 Ieithaf. Ieithaf. Welcome to the 31st meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee. There are no apologies this morning, however Collette Stevenson has had to leave the committee room and hopefully she will be able to join us soon. Our first item this morning is to take evidence on the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill Legislative Consent Memorandum. I welcome Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans. I also welcome Helen Nesbit, Deputy Director for Defence at the Security and Cyber Resilience Team. Mr Michael Sim, Defence Policy Manager. Mr Nicholas Duffy, Senior Principal Legal Officer with the Scottish Government. Welcome all. I refer members to paper 1. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to make a short opening statement. The Scottish Government has recommended that Parliament withhold consent for the provisions of the UK Government's Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Her reasons for doing so focus on our concerns regarding the impacts of the bill upon those who were affected by the Troubles as well as the effect that the bill has on the Lord Advocate's role as independent head of the system of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. Dealing first with those who had the misfortune to be directly affected by the Troubles, we believe that the bill is incompatible with the Scottish Government's view that those who suffered during the Troubles had the opportunity to obtain justice and that those who committed offences during that time are appropriately held to account and or punished. The bill will effectively mean an amnesty for those who have committed serious offences such as murder and crimes involving abuse and torture, and we are not the only ones who hold this view. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, whose mandate is to foster the effective observance of human rights, has raised her apprehensions about this bill. In her report, the Council of Europe, she gives the opinion that the bill also runs a very significant risk of being found in court to be non-compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. In that same report, she also points out that there is very minimal support for and confidence in the bill in Northern Ireland. Even more significant is the opinion of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. They too have recommended, and I quote, the entire draft of the present bill requires immediate and thorough reassessment, which should take place through meaningful engagement. They express their grave concerns that the present draft of the bill is therefore incompatible with human rights and the bill-fast Good Friday agreement. However, ensuring justice for those who have suffered in the troubles is not our only concern when considering this bill. As I said at the outset, we believe that the bill makes novel and unwelcome changes to the functions and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. The Lord Advocate's independence, of course, predates the evolution that was created by section 48 in brackets 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. However, some of the powers proposed for the independent commission created by the bill undermine that independence and breaches a fundamental cornerstone of our criminal justice system. The commission has given powers to grant immunity from prosecution in certain circumstances which, in practice, would prevent the Lord Advocate from investigating criminality or a fatality where she would otherwise have jurisdiction. Given where immunity is not granted, the Lord Advocate's role could be similarly impeded by the commission refusing to refer appropriate cases to her. While it is the Scottish Government's view that these sections pertaining to the Lord Advocate do not require consent, many clauses that do require consent are integral to the Lord Advocate's ability to perform her role, and if this Parliament were to give its consent to them, the practical effect would be to undermine her independence in these areas. For those reasons, our concerns about the effect of this bill will have on those who have suffered during the troubles, the lack of regard to the role of the Lord Advocate and the protections enshrined in the Scotland Act, that the Scottish Government cannot recommend consent to the bill in its present form. Thank you very much indeed, Cabinet Secretary. I am just going to open it up to members. If you have any questions, please come in. Jamie. Thank you, convener. I welcome Collette back to proceedings. Are you okay? I look pirate. Will this call you Popeye? Don't put that on the official report. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your open remarks and for bringing the Scottish Government's position to our attention on this. I just wanted to clarify what seems to be two different strands to the Government's position. I will start with the latter. That perceives our technical issues, notably our incompatibility with the ECHR, rights and legislation, and the interaction between the role of the Lord Advocate and her capacity to instigate criminal prosecutions in Scotland. In the former perhaps being that of more of a political or policy-led, which you went into some detail at the beginning around the incompatibility with the Scottish Government's view that those who have suffered during the troubles are able to obtain justice. I will maybe start with that one first because there are more technical aspects around those issues. First of all, Cabinet Secretary, you went to Great Lens to explain what is a perceived view of this held in Northern Ireland. I wondered what the relevance of that is to the Scottish Parliament and whether the Scottish Government would give consent to the bill, bearing in mind that it is a five-part bill with 58 clauses across a number of wide areas, not just the issue of immunity and prosecutions, but it also does a number of other things, including extending the prisoner release agreement, which has been in place for a number of years already, and the establishment and instigation of the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery, of which there has equally been many positive things said about. Although there are some controversial aspects to the bill, there is also being a big bill that does a number of things, a range of views on it. I wonder if we can start with more of the policy or political problems that you have with the bill before I then talk about the technicalities of it. First of all, I concede that there are parts of the bill that we have no issue with if standing in their own right, but it is the overall context of the bill in three