Seòmar agus comataidhean

No problem.

This question is for the cabinet secretary. We have heard your concerns in writing and verbally. Pauline McNeill asked a version of this question. Do you agree with the sentiment behind what is intended by the bill, which is to find truth and justice for many of the people who suffered loss during the troubles? Do you back that principle, even if the bill is not the way to achieve it?

I put on the record my appreciation for the officers who spoke to us. Some of the accounts were truly harrowing and they really brought home the nature of what the police do day in, day out on our behalf.

I have long had concerns about the response from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Way back—I think that it was at some point last year—I asked them about police officer suicides. First and foremost, I asked whether those were even counted. We were told that they did not have that data and that they would perhaps provide us with it, but I have not seen anything to that effect. I also asked about the number of police officer suicides reported in the public domain that have been subject to fatal accident inquiries. No FAIs have taken place, as far as we can establish, which seems absolutely staggering.

There was a particular exchange in which Police Scotland told the SPA that, in effect—I summarise—none of the suicides reported in the public domain was due to work-related issues. To be frank, that is just not true. Suicide is complex; no one is saying that it is black and white. However, I know about cases where what certain officers were experiencing in relation to work and, indeed, the complaints and disciplinary process was absolutely a factor in their taking their own lives. The lack of curiosity from Police Scotland, the SPA and, indeed, the Government around that is highly questionable.

As well as the officers who have, tragically, died, we have heard first-hand accounts both in committee and outwith it of officers coming close to taking their lives due to exactly the same pressures of regulation, discipline and so on.

Police Scotland, the SPA and the Government are all saying the right things now, but I do not have entire confidence in what they say. I do not doubt their intent—I absolutely believe that they have the officers’ welfare at heart—but the systems as they are set up clearly do not work. If they do not radically change them, more officers will die. That is inevitable.

I have some suggestions for follow-up work in addition to what has been proposed. We should go back to the Crown Office and ask it why the deaths of officers, some of them on duty, from suicide or suspected suicide have not been subject to fatal accident inquiries, which would have helped to establish the facts and whether lessons can be learned. We might want to engage with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, which I understand is doing work on this right now and speaking to officers who have been impacted.

We might also want to revisit Police Scotland and the SPA, given the exchange that I mentioned, to ask whether they record officer suicides and whether they have done any meaningful work on the number and nature of these tragic cases. We know from the accounts that we have heard that police officers see and do things that most people in society do not, and they deserve proper support.

It is worth noting that the FAVOR report did not use the word “pretendy” but the word “pretend”.

On the subject of counting rehab beds, I have seen an email that a senior policy officer in the Scottish Government’s residential rehab team sent this month. That official said that there was an error in a Scottish Government report about rehab beds.

It became clear after the report’s publication that wrong information had been published about more than 40 rehab beds. Those were in fact stabilisation beds, not rehab beds. That meant that the document wrongly said that there were 218 rehab beds when there were in fact 170. How can something like that happen in an official Government report? Does that speak to FAVOR’s concerns about a blurring of the lines—as evidenced by that mistake—between rehab beds and stabilisation beds?

On the subject of transparency, the Auditor General’s March report said that there is a lack of transparency about where spending is taking place. When I met him last month he told me that things are still much the same. Why is there no transparency about the £250 million?

I have got a lot to ask about but so, too, does everyone else, so I will stick to what I think is the most important issue.

Yesterday, Faces and Voices of Recovery UK published a new report, which, as I am sure that the minister is aware, is quite critical of the Scottish Government. It talks about a phenomenon that it identifies as “pretend rehab services” in which services that are being categorised for the purpose of rehab are really for stabilisation. As helpful and important as stabilisation is, do you accept that criticism, and how do you respond to it?

Will you answer the question, please?

Eleven fire stations do not have a water supply; more than 100 have no rest or canteen facilities; more than 150 do not have sufficient showering facilities; 100 do not have the minimum toilet provision; 125 do not have dedicated locker rooms; more than 100 do not have dedicated drying facilities; 282 do not have dignified changing areas; and no fire station has a first aid room or space for nursing mothers. That has nothing to do with inflation, Brexit or the UK Government.

According to the evidence that the interim chief officer gave to the committee, more than “£482 million” has been removed

“from the cost base of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service over the past 10 years.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 26 October 2022; c 46.]

That is due entirely to the amount of money that is provided to the fire service by the Scottish Government. Will you address those concerns and the concerns of firefighters about those extremely poor facilities?

Cabinet secretary, your Government has written what is effectively a blank cheque to cover the cost of the Rangers malicious prosecution scandal. We have been told that the amount has now reached £51 million, which, incidentally, is double the amount that it would cost to give every police officer in Scotland a body-worn camera. Can you give us any idea as to what the total amount might be in the end? Who do you think is responsible for that? Will there be any consequences for that absolutely shocking state of affairs?

That was very helpful. Thank you.

The more that the cabinet secretary talks, the more questions I have, but I will try to remain focused. I will begin with a budget question. The evidence that the committee has heard in the past few weeks has been nothing short of shocking. The police, fire, courts and prison services have all given pretty stark warnings about what might happen as a result of the proposed cuts. We do not yet know the exact details of next year’s block grant, but we know that there will be an additional £1.5 billion that has been generated by health and education spending elsewhere in the UK. Given what we have heard about the situation that the justice system faces, will you ask your First Minister and the Government whether some of that money can be used to head off some of the crisis that the justice system faces?