Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would argue that the bill is needed—otherwise I would not be doing it.

I am not sure that the policy around the power that HMICS has recommended that the chief constable should have in certain high-threshold circumstances in and around dismissal would be a matter for the Lord Advocate. However, work is being done at pace, and 58 of Elish Angiolini’s non-legislative recommendations have been implemented. Further, HMICS carries out substantial reviews. It has done one on vetting, and we spoke earlier about the one on organisational culture. Primarily, it makes recommendations to police and partners, and occasionally to the Government.

It is for the SPA to hold Police Scotland to account. Much of the SPA’s proceedings are held in public, and I also engage with the SPA and Police Scotland, collectively and individually. Kevin Lee might want to add something to that.

The bill helps with it in that, if the PIRC makes recommendations to Police Scotland or the SPA, those recommendations can be published. Where there are time limits, it is for the chief constable to give an initial response and a progress update. I think that an initial response to recommendations should be made within eight weeks but a progress update can be given within 12 months.

Do you mean just now?

The 12-month timescale is not in the bill. It is not a hard and fast statutory requirement. It is for the PIRC to make a judgment on public interest and fairness. It needs to be a rounded decision based on all the facts and circumstances.

Is there anything that you would like to add, Steven?

It is a professional judgment made by the PIRC on the merits and details of the case and what is in the public interest.

It is a different threshold.

Yes. A criminal matter has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In broad terms, the bill should not be looked at in isolation. I hope that I made that clear in my remarks to the convener. The non-legislative work is fundamentally important, but we need to complete the process of satisfying the statutory recommendations that were made by Lady Elish. I see the legislation and the non-legislative recommendations as being part of a bigger package. Given that we all value the principle of policing by consent, it is important that we continue to do everything that we can to ensure that there are rigorous processes in place for dealing with issues of misconduct and gross misconduct. That is imperative to there being public confidence in policing.

On what is happening in England and Wales, I will happily pick up on any specific issues that you want to raise. Generally, we look at what is happening south of the border as they are the jurisdictions that are nearest to us. As you would expect, there is cross-border co-operation in the course of day-to-day business, and there is an important cross-border issue related to the barred and advisory lists, which is an issue that we might come to.

I appreciate Mr Findlay’s irritation about the matter. The processes for the preparation of the orders are layered on layers of historical agreements and historical orders. The two errors that you have mentioned are either being addressed or they will be. My understanding is that the error related to this order is rooted in the original UK orders. Nonetheless, the errors will be addressed.

It is particularly complex that the order relates to the transfer of agreements over a period of a number of years into multiple orders that flow from the UK Government. However, I said that by way of context—I certainly ain’t pointing the finger at anyone in that regard.