areas. As there are human rights organisations in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I think that it would undermine the ability of this Parliament to comply with its human rights obligations. We do think that it, as I have said, infringes on the law of advocates' independence. It could not be as it currently is the person that decides on all investigations in Scotland in relation to some very serious offences. That has been hitherto, I think, generally agreed by all the parties in the Scottish Parliament that that should be the case. That is a fundamental objection. Even if it is the case that there are elements of the bill, some of which may be absolutely fine on their own, but it is in that context. The last point that you were asking about, the impact of people who suffered during the Troubles, it is not just an academic thing. Those cases could come to Scotland and be tried in Scotland. I think that it is very important that we have a human rights standard that says that people... I do not think that it is political. It does not seem to me to be political because those things have not been so contested in the past. If somebody has been subject to torture or abuse or knows somebody who has been murdered, I think that it is very important that those things can receive due process. That would be inserting a new body into that process in a way that, as I say, undermines the independence of the Lord Advocate and this Parliament's role in relation to human rights. I am not sure that those are necessarily political objections. I think that they are well founded and are founded on principles like the independence of the Lord Advocate and the human rights spaces of this Parliament. Helen, do you want to add anything in relation to that? I think that the point about the views of the Northern Ireland Commission and other bodies, in terms of what the Scottish Parliament is trying to prepare to give weight to those, but in relation to the LCM that has been lodged, the Scottish Government has taken a position in that. Just to clarify, would it be the Scottish Government's position that any form of reconciliation, which offered the amnesty to individuals irrespective of their own background or circumstance, that is a matter of more fundamental principle of disagreement, that that process is not one that should take place? Does the Scottish Government have a position that the independent commission would not, in that sense, not truly be independent? First of all, we are not against the idea of reconciliation, possibly amnesty, as we have seen under the Bill of Fasculate Friday agreement already, so it is not a principle of objection to that. It is the way that this is constructed. It is the insertion of this commission into a process that we believe undermines those two principles, which I have mentioned in relation to the independence of the Lord Advocate and the human rights basis of this Parliament, this Government as well. It is those two principles. It must be at least theoretically possible to contrive a commission that can do these things without undermining those principles, so it is not a principle about the commission itself. Therefore, I would pose a hypothetical, and that is that if those barriers, namely if the issue around the interaction between the role of the Lord Advocate and the role of the independent commission, if there were a solution found to that, can I first of all ask if you are aware of whether the Lord Advocate has made her views on that, open to the Northern Ireland office of the Secretary of State accordingly, if she has had any response, if the Government has been privy to that correspondence, if that has been in any way helpful or constructive in terms of perhaps finding a possible solution to that, because if it were to be the case that there could be a solution through whichever means, I am sure that there are a number of means where that could take place, would that make it therefore more palatable for the Government to look at the bill on the whole, or even if that was addressed, and even if further advice was given on ECHR that the Government would still have a problem with the fundamental premise of the legislation? First of all, I will maybe get Helen to update just on where we are at in terms of the engagement between the Lord Advocates and the Northern Ireland office, and there has been that engagement up to the point that the Lord Advocates made a number of suggestions for remedies that might help to deal with that situation. I do not think that there has been a response, but we can get an update on that. I suppose that the answer to the question is hypothetical. We have to deal with the bill that is before us, but if the two fundamental principles that I have mentioned about the independence of the Lord Advocate was resolved to the satisfaction of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government and the issues around human rights, those are our two main objections. I think that it will at least be possible to see a way through if those imprinciple objections were dealt with, but again, that is hypothetical and we are having to deal with the bill as currently constructed. I do not understand the update on what I have said. The Lord Advocate has written to the Northern Ireland office and has explained where she feels that her constitutional position, as Lord Advocate in Scotland was suspect in investigation of crimes and fatalities, has been impacted or would be impacted by the bill, and she has proposed avenues that could be explored as a means of closing that gap. So far as I am aware, she has not had a response to her proposal. It is maybe worth just saying on this second point that Mr Greene raised about whether the human rights side of things could be overcome, but the Northern Ireland's Human Rights Commission stated that it was, in its words, fatally flawed and not possible to make it compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, expressing grave concerns of bills incompatible with articles 2, right to life, 3, freedom from torture of the ECHR and of the Belfast Good Friday agreement. So there will be a long way to go to try and overcome those objections, I think. I am not sure how much of that correspondence could be made available to either the committee, private or publicly, or the wider public, with an interest in it, but I think that would certainly be that communication be very helpful, as indeed with any response that is given from the UK Government to either the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Government in so far as it is appropriate. Also, I note that there was a letter from the Parliament's DPLR committee to the UK Government as well, and I am not sure that it was in November, I think early November, I am not sure whether they had a response either, but I think that certainly all of that in the round would help members of the committee in future. I am very pleased to hear that the Cabinet Secretary at least sounds like there could be a constructive conversation to be had, but you can only judge it on the merits of what you have in front of you today, so I understand that. