 The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on ministerial statement, the deaths of John Ewell and Lamarabelle. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Keith Brown, cabinet secretary. I'm grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on police call handling and the tragic deaths of John Ewell and Lamarabelle in 2015. I'd like to start by offering my condolences to the families of John Ewell and Lamarabelle. The chief constable unreservedly apologised to John and Lamarra's families yesterday, and as I then just as secretary did at the time, I want to apologise to the families for this tragic loss. I am deeply sorry. Following a complex and thorough investigation, the Lord Advocate, in her independent role as head of the system of prosecution in Scotland, confirmed that criminal proceedings would be brought against Police Scotland in connection with Mr Ewell and Ms Bell's deaths. As members will be aware, on Tuesday at the High Court in Edinburgh, the Police Service of Scotland pled guilty to an offence contrary to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, admitting to corporate criminal liability in relation to the tragic events in July 2015. I understand that the case team and staff from the Crown Office, Victim Information and Advice Service, have communicated with family members and their legal representatives throughout the process. I know that the minds of a number of family members will now turn to the question of whether there will be a fatal accident inquiry. This decision, as the chamber will know, is a matter for the Lord Advocate and I have no locus in it, as cabinet secretary. I can say that the Lord Advocate has confirmed that work has begun to initiate a fatal accident inquiry and has committed to make further information on the process public when possible. It is important to recognise the significance of this case and of the sentence. However, as Lord Beckett said in his sentencing statement, there is no sentence that court can pass that reflects the inestimable value of life lost and harm caused. Following the tragic events in July 2015, ministers did act quickly, with the then cabinet secretary for justice directing Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to undertake an independent assurance review of the operations systems and processes in place in Police Scotland's contact command and control division. That review resulted in 30 recommendations for improvement, and the inspectorate worked closely with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to implement wide-ranging changes in the period since. In May 2018, HMICS published an update report that confirmed that all 30 of the recommendations relating to their initial assurance review had been discharged and commended Police Scotland for the considerable priority that is attached to the work. This week, HMICS published a further briefing note confirming that it has continued to engage with Police Scotland's contact command and control C3 division and conducted on-going assurance work on the new contact assessment model and the wider Police Scotland change programme. The briefing note confirmed that a further eight recommendations were made to support on-going improvement and to ensure that key areas of development and risk continue to be addressed by the SPA and by Police Scotland. All those further recommendations have subsequently been discharged. HMI inspector of constabulary in Scotland, Jill Emery, commented in the briefing that she is, in her words, confident that Police Scotland has made significant progress in terms of its call handling processes and is committed to pursue continuous improvement, investing further in technology staff and the C3 estate. Mrs Emery noted that the force had maintained a high level of transparency over its call handling performance, publishing monthly reports on its website to ensure that the public and interested parties can scrutinise its progress. She thanked the officers and staff of Police Scotland who have continued to engage positively in HMICS's assurance processes and reviews. Since the establishment of Police Scotland, public scrutiny of policing has never been greater. It is essential that the public and parliamentary conference in the police remain strong, and I know that members will share my view that Scotland is well served by its police service. It is hardworking, dedicated and professional officers and staff. Created through the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012, Police Scotland is a result of the largest exercise in public service reform since devolution. The Justice Committee of the Parliament's post-legislative scrutiny report on the act was published in 2019, and it rightly recognised some significant achievements, including the creation of national capabilities in policing, described as, in their words, a success story for Scotland. We are confident that the structures and procedures brought in under the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012 have strengthened the governance, accountability and scrutiny arrangements for policing. In giving evidence to the Justice Committee and notwithstanding the circumstances of the tragedy, in October, as part of that process, chief constable Ian Livingstone was clear that police reform has made Scotland safer, saying, I do not think that Scotland will be as safe now and in the future as it is, had we not gone through that process of reform. That is a sentiment that the Scottish Police Authority chair strongly agreed with, and in the recent unprecedented times we have been very well