Seòmar agus comataidhean

The difficulty with that is that conduct regulations are in secondary legislation and the way to change them is via secondary legislation. There would also need to be extensive engagement and consultation on any proposed changes. Again, that is due to the obligations that are placed on us by the 2012 act. The way forward, or the vehicle for change for the practicalities that Ms Dowey has spoken about, is the primary legislation, which enables us to revisit secondary legislation. Do officials have any finer points of detail that they want to add?

The only point that I would add is that we have to avoid a piecemeal approach. The Government made a commitment to lodge primary legislation to cover the necessary legislative changes that I referenced in my opening remarks. That needs to be supported by secondary legislation where necessary. The way that matters are phased and sequenced will be important, as will how we bring together aspects of the work that specifically relate to conduct regulations, because, even though the secondary legislation that flows from the bill will be required, we need to move forward in a planned and phased manner and not in a piecemeal way. I wanted to add that to give some assurance to Ms Dowey.

Of course. I met the commissioner just last week—it was not my first engagement with her. I engage regularly with all policing partners. I note and pay attention to where there are differences of opinion among the PIRC, Police Scotland, HMICS and the Scottish Police Federation. When we get into the detail of a bill, not everybody faces the same direction all the time. The Government has to come to a view and, ultimately, the Parliament has to come to a view.

There are some aspects that we might come on to later, such as whether the commissioner should be on the prescribed persons list. There are practical arguments that the commissioner is deploying effectively, in my view. However, in a more global sense, while the bill either clarifies the role of the PIRC or extends an existing role by taking some narrow roles or duties and broadening them out, it is important that, particularly in senior officer cases, the role of the PIRC is expanded and that those functions are transferred from the Scottish Police Authority to the PIRC.

That is for pragmatic reasons. We have one police force in Scotland and a comparatively small number of senior police officers who all have a proximity to the Scottish Police Authority. The role of the PIRC is as a credible partner in policing and the cornerstone of policing in holding the police to account on behalf of the public and that is important.

Yes.

The legislation on whistleblowing is reserved. We are, of course, in discussion with the UK Government and with the PIRC. That is an example of where the commissioner makes a fair point, in my opinion, although the Parliament may have a different view.

I am committed to the transfer of functions from the SPA to the PIRC, because that is the prudent thing to do, given the perception of proximity between senior police officers and the Scottish Police Authority.

It does apply to off-duty officers.

I am not sure that any more clarity is required on that.

We have to remember that staff are employed on a different basis to police constables. Police staff are employed in the traditional manner, as most people in this country are. However, constables are not employees. They are office-holders who have very particular rights and responsibilities and they are in a heightened position of trust. Therefore, the roles are quite distinct. One is employed in the traditional sense and the other is an office-holder who is safeguarded with particular responsibilities and duties.

With regard to the public’s confidence in policing and how we continue to ensure that public confidence is high, recognition of the heightened role and responsibilities of constables is important. That does not mean that ethics are not important to police staff. There is also an ethics and values framework that applies to police staff.

I do not want to repeat myself. The core of that issue is about the distinction between being employed and being an office-holder, although I understand the logic of some of the arguments that have been marshalled around the fact that some police staff have particular responsibilities, such as the example that you have given. I do not have anything further to add on our overall position but I will check with Steven Bunch and Caroline Kubala.

It is a professional judgment.