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much indeed. I will bring in Pauline, and then I will bring in Russell Finlay. Thank you very much. Good morning, cabinet secretary and everyone. I have got to confess that there is quite a lot of information that the committee were given to consider as regards what seems to be a really vital issue, a principle on a number of matters and a highly sensitive issue around the commission. I will say for the record that I want to take my time over this as to whether or not I would want to support the Government. We have set out some good reasons, but also whether or not in principle what is intended by setting up this commission is perhaps a long-term objective. Could I just be clear that, if you have set out, cabinet secretary, the Lord Advocate's independence, I would add my own questions around why civil issues, for example, would be included. If we were to support the LCM in Parliament, then both criminal and civil jurisdictions would be severely restricted, so I did have questions around that. In a nutshell, is the Scottish Government position, is it fundamentally opposed to the principles behind the commission, that I am having difficulty grappling with and the human rights issues that you reply to Jamie Greene on? Does that mean that, therefore, the overall purpose of the commission could not be achieved on any other basis? I think that what we are trying to do is to look at the effect of what would happen if the legislation was passed and the effect of that would be, certainly to undermine the Lord Advocate's role because there would be cases where she could no longer prosecute, where she may otherwise want to prosecute. In fact, even if the commission decided not to prosecute, if they decided not to refer it to the Lord Advocate, then there is nothing that she could do to prosecute a case that she might want to prosecute. That is one of the effects and it is that effect that we are talking about. In relation to human rights, I have mentioned the specific articles which some of the human rights organisations have expressed concern about. We have the same concerns that you know the basis on which this Parliament was founded in relation to human rights. It is also true to say that every single opposition party at Westminster, all the parties in Northern Ireland are similarly concerned with aspects of this bill. The Scottish Government, I am trying to point out the practical effects on why we object to them and you have asked about the principles of the commission. If the principles of the commission allow for that intervention in the legal system in Scotland in the way that undermines the Lord Advocate's position, then yes, it is an imprincipled objection and it is certainly a principled objection to say that we do not think that it is compliant or that we have sufficient concerns about compliance with the ECHR. It is a principled objection to the basis on which it is founded rather than the idea of a commission itself. That is helpful. If you try to put it simply, it is a fear to say that we would be placing, to take those powers away from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish criminal justice system, we would be placing matters entirely in the hands of the commission. It would be your view that that is just too much trust that the commission would achieve its objectives and not undermine any interest that we might have in Scotland. I think that if you look at the basis on which, and you will know this better than me, the basis on which the Lord Advocate's role is constructed is undermined by this. So if she suddenly is no longer able to say, well, I think that there is a crime here which is in the interest to be prosecuted, because somebody else is allowed to say no. In fact, it does not even come to you to weave down our business here and then we might not let it come to you afterwards. So it is that fear to say, and then we might not let it come to you afterwards. So it's that fundamental change to the position of our Lord Advocate which we think is detrimental. For all the reasons why it's good in principle to have an independent prosecutor in Scotland that's not really beholden to anybody else, certainly not the Government. So this would be the first time you'd see, I think, that power, that independence being fettered by another body. And that's our objection. That's a bit I understand. My suppose the bit I'm rathling with is that the general principle behind the commission is to get to some of the stories and the truths of what happened in Northern Ireland and therefore in that framework. That's why the commission would have the powers to invite people to come forward without prosecution or, I suppose, indemnify them. So that's the principle behind it and the Lord Advocate would suppose that they needed to completely trust the commission that they would do it in the right way and they wouldn't upset families or individuals who felt, well, I want justice for my family or for myself, but couldn't because the commission is trying to do something else which is providing themnity in order to basically get behind some of the, what happened? You're right, there may be very laudable purposes behind what's intended and it may be that, given the exchange and the engagement between the Lord Advocate and the Northern Ireland office, they can find a way around the more fundamental objections which I do think undermined, the objections that we have undermined those perhaps laudable purposes, getting people to come forward without fear of prosecution. There may well be a merit to that but it doesn't overcome our fundamental objections and you raised a question about civil side of things. It may be best if we get somebody more expert than me to address that point if that's okay. I don't know if you want to come on that. In relation to civil claims, civil claims can't be raised any time after the 17th, well, if a civil claim hasn't been raised before the 17th of May 2022, it can't be raised at all. It's basically a retrospective stop on all civil claims and that's the date when the bill was introduced into Westminster. Lastly, very quickly, would there likely to be many civil claims given that it's quite historical? It's really hard to tell. Stuff's obviously coming out sometimes but I don't really know what it's hard to tell. