���˿���

First, the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs talks about cuts to the Scottish Government’s capital budget, but it is worth putting on record that it is the highest block grant on record, and any cuts relate, I believe, to extraordinary spending due to Covid, so there are no cuts in that meaningful sense.

On the response from Police Scotland, we asked about the potential blue-light collaboration across Scotland, but the answer does not really tell us anything. There are lots of words but no tangible detail about what is actually happening and what that £5 million might be spent on.

Turning to body-worn cameras, which we as a committee have raised on a number of occasions, it remains the case that Police Scotland is the only force in the United Kingdom without body-worn cameras. If I am interpreting the letter correctly, it looks like it will not be until 2027 that all officers here will have them, which is extraordinary. Indeed, I do not think that that is guaranteed.

The letter puts a price tag of £21.5 million on that, which is obviously a lot of money but in the grand scheme of things is not. That requires further explanation from the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland as to why body-worn cameras have not been prioritised long before now, given the relatively small sum of money that they would cost, because they would protect police officers and the public.

For what it is worth, I think that, given what police officers often experience in carrying out their duties on the front line, they are undoubtedly more susceptible and prone to mental health issues. We have been addressing separately what appears to be a lack of support generally, and it appears that Police Scotland, the SPA and the federation are all very much behind efforts to improve that, which is to be welcomed.

However, separately, there is a cohort of officers who have been subject to allegations of wrongdoing—sometimes minor and sometimes more serious—and whose cases can be characterised as basically taking far too long and apparently being unjust, on the basis that a conclusion is reached before the evidence is even looked at. A sense of abandonment and hopelessness is feeding cases of officers either attempting to take their own lives or successfully completing suicide. I think that there is a reluctance on the part of the authorities to look at that element because, according to survivors and families, there is some culpability on the part of those authorities for what has occurred, as they have not responded to concerns that the officers are in a bad way because of the process.

I want to pick up on Rona Mackay’s comments about body-worn cameras. I happened to be at a retail security industry conference recently; I spoke to an individual who supplies body cameras to police forces elsewhere, and he expressed some surprise and frustration about his dealings with Police Scotland over the years. There were numerous attempts or suggestions that Police Scotland was going to go ahead with the cameras, but that did not come to pass, and he could not figure out why. Something like that might give us a bit of a different perspective.

The first time that I raised the issue was when we had a police witness in to talk about policing and mental health, and I asked how many officers had died from suicide. He said that he did not know and that he would get back to us with those numbers, but he did not do so—it then transpired that those numbers are not recorded.

The SPA and Police Scotland then wrote to us. The SPA’s position was, essentially, that it was aware of a spate of suicides that had been in the public domain and had asked Police Scotland whether work issues had had any bearing on that. The SPA was told by Police Scotland that they had not. I think that that showed a distinct lack of curiosity.

Subsequently, we got a letter from the Crown Office, which set out its reasoning behind not instructing fatal accident inquiries in any of those cases. Judgments are made case by case and there are sensitivities, obviously. However, in the cases in which I know that the officers felt that they were under pressure and had made that clear to Police Scotland, there is surely a public interest in holding fatal accident inquiries.

It is reassuring that one of Keith Brown’s last acts in post was to instruct a pilot project to look into the possibility of providing court transcripts at least to complainers in sexual offences cases, initially. That is a good bit of progress. We should not lose sight of that, so we should ensure that what has been committed to will be put into action quickly. We should be clear as to what is happening.

In the previous session, we also heard evidence from Victim Support Scotland. The organisation said that victims of crime, who are often young people, are really surprised by the lack of information, and it described it as an “information vacuum”.

That happens when cases go not to the courts, which at least are public, but to the children’s panel system. There was a recent case, which has been well publicised, in which a young girl was severely beaten by another young person. That young person was subject to bail conditions, but those were lifted or removed without the knowledge of the young girl or the police, which understandably caused great distress.

With regard to the greater number of cases that are likely to go to children’s panels, has any consideration been given to providing more transparency through the bill? Given that the hearings process is not even public, has any consideration been given, or has any work been done, in respect of whether victims and their families should be informed of what is happening?

Is the number of beds rising from 84?

So, if the cross-border stuff is removed from the equation, Scotland will have capacity. However, that then brings into play the problem of cost, because the payment for cross-border places is 35 per cent higher. The Scottish Government will have to find the money to fund those places at a higher rate, will it not, to make St Mary’s more sustainable?

And the bill will allow for them to remain in secure accommodation until they are 19—or is it 21?

Thank you very much.