served by Police Scotland and its officers and staff. Public confidence in policing is high, a survey of the Scottish Police Authority in February 2021 confirmed that 58 per cent of respondents rated their local police as excellent or good. Publishing its recent annual report on 13 August 2021, HM chief inspector of constabulary, Ms Jill Emre QPM said in the context of an on-going pandemic that having one police service for Scotland helped to achieve consistency in leadership, direction, interpretation and implementation of legislation. Police Scotland's public messages repeatedly emphasised working with the public as fellow citizens, maintaining the principle of policing by consent and building legitimacy, despite the extraordinary additional police powers to restrict people's individual freedoms. Much has been achieved through police reform and I firmly believe that policing in Scotland is stronger for it. However, in no way detracts from the failures that occurred in this part of the reform programme on which police Scotland has been accepted. As Lord Beckett stated during his sentencing, the offence for which the Police Service of Scotland has accepted responsibility and pled guilty to arises from human error, which arose at a time of considerable restructuring of the police and necessary reorganisation of their procedures. I accept senior councils' unchallenged submission in relation to the reorganisation of call handling and area control, that this was not changed for the sake of change or change driven purely by the desire to reduce costs. Rather, the lack of an integrated system caused considerable operational difficulties. The previous legacy systems could not communicate with each other. Access to technology across the forces varied, and co-ordination of operational responses across legacy boundaries was convoluted and cumbersome. The Scottish Police Authority recognised that the severity and significance of the charges and the fine placed on Police Scotland underlined the serious failure to respond appropriately to this incident in 2015. SBA chair Martin Evans said in the statement following the court proceedings, the chief constable's detailed acknowledgement of those failings, apology and personal commitment to continue to drive improvement and further reduce the opportunity for such circumstances to ever happen again are frank and heartfelt. I say nothing here in the chamber today that I can adequately recognise the sense of grief and loss that the families will have endured. Again, I want to turn to the families of John and Lamara and say that I am deeply sorry for what happened. I am deeply sorry for your loss. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business, and it would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Jamie Greene. Presiding Officer, the deaths of Lamara Bell and John Ewell are an utter tragedy. There really are no other words for it, but this is a tragedy that should not have happened. It resulted in unimaginable horror and, as we now know, the avoidable death of Lamara. It is also a tragedy that many warned might happen. This case laid bare some very difficult truths for the Scottish Government, which it too must be held accountable and responsible for over and above the apology that we have heard today. It is clear that the centralisation of Police Scotland and specifically its co-handling practices undoubtedly led to a period of funding concerns, IT problems and operational failures, which ultimately cost the lives of two innocent people. The Government cannot absolve itself of all responsibility, and only a fatal accident inquiry will unearth those failings. Much was made in the statement today about lessons learned, which, of course, they must be. Why is it the case that, as recently as June of this year, some 40 per cent of calls to one-on-one police were abandoned by the caller because of lengthy waiting times? Is that a lesson learned? On police funding, does the Scottish Government contest Police Scotland's defence argument in this case that the force's budget has been operating on a hand-to-mouth basis, so much so that the judge handed down a reduced fine out of concern for Police Scotland's budget? Finally, does the Scottish Government have any regrets of its own, which, through its admission, might ensure that a tragedy like this never, ever happens again? I thank Jamie Greene for his questions. I should say first of all that, going back to the comments made during sentencing, it was clear that the Lord Presiding said that this was the change that was happening at this time. The public reform change was a necessary change. He alluded to the inadequacies of the previous legacy systems that were there. I can attest to that myself as a member of a police board. The eight systems that were there were not talking to each other in the way that they should. Of course, the part of the public sector reform that was undertaken was to address this and many other systems. It was a necessary change. That was the point that his Lordship made. He also mentioned, of course, that Jamie Greene said that those were warned about, but, of course, the single point of fear was a human error, as was said by the Lord delivering his sentence. I think that human error, as was also said, elsewhere in the judgment is something that is going to happen in very large, complex organisations. I think that that much is given, but we have to work to try and reduce that. I think that the 30 recommendations that have been taken forward and the subsequent eight recommendations that have been taken forward, specifically in