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. Russell, would you like to come in? Thank you very much. I just wanted to quickly touch Helen on something that you said about the letter and Jamie Greene had suggested that this should be made public if possible. Do you know if it is perhaps already in the public domain? I'm not aware it's in the public domain and I'm obviously not here on behalf of the Crown Office. I couldn't say one way or other but it's obviously noted what Mr Greene has said. No problems. Now, this question, I think, is for the Cabinet Secretary. We've obviously heard your concerns in writing and verbally but before you reach that point, I think that Pauline asked a version of the same question. Do you agree with the sentiment of what's being intended with this proposed bill? That being to find truth and injustice for many of those who've suffered loss during the Troubles. Do you back that principle even if this isn't the way to achieve it? It's a difficult question to answer. I would certainly back the general idea that you want to get as much truth, openness and justice through any process that you're looking at but we don't think you can get justice if, on the one hand, you undermine the role of the Lord Advocate on the other hand you undermine the accepted basis of human rights. In general terms, why would you not support trying to achieve greater truth, transparency and, hopefully, reconciliation? Justice has got to be at the heart of it and we don't think justice is served by it. All we can go is rather than a sentiment or a hypothesis, all we can go is on what's presented to us and that's why we've taken the position to oppose the LCM. I suppose a continuation of that if it's not this bill and clearly serious misgivings about it, do you agree in principle that, given the sensitivities of the troubles and everything that goes with that, a UK-wide approach would be preferable and indeed necessary? I think there's no way it can be other than an approach taken forward by the UK Government. The powers are always there, the powers are at rest there. We need to be in the interface with the justice system in Scotland that we are concerned with. Any system has to be based on the principles of justice and I've outlined why we think that that's not served by the current proposal. It may well be and it's for those who want to initiate this to come forward with an amended proposal if they want to do that to see how it can be achieved in our view without undermining but justice is quite a broad concept and people need to feel that justice is served and to do that you have to observe other principles the independence of the judiciary and the fundamental nature of human rights. It's a reasonable interpretation that there's not a closed door as far as the Scottish Government is concerned you're willing to look at whatever form this might take? We're obviously very interested to hear what the outcome is of the Lord Advocate's engagement with the Northern Isle office what that brings forward it's not for us to take a decision as Helen Wightley says on publication that's entirely for the Crown Office and Lord Advocate to do that but that may help to find a way forward in relation to that issue we don't know but we're at the process it's regrettable that we were informed solely in the day to have carried out that's becoming a more and more regular occurrence I think we got advised on the day it was introduced at Westminster although I think we had had some paragraph shared with us beforehand but yeah we will of course look at any changes which come and also we will discuss with the Lord Advocate how she feels the engagement and the suggestions that she's made have been received by the Northern Isle office that's great thank you okay if there are no more questions then can I thank the cabinet secretary and your officials for attending today and we'll just have a very short suspension before we move on thank you okay thank you very much indeed members just a quick update to confirm just on the point that Jamie Greene raised in relation to the correspondence had been sent to the UK Government from the Delegated Persons Law Reform Committee in relation to the bill I can confirm that in response to that letter which I think was dated the 10th of November to date there's been no reply so it's just to put that on the record so I think in view of the questions raised in response to the update given by the cabinet secretary and some of the comments made by his officials and also the position of the Scottish Government on the LCM I would like to propose but I'm happy to discuss us further with members that we do not put the question of consent forward today and consider that as a committee just in order that we can obtain some more information for further consideration so that's my proposal at the moment and I would be interested just to hear what members' views are on that so I'll take in Jamie and then Pauline Jamie I apologise for having instigated the conversation around it LCMs are important I think that's a very helpful suggestion and I appreciate it it gives whatever your views on the substantive elements of the bill and the commission itself and the other aspects around that it does actually give an opportunity to perhaps seek more information I think to be specific it would be helpful if it was pressed upon the Northern Ireland office to respond both to the DPLR committee on their feedback there was a very light submission to members of the committee last night from the law society which raised a number of quite valid points and also they will need the opportunity to respond to the Lord Advocate's letter of which we haven't seen and don't know the content they're in but it sounds to me like it could be quite a productive and helpful communication now there may be a question as to whether we could get sight of that and any response in due course or at least some confirmation as to whether any impasse is insurmountable or there could be a positive working way forward that would alleviate some of the concerns that Lord Advocate potentially has although we haven't heard from Lord Advocate directly so I don't want to put words in her mouth but from what the cabinet secretary said or that she has some concerns which have in course led to the Government's position so Lord Advocate may wish to write to the committee or to the Government and then to us I'm not that fast but at least all that correspondence that we could look at would help us I think make a better informed decision