Seòmar agus comataidhean

That answer is helpful.

Russell Findlay can ask his final question on the bill.

A very good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have apologies from John Swinney. I welcome Jackie Dunbar to the meeting.

Our first item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on two legislative consent memoranda—LCM-S6-43 and LCM-S6-43a—that have been lodged by the Scottish Government in relation to the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and Scottish Government officials. Ms Alison Morris is head of serious organised crime policy—divert and deter; Kristy Adams is a policy officer in the organised crime unit; and Ruth Swanson is a solicitor in the equalities and criminal justice division.

I refer members to paper 1. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for this evidence session.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the legislative consent memoranda.

The next item of business is consideration of oral evidence on an affirmative instrument.

We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance. From the Scottish Government, I welcome Susan Black, who is a senior policy officer in the civil law and legal system division, and Emma Thomson, who is a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 2. I intend to allow up to 10 minutes for the evidence session. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I have a supplementary question about policy, practice and procedures. In one of the evidence sessions with witnesses with lived experience, we heard from a witness in relation to the provision of family liaison officers. We heard that her family had not been given support by a family liaison officer in the circumstances of an unexplained death—you are probably aware of the case. I found it quite distressing to hear that.

You have spoken about highlighting to Police Scotland issues that you are seeing emerge around good practice. Would the onus be on the PIRC to flag issues of the type that I have just set out, or would it perhaps be more on HMICS?

That is helpful. I must admit that I was unaware of the difference in the threshold in respect of police officers being reported to the Crown. It is helpful to understand that better.

Are you saying that, where more evidence obviously emerges in respect of an individual who has been reported to the Crown in relation to an incident, that would be passed to you for further consideration?

I presume that, once you have a report and have had time to consider it, the Crown Office processes the report in the same way as it processes any other report in terms of the threshold for evidence that is required under Scots law.

As the cabinet secretary noted, we are aware that there will be further LCMs, which the committee will consider.

Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a short factual report to the Parliament on the LCMs?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now have a brief suspension to allow for a changeover of Government witnesses.

Our next item of business is consideration of evidence at stage 1 of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting Michelle Macleod, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner; Phillip Chapman, director of operations; and Sharon Clelland, head of legal services, and I thank them for their comprehensive written evidence.

I refer members to papers 3 and 4. I should say that I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this evidence session.

I will kick off with a question for the commissioner. I was interested to note in your written submission your comments on the proposal for a duty of candour, specifically on the issue of officers timeously producing an operational statement to ensure that an investigation can continue without undue delay, or with as little delay as possible. We know that that can be challenging. You suggest:

“A legislative duty of co-operation for police officers—and police staff—would compel police officers to provide operational statements and attend within a reasonable timescale for interview.”

You then give an example of when that has been challenging. You go on to say:

“Taking into account a person’s right not to self-incriminate”—

which we have discussed in previous evidence sessions—

“the duty should apply only to officers and staff whose status has already been confirmed as that of a witness”.

All of that makes sense, but I am interested in hearing more about where that particular proposal comes from. What are the blockages that have created the timescale issue that you are dealing with? Do you think that compelling someone to produce a statement would work in practice?

There were a couple of questions in there, so I will now hand over to you.

Both.