Police Scotland mental health absences rise by 52%
They also show the number of officers taking time off grew each year over the period, with 1,024 in 2022 and 1,102 in 2023.
The party said the figures showed officers are at 'breaking point' and called on the Scottish Government to address the 'mounting pressures' facing police.
READ MORE
Scottish Labour justice spokesperson Pauline McNeill said: 'It's clear police in Scotland are at breaking point after years of SNP mismanagement and neglect.
'We owe it to police officers to ensure they have the support they need while they work to keep our communities safe, but it's clear that is not the case under the SNP.
'The SNP has let police officer numbers collapse over the last five years, piling pressure on remaining officers and threatening to undermine public safety.
'The SNP must wake up to this growing mental health crisis and work with Police Scotland to support officers struggling with stress, trauma or poor mental health.
'Dealing with this crisis is vital to keeping police officers in work and on duty at a time when we need visible officers in communities.
'Police officers cannot keep bearing the brunt of SNP failure — more must be done to support police and the vital work they do.'
Pauline McNeill says officers aren't getting the support they need (Image: PA) Earlier this year it was reported that the number of days taken off by police officers and staff suffering from mental ill health rose from 63,797 in 2019/20 to 96,509 in 2023/24 — a 51.3% rise.
Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs said: 'The health and welfare of our officers and staff remains one of Police Scotland's highest priorities, with enhanced provisions from both our Employee Assistance and Your Wellbeing Matters programmes.
'This will be further enhanced through the implementation of our new HR structure, with increased resource within our Health and Wellbeing team.
'We also have a range of mechanisms in place to support our employees who are absent from work for any reason.
'We continue to work with our occupational health provider to support police officers and staff in their journey back to health and, subsequently, to work.'
READ MORE
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Police officers and staff do a challenging job and we have welcomed the Chief Constable's commitment to workforce wellbeing.
'Staff and officers can access a range of services to support their physical and mental wellbeing.
'This includes access to a 24/7 employee assistance programme, and direct access to occupational health services.
'We are investing a record £1.64 billion for policing in 2025–26, an increase of £90 million on 2024–25, and Police Scotland took on more recruits in 2024–25 than at any time since 2013, with more intakes planned this year.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Scotland's hefty benefits bill is no badge of honour – it's a mark of shame for SNP
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) HAVING a massive benefits bill is not something to be proud of – it is a sign of a failing society. But for some reason, Scotland's increasing dependence on social security has become the subject of bragging rights for the SNP Government. 2 Scotland's benefits bill is not something to be proud of, writes Chris Musson Credit: Alamy 2 Scotland's dependence on social security is the subject of bragging rights for the SNP Credit: PA It is a policy based on optics, on PR, on quick wins, and on narrow, nationalistic posturing. Pretty much anything apart from society's long-term health. It can be largely summed up by this: SNP chiefs want to show everyone how much more generous and compassionate they are than those dastardly scoundrels at Westminster. Presently, Nats ministers are in their element, due to Labour's civil war over UK Government welfare reforms, which aim to cut £5billion a year from the benefits bill and get more people back into work. Last week, when the SNP weren't claiming the Westminster move would push families into poverty, they were boasting about how much cash is dished out by the Scottish Government on devolved payments. So, a press release trumpeted £6billion handed out by their fledgling agency, Social Security Scotland, in its first years of existence following the devolution of a string of benefits. 'More than £6billion has been paid to help people with cost of living', the announcement said. This cynical wording aimed to make people think these were cost of living payments in the same vein as the cash which came for fuel bills from the UK Government a couple of years ago. It's not, though, this is money paid for standard benefits — now 14 of them — delivered by Scottish Government's Social Security Scotland since 2018. If you think that sounds like a lot, look away now. Because given the amount of benefits now kicking in at the devolved agency, with its 4,200 staff and £321million running costs, it is set to spend £7.7billion next year alone — and £9.5billion a year by 2030. Find out what's really going on Register now for our free weekly politics newsletter for an insightful and irreverent look at the (sometimes excruciating) world of Scottish Politics. Every Thursday our hotshot politics team goes behind the headlines to bring you a rundown of key events - plus insights and gossip from the corridors of power, including a 'Plonker' and 'Star' of the Week. Sign up now and make sure you don't miss a beat. The politicians would hate that. SIGN UP FOR FREE NOW Most of this is for Scottish versions of Westminster payments, but extra benefits paid out by Scotland under devolution total £1.3billion a year, rising to a future £2.1billion. At Westminster, those