to agree with the Government's position or not as the case may be that the passage of the bill through Westminster I'm not sure on the timelines around that that may present an issue given the recesses upon us both parliaments and we wouldn't want to stand in the way of that or affect that but I think that's certainly a middle ground if nothing else given that it's quite a big issue and his members have pointed out quite a sensitive one as well I think we all probably want to do the right thing very much Pauline Dendrona thank you that was quite helpful contribution from Jamie Greene I start from the viewpoint that the commission's central purpose is a good one in principle but it has wide-reaching implications in order to achieve what it wants to do especially in down the five from criminal prosecution and you've heard also civil proceedings I'm quite clear in my own mind now having read the the subordinate legislation committee's report and having listened to the cabinet secretary that as it says, no requirement in the bill that 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 they've all the competence that is an important principle for this Parliament to uphold and that is that where Westminster as always seeks to do something on a UK-wide basis where it is within the competence of the devolved Parliament such as criminal legislation then it should seek the consent of this Parliament to do so so I think that principle's got to be upheld but I think there's a lot to consider in all of this quite a number of substantial issues I'd like to take more time I am sympathetic to the Government position now that I've heard it but I would like to take some time over it because to balance the overall objectives against some principles here but it's really hard to overcome I think that principle of what at the end of the day if we were going to give up the powers of the independence of the Lord Advocate we should seek Parliament's consent to do so Thanks very much I take a more straightforward view in this I completely and utterly oppose this bill and I think it's a clear cut case of well that there's two sides to it obviously there's the mission creep into our competencies and judicial system which is quite blatant and then the other side to is the actual content of the bill and I really don't understand why UK Parliament is trying to introduce this because I'm not quite sure what their objective is the commission side of it people say well that's a good thing to investigate things if you actually look at the detail even if they do nothing can happen that there's a block on any actual access to justice for victims so I can't see any good in this bill at all and I would I don't think I don't think there's any purpose in delaying it I think it should just be a flat rejection of this bill and I'm not sure the worth of getting further information because the bill as it stands to me is absolutely clear cut and I would oppose it completely right now Thanks very much Russell, did you want to come in? Yes, thank you so I think there's also agreement that sort of truth injustice is paramount I think that's not it's worth not losing sight of the fact that's the intent behind the bill with so many families who still haven't got answers after so many decades and I've reassured that the cabinet secretary obviously agrees with that principle and importantly also seems to agree with the need for this approach to be UK wide with Rona's interpretation of this being some kind of nefarious sort of mission creep into the Scottish justice system and I think to oppose it on principle is wrong and indeed premature and I think pressing pause as it's being proposed is the right thing to do for the reasons outlined by Jamie Greene and others so thank you Thank you very much Anybody else want to come in just before we pull things together No, okay Okay, thanks very much members for your comments I think just to sort of summarise where we are is that we are looking to kind of strike a balance between our desire to deal timeously with with this LCM as you pointed out considering having to take into consideration time scales elsewhere however it's important that all members are comfortable that we fully considered the implications of the bill and accordingly feel at a point where we can take a position as individual members on it so on that basis then I wonder if I can again propose my initial suggestion to delay putting the question of consent to committee members today in order that we can obtain some more information I note the comments that you made Jamie Greene in relation to seeking some copies of correspondence if that is possible you mentioned the Lord Advocate which is entirely appropriate given her role in this and we will come back to this at a future meeting and give it further consideration and hopefully conclude this matter then so are members agreed yep okay thank you very much indeed okay so to mention before we move on okay so thank you members our next item of business is consideration of some recent work that we've been undertaking on policing and mental health and I refer members to papers 2 and 3 before we begin I'd very much like to record our thanks to all the police officers who spoke privately to us their brave and incredibly helpful testimony is really invaluable to our ability to question Police Scotland on how it's supporting its officers and staff and in paper 3 the committee's invited to agree a series of recommendations for follow-up action as a result of our conversations so far so I'm just going to open the floor to members for comments and their views on the actions suggested so would anyone like to come in and kick things off? thank you very much I also want to put on record the appreciation to the officers that spoke to us some of the accounts were truly harrowing it really brings home the nature of what they're doing on behalf in terms of the response from Police Scotland and the SPA have long had some concerns about that way back, I think, some point last year I asked Police Scotland and the SPA about police officers' suicides and asked first and foremost were these even counted and we were told they didn't have that data provided us with it but I've not seen anything to that effect I also asked about the numbers of police officers' suicides that have been reported in the public domain being subject to fatal accident inquiries and as far as we can best establish no fatal accident inquiries have taken place which seems to me absolutely staggering and then there was one particular exchange in which Police Scotland told the SPA that effectively and I'm summarising here none of the suicides that had been reported