Chamber and committees

For what it is worth, I think that, given what police officers often experience in carrying out their duties on the front line, they are undoubtedly more susceptible and prone to mental health issues. We have been addressing separately what appears to be a lack of support generally, and it appears that Police Scotland, the SPA and the federation are all very much behind efforts to improve that, which is to be welcomed.

However, separately, there is a cohort of officers who have been subject to allegations of wrongdoing—sometimes minor and sometimes more serious—and whose cases can be characterised as basically taking far too long and apparently being unjust, on the basis that a conclusion is reached before the evidence is even looked at. A sense of abandonment and hopelessness is feeding cases of officers either attempting to take their own lives or successfully completing suicide. I think that there is a reluctance on the part of the authorities to look at that element because, according to survivors and families, there is some culpability on the part of those authorities for what has occurred, as they have not responded to concerns that the officers are in a bad way because of the process.

Yes—just quickly in relation to the £5 million allocation for collaboration. The Police Scotland response, which is on page 5, says absolutely nothing. It just does not answer the question. We know that it might not be able to specify exactly what it is going to do, but surely it can give us some idea of what that looks like, what it is hoping to achieve and what engagement it has had with the other services. The answer is just meaningless. It is not being asked to revisit the budget but just to answer the question about what is going on with that money.

In the main, the responses that we have seen today are slightly disappointing and suggest a reluctance to be open and honest about the tragic suicide of police officers. I have raised the issue repeatedly in the chamber, in the committee and in writing. Every time that I do so, more people come forward with shocking and frankly heartbreaking accounts. One of those is a former detective officer of high rank with more than 20 years’ service. I will call him P for the purpose of this account, and I thank you, convener, for allowing me a bit of time to explain the case.

The officer was working on a murder investigation in which a colleague was implicated of criminality. P was immediately suspended from duty. He says:

“Two professional standards officers informed me I was suspended without any explanation of the allegations against me. I had my warrant card taken from me and was told, ‘You better get yourself a trade. You’re going to need it.’ This was a threat of sacking before any investigation had been carried out. I was sent home and had barely any contact from the police for nearly a year.”

He describes that as

“a bewildering experience as I had NO involvement whatsoever in the crime.”

He twice went on to attempt to take his own life. He eventually saw a psychiatric nurse who told him that he needed to see a clinical psychologist. He asked the police for assistance with that but was told that it could not help—it did not offer that service—and that he should “keep my chin up”.

He became isolated at work and was given menial jobs that he says

“destroyed my self-esteem and resulted in a mental breakdown”

and further suicidal thoughts. He and other officers who were subject to investigation were

“lumped together in one place to undertake”

what he and they saw as “meaningless chores,” such as paperwork.

He became friendly with a young officer in his 20s, who I will refer to as, “L”. L was accused of an assault, despite closed-circuit television footage apparently showing him to be innocent. Two years later, L was still under investigation. P says:

“L confided in me that he could not bear the pressure and felt absolutely hopeless. I knew he had very recently emailed professional standards explaining this to them, demanding answers. L received a bland response, telling him the investigation was ongoing.”

A week after the email, L took his life. The location was significant to policing, but I will not state that publicly. Within hours of L’s death, officer P entered his workplace. He said:

“I was immediately summoned by a senior officer and told without hesitation, mere hours after L’s death, that this was absolutely nothing to do with him being under investigation and Police Scotland were not responsible in any way. I was utterly dumbstruck and disgusted at this utterly ignorant explanation in the immediate aftermath of the death of my friend.”

P spent five years under investigation, until he was dismissed without notice last year. He describes the process as a “kangaroo court” operating on the balance of probability. He said that the investigation was one-sided from the start and that he “never had a hope” of being vindicated. It is worth noting that no criminal proceedings were taken against him. He says:

“I am still dogged by these feelings and suicidal thoughts to this day. It seems that protecting Police Scotland’s reputation is the ONLY thing that matters. There was zero sincerity or compassion for what had happened. Just protect the organisation’s reputation at all costs, and THAT is the root cause of all these issues.”

P knows of other cases that resulted in officers taking, or attempting to take, their own lives. I have heard many other, similar, accounts and I will probably hear more after this meeting. I have repeatedly raised concerns about the damage done by the complaints process. I have four key points.

There is a failure to record the number of officer suicides and whether those officers were subject to internal investigation.

There has been a routine decision by the Crown Office not to hold a fatal accident enquiry in any of the cases that we know about, unlike in England and Wales, where an inquest would be conducted as a matter of routine.

There is a lack of willingness by all parties to explore cases where there is evidence that the complaints process may have been a factor.

It also appears that the SPA is willing to accept Police Scotland’s position, which can best be summarised as “nothing to see here”.

I know from P, and from the many other officers and families I have been speaking to, that there is a fundamental lack of faith in the process and that many of them are willing to speak out. They do not quite know how to do that, but they certainly do not intend to let it rest. Thank you for the time, convener.

First, the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs talks about cuts to the Scottish Government’s capital budget, but it is worth putting on record that it is the highest block grant on record, and any cuts relate, I believe, to extraordinary spending due to Covid, so there are no cuts in that meaningful sense.

On the response from Police Scotland, we asked about the potential blue-light collaboration across Scotland, but the answer does not really tell us anything. There are lots of words but no tangible detail about what is actually happening and what that £5 million might be spent on.

Turning to body-worn cameras, which we as a committee have raised on a number of occasions, it remains the case that Police Scotland is the only force in the United Kingdom without body-worn cameras. If I am interpreting the letter correctly, it looks like it will not be until 2027 that all officers here will have them, which is extraordinary. Indeed, I do not think that that is guaranteed.

The letter puts a price tag of £21.5 million on that, which is obviously a lot of money but in the grand scheme of things is not. That requires further explanation from the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland as to why body-worn cameras have not been prioritised long before now, given the relatively small sum of money that they would cost, because they would protect police officers and the public.

Is the number of beds being increased?

Thank you. Do I have time for one more question, convener?

So—this goes back to the original question—this is, as far as the bill stands, an absolute for anyone under a certain age.

It is reassuring that one of Keith Brown’s last acts in post was to instruct a pilot project to look into the possibility of providing court transcripts at least to complainers in sexual offences cases, initially. That is a good bit of progress. We should not lose sight of that, so we should ensure that what has been committed to will be put into action quickly. We should be clear as to what is happening.

In the previous session, we also heard evidence from Victim Support Scotland. The organisation said that victims of crime, who are often young people, are really surprised by the lack of information, and it described it as an “information vacuum”.

That happens when cases go not to the courts, which at least are public, but to the children’s panel system. There was a recent case, which has been well publicised, in which a young girl was severely beaten by another young person. That young person was subject to bail conditions, but those were lifted or removed without the knowledge of the young girl or the police, which understandably caused great distress.

With regard to the greater number of cases that are likely to go to children’s panels, has any consideration been given to providing more transparency through the bill? Given that the hearings process is not even public, has any consideration been given, or has any work been done, in respect of whether victims and their families should be informed of what is happening?

Is the number of beds rising from 84?