Chamber and committees

Sure—of course I will.

I was going to get to amendments 16 and 17. I fully welcome the Government’s position on them, as it will make a substantial difference in relation to fairness. I welcome the Government’s response.

I remain concerned about not having something in primary legislation on correcting information on vetting, but I am content for the most part. The only amendment in the group that I intend to move is amendment 14, on appeals; I will not seek to move the other amendments in my name. I thank the Government for the response on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

Good morning. I have found all the evidence enlightening and helpful, so thank you for all your evidence so far.

Dr Heyman, you started off by talking about the significant gaps in provision, particularly for those who were intoxicated. I was trying to tie that up with what Dr Steel was saying about the gap. Ben Macpherson referred to having a front-door service to deal with both things. What does that mean for the model that we are trying to create? I am familiar with many such cases, and I agree that, rightly or wrongly, the NHS will not take someone who is drunk, so the police are quite often left with them; otherwise, the person is in danger. Does the service that you are talking about creating deal with those types of cases?

Is that because you can tell that the number of calls has reduced?

Thank you—it was helpful to get that on the record.

In our session with the first panel of witnesses, I quoted the Scottish Police Federation, which said:

“We have evidence that community triage teams are now pushing back on calls from Police Scotland due to a lack of capacity within their area of business.”

I presume that you are aware of that. Is that part of the issue?

I agree. I, too, would like to see the evidence. However, that is a comment that has been made. I suppose that it is a case of matching up the aspiration with the reality that we are faced with. That is what we are all interested in.

In our session with the first panel, we heard about a model that involves providing another space where the police do not need to get involved, which sounds like the right model. That means that the police get their hours back and the vulnerable people concerned get the right service. However—Sharon Dowey and I have been pursuing this issue—although the NHS and the police work 24/7, not all services do that. Without that being the case, it will be difficult to achieve that model, because a lot of the calls that we are talking about will be made out of hours. I do not know what the numbers show.

I will quote from the letter from ASPS, if you do not mind, to illustrate how far away it thinks we are from that. It says:

“While these initiatives are universally well-intentioned and anecdotally benign in character, none of them has yet to have a systemic impact on the colossal demand felt by policing in Scotland.”

That is just the association’s version of where we are now. Do you want to respond to that?

Good afternoon, cabinet secretary, and Lynsey McKean and Alastair Cook.

I want to go back to the central reasons why the committee has set time aside to conduct this important inquiry. We have had strong and encouraging evidence. I will quote from the letter from Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and I would like to hear your response to that. The letter refers to the cabinet secretary’s update letter of 8 August. The first thing that I picked out is probably accepted. The letter says:

“The central issue for policing at a strategic level is that there have been increasing societal issues around the prevalence of mental health and related vulnerabilities. This has led to a “mission-creep” from the core police mission, the demand from which today weighs upon police resources to such an extent that police performance in other areas is suffering badly.”

The recurring theme is the impact of those issues on policing our communities. That is why we are driving this work forward.

The letter from the ASPS also goes on to say:

“Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Cabinet Secretary’s letter to suggest that the Scottish Government truly understands the impact of Mental Health incidents on Police Scotland. It does not acknowledge either the negative impact on core policing functions or describe a need to alleviate the pressure on policing.”

I thought that that was pretty direct. Do you want to respond to that?

Dr Steel, it seems that a significant resource would be required to create such a model, notwithstanding what you said about health boards in different parts of Scotland. Do you also agree that one of the reasons that the police pick up those cases is because they are the service of last resort and they work 24 hours, seven days a week, which a lot of services do not. Do you agree that we have to sort that situation in order to create the model?

You have answered it: the service would need to be 24/7 in order to capture those people. Otherwise, we will be back where we started—with the police.

My next question is for ACC Paton and Chief Superintendent Paden. The Scottish Police Federation’s evidence to the committee states:

“It is our view that this area of business is the single biggest inhibitor in operational officers across Scotland being able to carry out their core function”,

which is what I think that you were saying to the committee earlier. However, it also says:

“We have evidence that community triage teams are now pushing back on calls from Police Scotland due to a lack of capacity within their area of business.”

I suppose that that goes back to Ben Macpherson’s question. Police Scotland has to deal with the here and now, and the model that we are talking about seems quite a long way off. Do you want to comment on that, ACC Paton?

Chief Superintendent Paden, do you want to add anything?