in the public domain were due to work-related issues now frankly that's just not true suicide is complex no one's saying it's black and white however there's cases that I know about where what officers were experiencing in relation to work and indeed the complaints and disciplinary process was absolutely a factor in them taking their own lives and the lack of curiosity from Police Scotland the SPA and indeed the Government around this affine to be highly questionable as well as the officers who have tragically died we've heard first hand accounts both in the committee and outwith of officers coming close to taking their own lives due to exactly the same pressures of regulation, discipline and so on and Police Scotland and the SPA and the Government are all saying the right things now but I don't know if I've got entire confidence in I don't doubt their intent I absolutely believe that they have got the officers welfare at heart but clearly the systems as they are set up do not work and if they don't radically change them more officers will die that's inevitable so in terms of follow-up I think as well as what's being proposed some suggestions we go back to the Crown Office and ask them why officers who have died some of them on duty from suicide or suspected suicide have not been subject of fatal accident enquiries which would help establish the facts and would help establish whether lessons can be learned we might want to engage with HMICS who understand are doing work on this right now and speaking to officers who have been impacted and again perhaps revisit both Police Scotland and the SPA back to the exchange that I opened up on about the data do they record officer suicides have they done any meaningful work into the numbers and the nature of these tragic cases because going by the accounts we've heard officers see and do things that most people in society don't they deserve proper support so thank you okay thank you anyone else want to come in Jamie I just wanted to clarify something in our papers if papers 2 and 3 are part of the publicly available pack or if they are restrict to members only they are public okay so that saves some time then my comments on the notes summary notes that are in our papers in papers 2 specifically I think go into great detail about the nature of the meetings that we had it is worth putting on record I think a huge thanks to the officers that we spoke to and to the Police Federation for mediating and also attending the meetings with those and as I said the evidence that we heard is all fairly self-explanatory a lot of the issues that were raised were no surprise to us but it still came as quite a shock and I think what I was struck with the most is certainly the individuals that we met just the sheer scale of the trauma that they had experienced and the effect that that had had on their lives and the lives of their families as Russell Finlay says unfortunately we have lost a number of officers who have seen the only way out of this trauma is ending their lives but for those who haven't filled that they're still suffering and I think it was quite clear that the whole so many aspects of how how the Police assist officers through not just their day-to-day work but deal with the post-traumatic stress that they deal with is that so many had been let down and I think although we only met half a dozen I think that's probably a drop in the ocean and I think that is something that I also was reaffirming to me when I went to attend the Scottish Police Federation Awards last week just across the road and spoke to a number of the officers there and they treated quite a lot of what we heard although I think what we heard was often quite at the extreme end of it I think in terms of what happens next I think it's really important that the SPA and Police Scotland both read in detail the notes produced by the clerks about our sessions I think it's very important that they respond to many issues that we raised I won't go into them all in detail but dealing with the trauma and stress of the job the organisational culture how they deal with complaints lack of resources lack of time off financial pressures mental health and also how the HR systems deal including the employee assistance programme and how HR deals with people who are on sick leave and we heard quite a number of frank cases about how they're dealt with quite shockingly actually if that were a private employer I think you'd be looking at quite a number of quite serious civil cases against them so I think there's a whole range of issues being raised and I think if you look at paper 3 where we're asked to consider the what next I think all the questions that have been given I think it's really important that I would like to see Police Scotland responding quite great detail to these I don't want a one page thank you for your work I think they really do need to be quite open and frank with themselves we've had evidence sessions from them before we've had quite senior people from Police Scotland and the SPA sitting in front of us and say that they hear what we're saying they hear what the feedback is just steps that are taken to make things better but that's a very high level point of feedback and I think what I would quite like to see is much more in depth detail as to how they're addressing each of those issues that we present to them and how they respond to the criticisms directly and I think that's really key it's only fair that we're given the opportunity to respond they may not agree with everything that we report back they may not agree with the assumptions in the summaries that we give them in the papers but it's entirely appropriate that they at least say so and if they do agree and they do accept responsibility in some of those areas that we've given the opportunity to say what they're going to do moving forward I think it's the moving forward that's really important we know that mental health and work stress is one of the key drivers for retirement and early retirement in the force we've had a lot of discussion on that and I think it's really important that that plays into our wider remit of keeping a watch and eye on police numbers churn and also just in general supporting those in the front line which is very important to all of us in the committee so I hope that's helpful in some ways and I think that's very much sitting the bar from my point of views to what I would like to see back from Police Scotland and the SPI thank you, convener Thanks very much, Jamie Rona, would you like to come in and then vote on? I mean, I broadly agree with what Jamie is saying I think the response to our letter was a wee bit defensive and it wasn't