me, it is an admission—I do not need the Wise Group to tell me that. The response suggests that the situation is okay. Other people know more about the issue than me—I am just a layperson reading about it—but, surely, if people are prescribed a week’s worth of treatment until the community addiction team can pick up the patient, there could be a gap. That is an admission, is it not? I am just—

Yes, I am.

I welcome these important regulations. Some members of the committee previously questioned the Scottish Legal Aid Board on behalf of practitioners about the fact that there was a disincentive to settle cases early. The regulations are helpful on every level and I support them.

Given what you said to Katy Clark about the pilots being a matter for the SCTS, what is the Government’s role? There must be one if we are being asked to consider it. Who has determined the things that we would expect to see in a pilot, such as how its success is measured? Is that the Government or the SCTS? I am seeking clarification on whether it is all a matter for the SCTS.

Because we do have that.

I have no objection to that, but it has spoken publicly about not answering phone calls on rest days, for example. As with most jobs, there is a lot of stuff that you are not required to do but you do it—it is that goodwill side of things. I do not mind if what you are asking for is written clarification of the new range of actions that it might take.

I agree with the points that have been made so far. As Russell Findlay has said, there is a slightly different perspective from Police Scotland than there is from the Scottish Police Federation. It is important that we establish why. One thing is clear: higher numbers of officers than usual are leaving the police service. Why is that the case?

From what I have read before, the statement in the federation letter that police officers feel “undervalued” came as no great surprise to me. For the life of me, I cannot understand why police officers were not given priority for vaccination during the pandemic, for example. Obviously, that was a matter for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation but, in reality, I felt that no one was really standing up for police officers.

As we in this committee have been examining, police officers are members of the one profession that cannot walk away from problems, whether they are dealing with 101 calls, mental health issues or crime, and we know that a lot of the calls that police officers deal with are not directly related to crime. That has to be recognised in some way, but it is the loss of experience that concerns me most.

I have looked at the breakdown over the ranks and it is pretty spread across them. There is a sense of urgency about the matter because, if the numbers that we have been given are correct and we lose that level of experience at all those grades, no level of recruitment will compensate for it. The service is already under pressure, so there are service implications that we need to discuss with the Government. The situation must be related to pay and conditions.

As politicians, we have to try to do the right thing. We need to try to retain some of those officers. The federation says that the change to pensions is minor and that police officers could always leave after 30 or 25 years’ service so the change is not the reason why they are leaving. If that is correct, there is a duty on the Government to make some inroads into pay and conditions that would persuade some of those officers to stay, because, if they do not stay, we will have real service issues in the police.