relation to the call handling and management system, are our way and the police's way and the SPA's way of responding to that, to making sure that the likelihood of that happening again is absolutely minimised. I think that the comments made by the inspectorate, which, of course, is the body that oversees those changes, are very encouraging to say that we are the police ourselves and the SPA are getting this right. Fundamental reform happened in terms of how those calls are handled. They take over 2 million calls a year. Calls can drop out for any number of reasons. People can drop out because they are directed to go elsewhere if they can be any number of reasons for that. What happened in the previous legacy systems was that calls were often not answered at all and there was no record kept to the fact that those calls were not answered. That does not happen now. On the point that the member makes about budgeting, I would say that we have increased police funding year on year since 2016-17, investing more than £10 billion over that time. Of course, the decade that we are talking about from 2011 to 2021 has been a decade of austerity. It is against that background. We have seen an increased policing budget from £75.5 million more to more than £1.3 billion. Of course, during that entire time, we had a higher number of police officers than any previous administration. There are no doubt that there are budgeting pressures. I would concede that. That is set by the context in which we ourselves are funded. I would point out that, just as recently as last year, the budget that we are currently working under allocated £60 million extra to the police. The Conservatives asked for £50 million. We allocated £60 million and have on occasion allocated further funds for specific purposes, for example, body worn cameras. We are looking to learn those lessons. We want to maximise the budget for the police that we have committed in this Parliament to maintaining the police resource grant right through the Parliament. I hope that we will have support. We are learning lessons. The bulk of those, I think, have been taken forward in the 30 recommendations that have been followed by eight subsequent recommendations, all of which have been discharged. I accept that that has got to be a continuous process. Scottish Labour would like to add our voices to that of the cabinet secretary and offer condolences to the families of John Yill and Lamarra Bell. There were many troubling factors leading to the death of those two young people, and lessons must be learned from those huge mistakes in this case. The fact that it took six years for the family to finally have a court confirm that the feelings of Police Scotland and an admission of corporate criminal liability. The cabinet secretary initially apologized. I would ask what deeper reflections does the cabinet secretary have in ensuring that this cannot happen again and that all steps are taken. It is clear that failures to accompany centralisation of Police Scotland with adequate staffing and training, we know, was a factor because in the various reports, the officer who took the call who stepped in due to staff shortages was not a trained telephone operator and he didn't even have access to the IT systems, a monumental complete systems failure. A probably resource one-on-one call centre with well-trained staff is obviously crucial and we've heard that 71,000 calls, 40 per cent of those 71,000 calls, weren't left unanswered. I do acknowledge that confidence of Police Scotland remains high, but I asked the cabinet secretary with that in mind. Is he really satisfied that Police Scotland has the necessary resources it needs to ensure that this can never happen again? When the fatal accident inquiry proceeds, how can we ensure that it's done speedily and that the public sees that justice is done and that accountability is given? I thank Pauline McNeill for her questions and just addressed the last question that she asked first of all, of course, and I know she knows this. We have no control over the pace of the FAI if that's the way the Lord Advocate chooses to proceed. I would also acknowledge her first point, which is about the time that's taken to get to this stage. I acknowledge that the angstak causes to the people involved in that, but once again we have the Government quite rightly no control over that process. I think that it is welcome that the Lord Advocate has said that she has started the process already and that she will keep us updated as to how that moves forward. The member asks as well, are we satisfied that the resources are available to the police in a sufficient quantum? I would just refer to my previous answer. We have consistently increased the police budget. I think that we have responded to when there have been and there have not been that many requests from opposition parties in budget processes to increase funding to the police, which can only be done at the expense of other services. You do have to make that choice, and we have also responded to the police for specific requests. We are also hoping to make sure that our police remain in much larger numbers. I would point out that one of the budget constraints is that if we increase our police numbers as we have done to over 17,000, and if the UK then reduces its by 17,000, that means that they are spending less on policing and we get less in terms of consequentials, so it becomes harder to continue to fund what we already have in terms of the numbers of police. However, I do think that the commitment, first of all, to make sure that we maintain the police