Chamber and committees

You agree that the resource that is available to you is more important than what we have heard about for a few years now, which is the top police numbers—the 16,000 or 17,000 police officers in total. Is that fair? What is important is the number of available police officers.

Good morning. To be honest, I am finding it quite complicated to follow the system. I acknowledge the progress that has been made, but I am struggling to understand how this is all going to work so I will try to simplify it for myself, if you do not mind.

I want to focus on the out-of-hours service. As Brian McInulty has said repeatedly—and my lines of questioning have always focused on this—the police are the main service that works 24/7. The fact that some of the interconnected agencies do not work 24/7 is, for me, the primary problem, so I want to talk about the protocols.

I want to start with you, Brian. I acknowledge all the progress that has been made and all the work that has gone in—I do not want to underplay any of that—but there is a real urgency to get this sorted, because of the policing issue. We do not have enough officers on the front line, and we are losing officers from the job—Marie McNair is quite right about that. Indeed, I have had the same testimony from officers who think that the job is too hard, and I would say that this is almost an emergency. Should there be a definitive date by which these protocols should, in most cases, be the established practice?

I was not thinking of that at all. You said that there were handover protocols. The problem, in my view, is that health and social care partnerships can easily walk away, while the police cannot. I just do not think that they are motivated or whatever, but this is their responsibility, not the police’s—that is clear. Surely, with these protocols that you have talked about, you would not be leaving the person, because you would be saying, “We’ve done our job; we’ve gone to the distressed person’s house; we’ve taken them and now we're handing them to you.” Why can you not have a definitive, or more definite, date so that you can say to others, “Right—on this date, we’ll be doing our bit, and you’ll be doing yours”?

But are you satisfied with the situation, then? We had a witness who was the head of mental health services for all the health boards—I cannot remember the doctor’s name—but, to be honest, I have to say that there was no indication from them that there would be any changes to working patterns to mirror the police’s 24/7 service. When someone is in distress out of hours, it is the police who pick it up, and I have not heard a single confirmation that that gap is going to be filled by anyone other than the police.

Could the committee get some insight into that? That is what the committee is interested in, and that is why I made the point that it is not about the overall numbers. Although I am a sinner because I will have said, “We need 17,000 police officers,” I realise now that we need to know the number of officers who are available for front-line policing duties. Is there anything that you could share with the committee to give us a snapshot of what that looks like?

Sorry, but that is not what I am asking about. The committee is interested in the situation once we strip out non-policing duties. You know what the chief constable told our predecessor committee in March, because you have referred to it. She said:

“I have reached the conclusion that we will … do something quite significant about our level of response, because our priority cannot be to care for those who find themselves in vulnerable positions.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 March 2026; c 4-5.]

I took that to be the chief constable putting her neck on the line and saying that we need officers out of those roles and on the front line. I know that you cannot tell us today, but I am trying to ascertain what the picture is when you take out those other duties. Mental health is the biggest issue, but there are also issues such as court, the number of officers who are off sick and the pressure that officers are under. I am aware, through the work of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Police Federation, that the pressures are taking people out of the job. Do you see what I mean? That is what I am interested in.

Does the Crown Office want to say anything about that?

Is that one of the barriers to forensic evidence being available?

So, we have legislated for that in relation to children’s panels, but not for the court system.

Thank you, that is very helpful.

My other question is slightly different. The paper talks about the need to ensure that a child is not compelled to give testimony, to confess or to acknowledge guilt, and stresses that the term “compelled” should be interpreted broadly. The Parliament legislated to define a child as someone aged 18 or under. What are your views are in relation to those general provisions?

I represent the Glasgow region, and there is a concern in a lot of Glasgow communities about the fact that perpetrators who are defined as a child under the law—for instance, because they are 17—are committing pretty serious crimes but are not coming anywhere near court. I have a serious concern about applying that approach to someone who is accused of using a weapon or of another serious crime.

I know that children’s units deal with some of those cases, and that it is not a matter for you in particular. You might want to try to convince me that I am wrong to be concerned about that, but we are hearing concerns from communities across Scotland about how we have defined a child in relation to some of those offences. What is your view on that issue?