���˿���

Right, so the licensing will come first—potentially next year, but even that is not a given.

On Sunday, at Hampden, kick-off was delayed by dozens of pyros being set off in a highly co-ordinated action by both sets of fans. As my colleague Jamie Greene said, it is already a criminal offence to take pyros into football stadiums, so why is that happening on such a big scale? Do you know how many arrests might have been made in relation to what happened on Sunday? Have you discussed it with Police Scotland? What practical difference would the new law make in respect of this issue?

Public awareness is one thing, but I am trying to understand what practical difference the new law will make in respect of policing powers. The police already have the powers that they need to search fans and to deal with people who are carrying pyros within stadiums or going into stadiums, but they are not using them.

When I googled the matter to try to refresh my memory about what is a complicated set of circumstances, I was told that all the provisions in the bill will come into force in 2023—this year.

I want to check on the two local authorities—was it West Lothian or East Lothian?

Okay, thank you.

The legislation was rushed and the Scottish Government ignored some clear warnings from various people that it was a mistake. Now it has been beset by delays and there is a lack of key information around when certain measures will be introduced. Your predecessor, in a letter to the committee, said that it was not possible to say when the restrictions on the days of sale and use will come in. She also suggests, in part of the letter, that that might be something to do with the war in Ukraine; that is a bit shabby, as excuses go. What is your best guess as to when that key measure will come into place?

So, the new possible date is late 2024.

Yet the financial memorandum has not changed; there is no additional cost.

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.