resource budget is a very strong commitment in this Parliament and should give some, I would hope, reassurance to that. I hope that that would be supported by other members. Of course, beyond that, it is the Government's responsibility to allocate funding, it is the Parliament's responsibility to agree that funding, and it is then the SPA's responsibility to deal with that funding and oversee how the police expend their budgets. From my point of view, I have a rising and high confidence in the ability of the SPA to do that. We have to learn lessons. I think that it will take a bit of time to do that, and it will also be something that is done as and when and if an FAI proceeds. Of course, we should learn lessons at that stage as well. I know Lamarra's family and I am thinking of them today and I have for many days over the last six years. For the justice secretary, though, to use this week of all weeks to claim the centralisation of the police was a success story, I think, as both insulting and offensive, especially as the chief constable admitted that, for three years, the call centre system was unsafe. Four months before the tragic death of Lamarra and John, I warned Nicola Sturgeon about the problems at the Bilston Glen call centre, but the Government did nothing to stop the cavalier closures. Political decisions have consequences, so will the cabinet secretary follow the dignified lead of the chief constable and accept that the police centralisation programme is wrong? I appreciate the points that Willie Rennie makes and also the fact that he has been involved in this case for a long time and his personal knowledge of the family concern, but I have to say that I disagree. I have been a supporter by conviction of the centralisation of the police force, I believe at least a better police force in Scotland, and it is showing already benefits. I acknowledge in this case the tragic loss of life that has happened here, but I believe that it is a fundamentally important public service reform. It was not just me saying that. I read in my statement all the different people, whether it is the chief constable, the chair of the SPA or the Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, all have seen benefits from centralisation. I think that that is a very important point to make. I think that Willie Rennie has asked about what lessons we can learn. I have mentioned some of those things already. I have mentioned some of the practical things that have been done. Pauli McNeill mentioned increased training and so on for staff, and that has been taken forward as part of the 30 recommendations. I do have confidence that those recommendations are improving even further the service that is there now, but it will be the case. Willie Rennie may have the chance to contribute to that, that the FAI, if that is the way to Lord Advocate proceeds, will give us a further opportunity to look back and learn further lessons during that process. I, for one, would commit, of course, the Scottish Government to playing a full part in that process, if that is what happens. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and my thoughts and heartfelt condolences go to the families of Lamara and John also. Can the cabinet secretary reiterate some of the actions that have been implemented by Police Scotland following the HMICS independent assurance review to ensure that a tragic and avoidable event like this never happens again? I thank Collette Stevenson for her question. I point out, of course, that the HMICS independent assurance review did not examine the circumstances of this incident but instead provided wider independent assurance of the operation, the systems and processes in place within Police contact command and control, what is called C3 facilities across Scotland. I mentioned that there were 30 key recommendations made in 2018. HMICS provided an update on the progress that had been made. It was not simply being left either to Police Scotland or even to the SPA, but it was also inspected by the Inspector of Constabulary. They made further recommendations and have confirmed that all eight of those recommendations have now been closed. For those who have taken the time and have the experience of reading the inspectorate's recommendations, those are not soft recommendations. They are very serious and delivered by people, very expert in this area. It noted, for example, that considerable priority and effort had been applied to ensure that progress had been made, that the management and staff of C3 division have continued to be strongly committed, that they now have a single national command and control system in place, which in their words allows oversight of all incidents across Scotland from any of the three area control rooms or service over a few functions. That provides resilience, more effective management of national incidents as well as providing a complete picture of activity. I have mentioned previously the IT legacy systems substantial work has been undertaken to further stabilise the ICT infrastructure systems and provide an effective medium-term environment. I am very grateful to the inspectorate for the work that they have done, and that gives us confidence that, as far as is conceivably possible, we drive down any risk that something similar could happen again in the future. Tens of millions of pounds in compensation for the Crown Office's malicious prosecution scandal will not come from their operational budget. Ministers have promised that those payouts will come from other public funds. It is reported that Police Scotland may face similar claims over