Chamber and committees

Absolutely. That is entirely their prerogative.

I have some specific recommendations that may make things easier in the future. There are two things that I believe do not happen at the moment when someone is identified as suffering from mental ill-health and is signed off sick. The first is that that information is not shared with the SPF. I presume that that is for data protection reasons, but I wonder whether it is an issue. I may ask David Threadgold to chip in. Sharing that information might lead to that individual seeking some counsel outside the employee assistance programme, about which we have heard a lot of criticism. I also wonder whether there is any merit in introducing, or reintroducing, having full-time welfare officers within the force.

That is helpful.

It was about welfare officers.

Are you saying that, when someone has been signed off or relieved of their duties, for whatever reason, they would be signposted to a number of places where they might seek help, and that your organisation would be one of those, but there are others?

Perhaps this is a question for Police Scotland and the Crown Office. I do not want to get into specifics, because that would be unfair on individuals and their families. Have any patterns emerged? For example, is there a pattern of people having identified as being in a position of severe trauma, such as having been suspended from an investigation by the force, being signed off from work because of physical or mental ill-health, or having recently experienced a trauma in the workplace? Have patterns emerged that point to specific factors being triggers that could be spotted and addressed?

Good morning. I appreciate that this will be a difficult subject for people who are watching the meeting.

Earlier, Ms McQueen commented that we cannot learn and move forward unless there is openness, honesty and transparency about what has happened thus far. I struggle with the assumption that is made about serving officers who have, tragically, taken their own lives in the past few years: no link has ever been identified, publicly or openly, between what they did for a living and what happened to them, which I find incredible.

The committee has met, in private, former and serving officers who have been frank and honest with us about the fact that they had either tried to take their own lives or had thought about it quite considerably, as a direct result of circumstances that they found themselves in, in being serving police officers. Their situation was not caused by relationship or money problems, or by historical mental health issues; rather, it was directly related to circumstances in which those individuals had found themselves. We know that to be true, as do the officers’ families. Why is no one willing to admit that that is the case? There is surely a link.

I will not pick a specific witness to respond to that, but if any of you wishes to answer, please do so.

I apologise.

That is helpful.

I wish Collette Stevenson the very best. I am very disappointed that I will not be sitting next to John Swinney on committee for the next two and a half years. Members might be aware that I will no longer be sitting on the Criminal Justice Committee after this committee session closes. By the way, I forewarn you that, if an alarm goes off in the building, it is entirely unrelated to what I am about to say. [Laughter.]

I thank the convener, deputy convener, colleagues, the clerking team, SPICe and everyone who has supported the Criminal Justice Committee over the past two and a bit years for their patience and, on occasion, forbearance, as well as for their support to me personally as I have worked on the committee.

I have worked on a number of committees since I got elected and on a number of bills, and I have to say that this is one of the best functioning, most cohesive, constructive and positive environments to work in. The committees in this Parliament do a tremendous job. It not said often enough how important committee work is in our unicameral existence, and I have always tried to approach that with a constructive and positive outlook, which I hope has been welcomed by members.

I also thank my colleague Russell Findlay, who will do a great job in his work on the Criminal Justice Committee as you approach a very challenging legislative environment over the next two years. I know from the committee’s work programme that you will face tremendous challenges, given the major reforms that are to be made to Scotland’s justice system. I wish the committee all the very best in its work.

With that, I make a plea that the committee, notwithstanding its potential changes in membership, continues in the same vein—that it approaches its work in a positive manner, with the good accord and rapport that we have enjoyed over the past two years. I hope that that continues for members, and I will continue to play my part in the Parliament as best I can in that vein, which I think is sorely lacking in politics these days. I wish the members of the committee the very best over the next two and a half years.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I have a few questions that follow on from the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks, the first of which is an overarching question on the Scottish Government’s position on the concept of the bill and what it is trying to achieve.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government has questions on technical issues with regard to the role of the Lord Advocate, and perhaps it has further questions on the potential implications of the human rights aspects of granting immunity. However, fundamentally, from a policy point of view, what problem does the Scottish Government have with the concept of immunity from prosecution in return for information, for example, or with the concept of amnesty in general in Northern Ireland? What is its major substantive problem with that?