Chamber and committees

You will have heard some of the evidence that the committee has taken. I will summarise what has interested me about the evidence that we have taken. We heard criminal lawyers and the Faculty of Advocates talk about the fee structure. The Faculty of Advocates said that it has upped the average number of daily cases from 12 to 20, but it still thinks that there will be a shortage of defence lawyers in the system.

We also heard a lot about the job of a defence solicitor. There is an important point to address here about the work-life balance of defence solicitors. They have to go to the police station late at night. The vulnerability of many of the clients of defence solicitors must be acknowledged, too. Do you agree that, as part of any changes to the system, there needs to be acknowledgement of the fact that being a defence solicitor brings with it all those things? Whether a defence solicitor works for the PDSO service or has their own firm, the job is probably much the same—they deal with vulnerable people in the criminal justice system who want a choice of lawyer and who want to be properly represented to give themselves the best chance of having their case put. Most ordinary people probably do not appreciate the hours that defence solicitors work. Do you agree that such acknowledgement is required?

My next question is one that the Scottish Police Federation has posed. It is about public confidence and the pressures on the police. According to the SPF,

“police officers across Scotland have almost 50,000 rest days due to be re-rostered as a consequence of operational demands outstripping available resources. Beyond that … an additional … 100,000 … days have already been re-rostered to future dates.”

The obvious question is, how long can we keep doing that for? Is the authority asking the Scottish Government to programme that in? Through the pandemic, police officers have had to put public policing first, which builds up roster days. I would have thought that it would be grossly unfair not to recognise that that is an additional pressure on the policing budget. What is your ask of the Scottish Government in relation to that?

Good morning. I want to follow up on the question that the convener put to you on the issue of cybercrime, which, according to the figures, has doubled in the past few years, so it is quite a significant issue for policing.

You said to the convener that you are considering the recruitment of civilian officers. Whose decision is that? The idea of recruiting more civilians is one that I have heard before. Opinion is divided on where the line should be when it comes to having people other than police officers do the job. Is that a decision for the SPA to make or is it one for Police Scotland? Can you say anything about which jobs would be civilianised?

My question is on a different subject. Is that okay?

Does that not happen?

Perhaps I should pursue the issue a wee bit further another time, because there are a lot of different priorities around decarbonising the estate. I have experienced the poor estate on my patch in Glasgow. I am glad that you mentioned visibility, because from the public’s point of view, a police office needs to be quite different from any other environment, so visibility is important. It should not be completely driven by best value because it is a distinct service.

In the most recent Scottish Government figures—for 2020-21—cybercrime accounted for an estimated one in three sexual crimes. In the past decade, the levels of most types of crime have fallen, but sexual crimes have risen by 78 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary set out the measures that the Scottish Government is planning to protect vulnerable people—especially women and girls—from the increasing risk of cybercrime of a sexual nature?

I sincerely welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments at the weekend when he said that women should be included as a protected group in the hate crime legislation. That would send a very important signal that such behaviours by men are not acceptable in society.

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary was not the justice secretary when the legislation was passed, earlier this year, but the Scottish Government chose not to accept an amendment that would have included women specifically in the legislation. The cabinet secretary clearly agrees that it is obvious that misogyny should have been included in the hate crime legislation in the first place. Does he think that it is time to act now, instead of waiting until next year for the findings of the working group on misogyny?

I am at a loss to understand why the JCVI does not consider police officers as a priority group. Given the incredible efforts that Police Scotland and serving police officers will make in policing COP26—the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—with up to 25,000 people attending, which will expose officers to considerable risks, does the Government plan to ask the JCVI to include police officers as a priority for the vaccine booster, which they should be?

I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s apology and recognise his long-standing personal commitment to this issue, which has been around for far too long.

Lady Smith said:

“For far too long survivors’ voices were not listened to, nor heard; they were treated as if their views did not matter and as if they were not worth listening to, just as when they were abused in care.”

She said that we must learn the lessons from that tragedy, so I ask the Deputy First Minister to tell Parliament what safeguarding measures are in place to ensure that the voices of survivors are never again silenced by officials or ministers in that way.