their criminal negligence in the M9 tragedy. Will the Scottish Government today make the same commitment and guarantee that not a single penny will be taken from front-line policing budgets? Can I say that there are two examples given by Mr Finlay that are not comparable at all? We are not at that stage. It is not open to me to comment on any potential further cases that come forward. However, you can assume from the approach that the Scottish Government has taken into the other case that you mentioned that we do not want to see the police budget impacted. I have already mentioned that we want to safeguard the resource budget for the police, but none of those things are areas of the potential actions that the Scottish Government is involved in or informed about, so I do not want to say more than that at this stage. The court noted that operational difficulties at the time included differences in access to technology across the forces. Has the Scottish Government taken any action to ensure that Police Scotland now has access to up-to-date and sufficient technological resources? I think that I have mentioned that in response to the previous question from Collette Stevenson that, yes, there have been substantial upgrades. That has been a huge problem. Quite candidly, that is not true across all the IT systems that the police rely on. It requires substantial investment in anybody who has been aware or involved in public or even sometimes pirate sector procurement of IT systems for very large organisations. I do not know how complex that can be, but I am confident that the work has been taken forward in relation to that particular area of work. It is confident that it is not just deriving from an assurance when the police themselves are serious, so that would be. It is also the assurances that we received from the SBA, which again this month will hold in September another public session on that very area itself, but also from the inspectorate, as I mentioned previously. Those things provide a very strong level of reassurance. Daniel Johnson, to be followed by Audrey Nicholl. Thank you. A poor implementation of central control centres was the underlying fault behind this tragic death, and the police have rightly apologised. Capital funding of Police Scotland per police officer has remained around the fourth lowest across United Kingdom police forces since the creation of the force and around half of the police services assessment of what they require. Will the cabinet secretary reflect and extend his apology to police officers for his Government's failure to fund the systems, facilities and equipment that was required to create a single police force? I have mentioned already the fact that we have spent extra money on the police right throughout the past 10 years when public finances have been extremely squeezed over that period. I think that everybody, especially the member, acknowledges that fact. He mentions capital funding. We have maintained capital funding, as well as the capital allocations that we have given them, none of which were challenged by any other party in the chamber. We have given additional capital funding for specific purposes when that has been requested. I have mentioned body-worn camas and other things. We remain alive to the request from the police, but there is all one pot of public money, notwithstanding the difference between resources and capital. You have to make choices in relation to this. We have chosen to have a higher number of police officers to pair police officers better and to provide the equipment that I have mentioned. There is always a debate about that. I acknowledge it, and maybe the member has a different view on how they should be dispersed. I accept that point, but I think that we stand by the allocation of resources that we have made to the police and will try to continue to maintain that right through this Parliament. Does the Scottish Government have any plans in respect of police recruitment to ensure that all areas of the service, such as call handling, are sufficiently staffed? I thank the member for her question, and she will know far better than me that recruitment for the police is, of course, a matter for the police. The Scottish Government has continued reform funding for a further year to support police transformation. In £29.6 million, reform funding will be provided to the SPA this year to support a range of transformation projects. In relation to recruitment, that will remain, as it is just now, a question for the police, but they, as you would expect, are watching these proceedings. They will have heard the member ask that question, and I am sure that that will be taken on board. We will continue to support both the current police numbers that we see, which, of course, are higher than any previous administration. I am also pleased to report to the member—again, she may know this anyway—that there is very strong interest in continuing to join the police, a contrast with, for example, the armed forces, where there has been substantial recruitment crises in previous years. That assures me that the work in terms of recruitment—I acknowledge that there are a number of members in the chamber that have written to me in recent months about aspects of recruitment—will be taken forward both by the Police Scotland and the SPA. As far as it relates to reform of the service, we will continue to support that, at the same time as providing the support that we are duty bound to provide the police in our public statements, given the fantastic role that they have played, not least in the last 18 months during the pandemic. My heart goes out to the family and friends of Lamar Bell and John Neill. No one should have to experience such an avoidable tragedy. That terrible case reminds us that serious harm and death can be the result of not only individual mistakes but of institutional and corporate failures—failures of governance and of care. While Police Scotland's admission of breaching health and safety legislation, its conviction and the imposition of a small fine bear some symbolic significance, it does little to bring about real justice. