Seòmar agus comataidhean

I return to the financial memorandum. Russell Findlay has already commented that the costs have gone from £1.4 million to £5.8 million, which is a huge cost. We have heard comments about whether legislation is required. Earlier on, David Kennedy said that officers are investigated at top level instead of at bottom level. From some evidence that we have heard, it sounds as though, if investigations took place at bottom level first, cases could perhaps be dealt with through misconduct or a disciplinary procedure without becoming criminal cases. We have also heard about officers going through a criminal case, being acquitted and then coming back to misconduct proceedings.

Do we need to go back and look at the current policies, procedures and processes in Police Scotland, perhaps update them and implement them properly? David Kennedy also said that current regulations are not used in the way that they should be. Do we need legislation, or do we need to go back and look at the processes and procedures that are already there, implement them properly and possibly update them?

I will go back to something that you said earlier. Did you say that, when you were put under investigation, you spoke to a senior officer who said that you were on restricted duties because you were a danger to the public, but at that point you did not know what you had done?

So, there is an issue with the police misconduct disciplinary procedures. Did anybody speak to you about that at the beginning of the case, to take a statement or ask you for more details about what happened?

Is there anything in the bill that would have helped your case at that time? Would it have addressed the fact that you were put on restricted duties and told that you were a danger to the public? I take it that you saw the solicitor before you were told by your employer what the problem was?

If you have people on restricted duties, that is also a strain on the police, because those people are not doing their full job.

When you were with Police Scotland, was there a sense that officers resign as a way to avoid scrutiny as part of the misconduct process, or do people resign because of the stress that they are under while being investigated?

Do you agree that it should be possible for the misconduct procedure to commence and continue against former officers for allegations that, if proved, would amount to gross misconduct, or should it apply only to gross misconduct?

By the same token, how do you feel about the intention to allow proceedings against former officers to commence or continue for up to 12 months after an officer has left the force, unless specific criteria are met?

You have mentioned a few litigation cases that you have dealt with. Could litigation be avoided if the complaints handling system were completely reformed? Does the system need to be completely reformed?

Good morning. Earlier, you said that the police were less prepared to investigate complaints involving discrimination. Is there an issue because they do not want to investigate the complaints, or is it a problem with their procedures?

One of the comments in your evidence, in reference to the Rhona Malone case, was that Police Scotland obstructed every phase of the liability litigation. Will the bill’s provisions, such as having a statutory code of ethics or a duty to be honest in and co-operative with investigations, do anything to change that attitude? Will the bill as it stands just now help?