reforms by Labour aim to cut reliance on Personal Independence Payments and get people — who can — back into work. At Holyrood, the Scottish version of PIP — Adult Disability Payment — is costing £3.6billion a year, and forecast to hit £5.4billion by 2030. This includes the thousands of adults now getting ADP for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — many claimants having been farmed by money-making websites who take a slice after helping people with applications. So, while Westminster tried to scale back on welfare, Holyrood is scaling up. In the words of Social Security Scotland, this is all in the name of 'a human rights based approach' to 'demonstrate dignity, fairness and respect in all our actions'. Well, there's a fine line between compassion and being a walkover, and SNP ministers may well have crossed that threshold already. The Scottish Government seems to be ideologically opposed to paying less in benefits, because in their eyes, benefits are inherently a great thing. And they are especially great when it makes them look more generous than Westminster. But what is the endgame here? Before SNP ministers got powers over welfare, Scotland's disproportionate reliance on social security compared to the rest of Britain was universally regarded as a bad thing. In the early 2010s, levels of disability benefits claimed per person in Scotland were 22 per cent higher than Great Britain as a whole, figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show. This was fuelled by higher rates of people with health problems limiting their daily activities. Scotland had long been dubbed the 'sick man of Europe'. On some measures, we still are. Yet now, maintaining and increasing payments is the overwhelming focus of the devolved government, not actually getting people better and getting them to work. Where is the long-term plan to better the health and wealth of the nation, rather than fostering an increasingly unaffordable reliance on welfare? Sometimes, I'm not sure they're particularly interested. Last year, the SNP defaulted to its usual scornfulness when ex-Labour MSP Des McNulty pointed out in a study for a think-tank that the Scottish Government's new Scottish Child Payment benefit might not be the bees knees after all. His report pointed out — sensibly — that perhaps throwing money at a broad group of people may not work in the long term. That money could be better targeted on the very poorest, he said, and moreover we needed to invest in the 'complex roots of poverty' by helping people back into work, for example. McNulty hit the nail on the head with the mention of 'complex'. Because sorting this out is complicated. It requires serious thought and time. SCOTTISH Tory MSP Alexander Stewart missed his first shadow cabinet meeting after being named social justice spokesman — as he was singing for the Holyrood choir. Stewart was busy doing a solo performance of 'Where I Want To Be' from the musical Chess. And it turned out that where he wanted to be was anywhere but in a meeting with leader Russell Findlay. Elsewhere in parly's final week before its ten-week summer break (yes, really), angry MSPs spent an hour debating the 'menace 'of seagulls. It was left to SNP's Christine Grahame to urge calm, saying the issue must not be styled as 'people versus gulls'. A bit late, given the ferocity of the debate. Throwing £27.15 per child per week at low-income families is simple and comes with bonus political points. Some people will always need help if they are genuinely unable to work due to disability, for example. But a society which becomes increasingly reliant on welfare is failing. Failing to get people into work, failing to get them better if they're ill. Failing to get them motivated, if they can't be bothered to work. Failing to educate and inspire kids for their prospects, and failing to get the economy going and create decent jobs. A big benefits bill is not a badge of honour to be press released. It's a mark of shame. Ministers must show more ambition because at the moment, the ambition seems to be a nation of layabouts.
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. The judges continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.'
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill. Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt. Baroness Smith served as chief whip under Sir Tony Blair (David Jones/PA) Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter. She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.' Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.' Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs. The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place. The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit. "I draw on the substantial evidence, the voices of those impacted and my conscience which determines that I cannot cross by on the other side and have no choice but to vote against the UC & PIP Bill."My full statement in comments👇#York #PIP #Welfare — 💙Rachael Maskell MP (@RachaelMaskell) June 29, 2025 The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026. Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms. Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published. The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday. Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in. 'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency. Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote. Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'. Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures. 'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said. 'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'
