Chamber and committees

Yes, I am very aware of that.

That is helpful. I will put this question to David Threadgold and ACC Gary Ritchie. It is on the same theme. We have heard before about the relentless nature of policing and that, because of your budgetary pressures, officers get their leave cancelled at the last minute—I cannot imagine what the reaction to that would be in most professions—to provide a front-line service to keep people safe.

I will perhaps put this to David Threadgold. On the day-and-daily stuff, when someone has perhaps not reached the level of feeling that they have a mental health problem, should there be earlier interventions to address officers perhaps not coping with the pressures on shift patterns?

Good morning. I want to come in where Stewart Carle left off. What I am hearing this morning is that the reorganisation was 10 years ago, we have had serious budgetary challenges—I acknowledge that—and personnel changes and a lot has changed. However, in your last contribution, Stewart, you acknowledged that there are quite serious deficiencies in systematic approaches and interventions across quite senior grades. I am concerned by that. Does that not suggest that there needs to be a sense of urgency to fix the issue? I am quite alarmed by what I have heard so far. I am looking for a quick response to that question.

Likewise, Collette.

And you are doing all that with a sense of urgency. Does anyone else want to answer that?

I am genuinely shocked that we are losing two members of the committee. I just want to endorse what Jamie said about how we have worked really closely together. I really valued the work that you both did. You will definitely be missed, because the legislation will be hard. I know that we will get two incredibly good new members, but there is no doubt that we will miss the continuity, because we have had some hard things to do. I wish colleagues the best for whatever committee you end up on.

The committee acknowledges the severe pressures but, as David Threadgold said, the issue is the relentless nature of the job, which is unlike most jobs. Police officers are on the front line and were especially so during the pandemic, resources are stretched and police are the call of last resort. I am very alive to that.

We have heard evidence from officers in specialist and undercover units. One officer said that he was well past period—I think that it is five years but do not quote me on that—and did not realise that he was not coping. Perhaps Fiona McQueen could answer. I am just being general about the matter and making the same point. We urgently need to take a systematic approach. That officer had never had an automated intervention and did not realise until he had served seven years under cover that he needed some mental health support.

I agree whole-heartedly with Paul O’Kane that, although the substance of the debate is about whether we give legislative consent to the bill because it cuts across devolved powers, it is also important to acknowledge that it does not have the political support of organisations and parties in Northern Ireland.

Britain’s exit from the European Union has further complicated the peace process, creating political tensions that have rattled the foundations of the Good Friday agreement. As of today, Northern Ireland has been without a sitting Assembly for nearly a year and a half. If the bill is passed, it threatens to further drive a wedge between all political parties in Northern Ireland. I, for one, think that we have a duty, as MSPs of a devolved Parliament, to collectively oppose anything that threatens the Northern Ireland peace process.

As I said earlier, I welcome the late change to the bill in relation to the Lord Advocate’s powers. However, the proposals do not, in principle, have the consent of the community. For those reasons, we will absolutely support the Government on the legislative consent motion and ask the Parliament not to recommend support for it this evening.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Police Scotland regarding action to tackle the reported rise of online child sex abuse. (S6O-02438)

The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill proposes an effective amnesty from prosecution for troubles-related offences in exchange for co-operation with a truth retrieval body. The bill would halt future civil cases and inquests linked to killings that took place during the conflict, and it would establish a new independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery, which would be responsible for reviewing deaths and other harmful conduct forming part of the troubles and publishing its findings.

The bill would seemingly effectively draw a line under offences in the troubles era across the UK by ensuring that long-running cases that have not been resolved are closed and closing avenues for justice in cases that did not involve death or serious injury. However, importantly, as Keith Brown said, that view is not shared by virtually any of the political parties and victims groups across the island of Ireland, north and south, which have slammed the substance of the bill. The Democratic Unionist Party is against it. In fact, one of the few issues that all sides of the political debate in Northern Ireland seem to agree on is that the proposal should not proceed. I agree with Edward Mountain that there are great sensitivities among the people of Northern Ireland about their history, but it is for that reason that we must recognise that the proposal does not have the people’s consent.

On top of strong opposition in the north, the Republic of Ireland Government is also against the bill. In a press release, Irish foreign and defence minister Micheál Martin urged that the bill be paused, because it would potentially set back peace in Northern Ireland.

The families of victims of the troubles have also expressed deep concerns about the bill. Some have said that it is

“designed to cause pain and hurt to families seeking the truth about what happened to their loved ones.”

The Council of Europe warned that the bill will diminish rights and accountability in a country that has seen precious little of either. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, stated that she has

“repeatedly warned”

Westminster

“that the Bill would undermine the human rights of victims, as well as truth seeking, reconciliation and justice efforts.”

Because of such opposition, I worry deeply that the bill, which is opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland and by victims and survivors of the troubles across nationalist and unionist communities, will be a setback for Northern Ireland.

The bill threatens to undermine the powers of the Lord Advocate—or it did. I heard the cabinet secretary say that there has been a last-minute change regarding the Lord Advocate’s powers. That is to be welcomed, although I would have preferred to have seen it a bit earlier, because the Criminal Justice Committee has scrutinised the bill over a large number of weeks and has made the point that a major objection to it concerns the removal of powers from the Lord Advocate.

I had the privilege of representing Scottish Labour on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which includes all political parties. This year, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly marked the 25 years since the Good Friday agreement, which largely ended bloodshed that left 3,600 people dead. I had the privilege of listening to former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, former senator George Mitchell, and former civil servants, who spoke of the incredible coming together of people to ensure the Good Friday agreement.