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the people of Scotland urgently need law reform, which would effectively address corporate and institutional responsibility for death and serious injury, and which would do so through robust participatory and potentially transformative processes? I think that what I say to the member just now, at this stage of the Parliament, is that I know her views on the issue that she has raised. From my point of view, I am confident in the justice systems that we have. We have seen notwithstanding the point that Pauline McNeill raised earlier on about the time that it takes sometimes to get to inclusion, and it can be a time that is very difficult for people waiting to find that resolution to the issues of justice that they seek. However, I have confidence in the justice system, but, of course, we will, as a listening Government, listen to proposals for further changes, which we can look at in order to facilitate the more efficient use of the justice system to achieve justice. That is something that we should always seek to do, and I am happy to engage with the member, as I have done already, on the issue that she raises. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and add my voice to the heartfelt sympathy expressed to those affected by the tragic deaths of Lamara and John. I am encouraged at following today's announcement questions, which have remained unanswered, may be explored further with a fatal accident inquiry. However, we must also consider the feelings of those left behind. The loss to the family is on-going. Can I therefore ask the cabinet secretary about the range of victims' support processes in place for them? Michelle Thompson is a very important question about the victims in all of this. I should say, of course, that the family and friends left behind no sentence can adequately address the tragedy and loss that they have experienced. However, I note that the Crown had been in regular contact with the families during this difficult period. The chief constable, as well as writing with a full apology to the family, has offered to meet with the families. That, of course, will be a decision for the families. I have letters being compiled just now to write to the families as well, so they have received that support through the Crown Office and elsewhere. Once again, our sympathies are with those families. Dean Lockhart, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. The move to a centralised call handling system has inevitably resulted in significant gaps in local knowledge and a disconnect between Police Scotland and local communities. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that a return to a more localised, knowledge-based call handling system would help to prevent similar tragedies happening in the future? I do not want to dismiss out-of-hand the suggestion that the member makes. When he talked about a more decentralized system, I thought that he was going to mean in terms of accountability and some kind of influence over local policing. That is something that we should explore further. I would concede that point, but I do not agree with him on the issue of the national call handling centre. What is happening now that it has been improved to the extent that it has is the best system that we could have. When we did have the eight legacy systems, the inability to talk to each other or even cross-boundary issues were problematic. I think that we have the better system. We have to make sure that it is the best system that it can be or accept that system. However, I am more than happy to engage the member on the issue, which I know that he has raised before, and certainly his party has, about more local influence and control over how the policing system operates. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if the Scottish Government has any plans in respect of financial support for the continued process of police integration and reform? I have sought to answer that with some of the funding that I have announced that we will continue to commit to Police Scotland for that process of reform. It underlines the point that we of course recognise that reform did not end in 2012, and it takes time to go through a reform of that size. I think that it has been described as the biggest public sector reform under devolution. I think that we have to accept that we have to continue to support that. I have already mentioned that chief constable has been candid about the fact that there are still challenges in terms of some IT systems and other systems, not in relation to the call handling specifically, but across the legacy forces and legacy systems that they have had. Given that, we are duty bound and given the vital nature of policing to the wellbeing of the entire country, I think that we are duty bound to continue supporting that in the way that it is described and with the resources, even the very recent resources that are described in my earlier answer. Thank you. That concludes the ministerial statement on the deaths of John Yule and Lamarra Bell.