it wasn't showing much in the way of them actually understanding the issues that we presented I mean, even the part in the notes about the employee assistance line and somebody called it was told to phone back later when they did phone back that he was told we can't help you because he didn't meet the specific criteria David Page also describes the trim models a proactive model of support which officers and staff are expected to access by self-referral but we heard that wasn't working and he hasn't really addressed he hasn't really addressed that in his responses so just a couple of examples but I think we do need to dig deeper and I agree with Jamie we need to get some kind of recognition that yeah there are problems but we need to fix them and I don't think we've really had that OK, thanks very much Naughton Thanks, convener just to basically back up what others have said I think the notes are really good and I think capture what we heard from officers and I think it needs to be taken really seriously and I'm going to keep my comments quite brief because they are there and it's been clarified they're in the public domain I did want to mention it was an issue that came up and that's about the Police Treatment Centre with the one at Castlebury at October being talked about in particular I think there's a general consensus these are really helpful and I wonder if the expansion or whatever can be looked at for those I think the one of the things that came up as well was that people experience a whole range of health issues well in the Police when they retire it's only available for officers who are retired on physical grounds and I might be wrong on that maybe that can be clarified in any response but if that is the case would the Police consider looking at that being available for people who have had to retire on mental health or emotional wellbeing grounds as well and I'll keep my comments just to that Can I just miss my bit of what you said there did you say you were suggesting maybe exploring an opportunity for retired officers and staff to access the Treatment Centre Yes I'm understanding that in some instances they can already do that but I don't the information to be received as it's not forever days of that could be expanded OK Thanks very much Thank you very much I did feel that the response we got was quite inadequate That could have been written by anyone but I should have been responding to Police officers who we've heard serving on the front line in the specialist units where without even hearing the evidence you would have surmised that being in some of these undercover situations or dealing with weapons or specialist police units would be challenging mentally but there's no acknowledgement of it I would have expected to see that in this letter that they recognise that they are responsible for our service where Police officers being in a profession on the front line probably more challenged and there will be other professions that face the same job but it's certainly amongst those professions which have some of the most far-reaching mental health challenges no admission of that it's very dry responding to some of the administrative things and they're going to review it take a different attitude to the one you're giving this justice committee because I want to hear more from you what we're hearing obviously but it's a snapshot from officers I want to hear more from the Scottish Police Authority they understand that probably all of the officers and as I've said before the fact that Police officers were in the priority and the GVC always astonished me and I do think it probably had a psychological impact on all Police officers serving out there in the middle of Covid to bother about the fact that they weren't vaccinated so I want to see more from disauthority and I think we should have a strong way of response and reply okay, thanks very much anybody else Russell just a number of wrap up so as opposed we're just coming back very briefly just touching on what I'd said before just putting some context on it the exchange in the committee in which I asked about officer suicide numbers was on the 18th of May and the later exchange was on the 7th of September and that was the one in which I quoted from a letter in which the SPA told Police Scotland or let me just find this sorry the letter was from the SPA to the committee and it said based on the information available at the time there was nothing to suggest that any of the recent cases were caused directly by the pressure of work and that's the point I disagree with because there's an abundance of accounts and evidence to hand to completely contradict that and that's the kind of thing that a fatal accident inquiry should and would have looked at so thank you oh finally sorry it's important just one other small point that there's other cases where at least one where an officer attempted suicide and then was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement we're told that these are being used properly and in line with ACAS and not to keep people quiet but again that's part of the problem I think thanks very much yes of course Jenny it's a request for information I wonder if the clerks could perhaps assist us in lazing with the SPA or Police Scotland in today's press coverage pack there was a few articles relating to some statistical data around exit surveys the figure quoted was that one in five have exited the force due to the effect of the job on their health mental, physical or otherwise and it pointed towards some freedom of information data that had been requested and subsequently published I would think that that's the sort of information that would be quite helpful to the committee to see 20 per cent's quite high statistic and rather than just take it at face value what we read in the newspapers but the two stories and the times in Scotsman were both clearly from the same source so I wonder if that's information that we could where it doesn't breach the confidentiality of individuals if the numbers are low for example that's quite difficult to do but I would really like to see some transparency from the police about their exit surveys and the sort of findings that they're coming across when people are leaving the force retiring early leaving for ill health reasons et cetera and not just coming to the natural end of their careers so I think that information might help backer all the points that have been raised today about the scale of this one in five officers is a huge amount and should be of a point of concern if the statistics that we read in the newspapers were true so I wonder if we could maybe ask for more information about that Thanks Jamie