Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am assuming that we are talking about a very small number of applicants and officers.

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning.

Our business is the continuation of our stage 1 evidence on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. We have two panels of witnesses. We will hear first from the Scottish Police Authority.

I give a warm welcome to Fiona McQueen, who is the vice-chair of the Scottish Police Authority board, Katharina Kasper, who is the chair of the SPA complaints and conduct committee, and Mr Robin Johnston, who is the head of legal at the SPA. I thank them for agreeing to provide evidence to the committee.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to 80 minutes for the evidence session.

I invite Fiona McQueen to make some brief opening remarks.

While we are on the subject of policy, practice and process, and sticking with the PIRC, I note that the bill would allow the PIRC to undertake the preliminary assessment of misconduct allocations against senior officers. The committee has received evidence suggesting that either the PIRC or an independent body should carry out that assessment for complaints against all ranks of officers. As members of the public tend to deal with rank officers, rather than senior officers, do you think that, if that initial assessment proposal were extended to all officers, that might enhance public confidence in the complaints system—which Russell Findlay touched on, albeit in a different context? Perhaps Mr Johnston might like to come in with any thoughts on that.

Thank you, that was really interesting.

Before I bring other members back in, I note that, on the proposal for a statutory code of ethics, some witnesses have questioned what difference a code of ethics will have if there is no sanction for breaching it. I would be very interested in hearing whether you have a view on that and whether such a provision should be considered at stage 2.

I now bring the session to an end. Thank you for your attendance this morning—it has been helpful.

We will have a short suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.

Did you want to come back in, chief superintendent?

Thank you for that additional information.

On the duty of candour, which we have not yet explored with you this morning, I am interested in hearing your thoughts as to whether the way that it is set out in the bill is sufficient with regard to who is covered. Do you feel that the duty would ensure timely co-operation from police officers and staff in investigations? Should it be extended to, say, certain police staff? Earlier, we discussed with the SPA the potential extension of the duty to, for example, custody staff. I am interested in hearing your reflections on that particular provision.

I will now open the session up to members and bring in Rona Mackay.

Just for clarification, are you referring to the CAAPD in last week’s evidence session?