and my ever helpful clerks have just advised me and confirmed that that would appear to be connected to a freedom of information request that was submitted by our Liberal Democrat colleagues so it should be in the public domain but we can see if we can find that and circulate that to members and incorporate that into our on-going correspondence Okay, thanks very much for that so I've just been jotting down some of the points that you have made concerns still clearly exist about the response that we had from Police Scotland within that particular piece of correspondence I think that for me I still have some questions around the issue of training which is something I'm very interested in in terms of supporting in particular operational supervisors to recognise and respond to changes in a member of their staff and instigate the appropriate forms of support before things escalate for them I also noticed in the correspondence from the SPA some of the timescales processing retirements seem exceedingly long and that raised a concern for me in particular where there is a health and wellbeing issue connected to that and the other question for me remains around access to and referral to specialist support where the in particular wellbeing of an officer or a member of support staff has declined to a point where referral and access to more specialist support is appropriate and there are some very difficult timescales around that so for me those are some of the issues that I'm interested in continuing to scrutinise so we've covered a number of issues from obtaining data around suicides whether there is indeed a link with our officers work roles data collection around that and the possibility of FAIs I think it is important to acknowledge that HMICS SPA Police Scotland and the Federation are committed to addressing this issue but I think it's very loud and clear that the view is that there is a lot more work to be done Fulton you've spoken about the training treatment centre widening access to that which I think is a good point and I think the point that you made Pauline in relation to vaccinations is one that certainly did attract some scrutiny and criticism in the past but going forward picking up on Jamie's point I think it is important that the Federation that the SPA and Police Scotland have an opportunity to respond and perhaps happy to propose that we give them some time around that in terms of both responding to the notes and the suggested follow-up and we could potentially also invite the Federation and even the Association of Police Superintendents for Scotland to also comment again perhaps into 2023 but in the meantime I'd be happy to and keen for us to write again to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority and request a full and detailed response to the correspondence that we've sent them I would also like to propose that we could engage with the Office perhaps on cases around the FAIs that you've raised Russell and Suicides and raised that with them and as I said earlier we can certainly track down the information around the FOI that we referred to earlier on and that you mentioned members happy with that proposal still a wee bit of work but I think all very important stuff happy with that Collette Can I quickly pick up on the paper for the summary case management pilot that leads to in terms of the fact that the testing in the new system is not due until 2023 is that No, I'm looking at our members' papers but it's in page 28 in terms of their race days Oh, sorry Sorry My apologies You're way ahead of us No worries Okay, thank you very much in that case we'll ask the clerks to support that follow-up and keep on top of that piece of work into the new year Okay, thank you Okay, so our next item of business is to consider two items of correspondence that the committee has received and details are contained in paper 4 so I'll just throw open again to ask if members have any comments that they wish to make on the suggested course of action in relation to both of these so I'll start with the letter from NHS Scotland if I can find it here So this was a letter on medical prescriptions for prisoners on their release Anybody got any comments that they would wish to make on that? We're happy with that I think there is a thoughtful outline of the situation within NHS Scotland with a specific reference to access to medication but I note at the end of the letter that we received from Caroline Lam she has undertaken to ask health boards to work with the Scottish Prison Service to consider the issues raised under the WISE group and identify practical actions that could help to ensure people leaving prison can access prescriptions so we're happy to note the information contained in the letter and we'll await for a further update OK Pauline I was going to say that it's quite important to pursue the update because I kind of feel that maybe I know depending on the local area but we really wanted progress and an acknowledgement that if you really want to tackle the wider issue of prisoner release getting medication for five days in many cases and they can't get their GP I think we've got to monitor it if we've started something I think we should really pursue it vigorously and see if we can get some real action That was my comment I'm happy to do that OK, if there's nothing else on that letter we'll move on to the letter received from Pre-Scotland on cyber-chiosk training Any comments on that? Did you want to come back in on that, Collette? It was really it was more to do with the pilot scheme in terms of is that the same thing? Cyber security? I'm not sure if I've packed that up wrong but it was more to do with getting their time off, getting their rest days and things like that from the police that's what I was alluding to I think perhaps what you were referring to was the previous agenda item but we did pick up the key points that you were making on that Yeah, so again it was just that from an efficiency point of view bringing in the fact that we're scrutinising the budget and getting rest days and bringing in this pilot scheme in what is the specific reasons for it being put back until 2023 that's what I was coming up and giving that they should be getting their rest days You know OK, that's very much we'll note that point OK, thanks very much on the letter from Police Scotland I will bring the public part of the meeting to a close and just update you that the next meeting is on Wednesday the 14th of December and we'll start our oral evidence on the bail and release from custody bill so thank you very much and we'll now move into private session 4. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 12. 13. 14. 15.