Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sure that Mr Findlay is aware of the existing victim notification and information schemes.

It is one of many factors. Changes have been made to the release of long-term prisoners, there have been changes to home detention curfew, with the number of prisoners on an HDC dropping, and there has been an average increase in sentences of 14 per cent. HDC is one of the factors.

No. If I have not already followed that up in writing to this committee, I am happy to do that, but I went through the timeline, and what I said should be in the Official Report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee meeting that I attended.

The bill was introduced in June 2023. In autumn, my officials were told informally that policing partners were doing some work to revise the costs, because now that they had seen the text of the bill, they would need to be revised.

The evidence of the policing partners was published on 8 November last year, and my officials were aware of it on 6 November. As I said to the finance committee, I do not just accept what people tell me something is going to cost; I expect my officials to robustly examine it.

In March of this year, we got to the point at which the Government accepted the revised costs. The financial memorandum was the best estimate based on the information that I and my officials had at the time.

Those lists are important, particularly in cross-jurisdiction terms. To be candid, we need to bring Scotland in line with other partners in Great Britain. It is not acceptable for anyone who has been dismissed from Police Scotland to turn up and get a policing job elsewhere on these islands. That was a recommendation from Dame Elish. As things stand, in terms of corporate cross-jurisdiction responsibility, we have put the administration of the lists on to the Scottish Police Authority, although there is a power for the SPA to delegate that to Police Scotland, for example.

It is important that lists in Scotland speak to lists that exist elsewhere on our islands as well as the lists that cover the non-territorial forces, whether that is the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police or the Civil Nuclear Police Authority. Those lists can be published, but I will ask officials to speak more about the nature of publishing and how that is achieved.

I take the point about closure. It is important for all parties that, irrespective of the outcome, everyone has confidence in the process. At its heart, the bill is about ensuring that our public have confidence in the processes that are set up to deal with the minority of misconduct cases that involve police officers. More broadly, to address the point about a more welcoming and solution-focused approach to complaints resolution, I will not repeat what I said earlier about the importance of the measures that are already in train on the efficiency and effectiveness of processes, or the work that is being done on timescales, which is about engaging earlier in the process and seeking earlier resolution, where appropriate.

I will ask officials to speak to the issue of heads of complaint.

With regard to the PIRC, I will not repeat what I said earlier about its cornerstone role in the policing family in holding policing to account. However, it might be of interest to Mr MacGregor’s constituent to know that it is now a minority of PIRC staff who are former police officers; 52 per cent of PIRC staff come from a non-policing background. That speaks to the diversity of talents and skills, and to the independence of the organisation.

I do not know which of my officials would like to speak to the heads of complaint issue.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.

The bill will embed ethics in the legislative framework to ensure that human rights are front and centre of policing in Scotland. It will pave the way to reforming how police conduct is dealt with and will enhance the independent scrutiny of policing.

The bill draws on evidence led by the former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini, who undertook an independent review of police complaints investigation and misconduct issues. She heard from many individuals from different organisations and members of the public, as well as numerous focus groups.

In 2022, a 12-week public consultation was held. That consultation demonstrated broad support for the legislative changes that were recommended by Dame Elish Angiolini. The measures in the bill build on the non-legislative improvements that have already been made by policing partners. It is important that the bill has been shaped by those who have lived experience of the police complaints system, many of whom felt that the whole system was against them, that they became the victim and that there was no independent body to turn to.

In seeking to raise and embed ethical standards, the bill places a statutory obligation on the chief constable to prepare, regularly review and disseminate the code of ethics, reflecting its significance. Those who hold the office of constable and the powers of that office have a higher duty than others to account for their actions and record what they did or saw in the execution of their duties. Therefore, an explicit duty of candour on individuals, constables and Police Scotland as a whole will be introduced.

To enhance independent scrutiny and remove any perception of familiarity in relation to misconduct proceedings, the bill will amend regulation-making powers to allow the transfer of certain functions from the Scottish Police Authority to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. It provides that the legislation governing disciplinary procedures can be amended to apply to former constables in particularly serious cases, and it provides for the consequences of gross misconduct by the application of barred and advisory lists to ensure that constables who do not meet the standards required of the police service are prevented from being able to work in policing.

To avoid the police investigating someone with whom they have a connection or with whom they might even have worked, the PIRC will have the ability to investigate when it is suspected that the offence was committed by a person who formerly served with the police. If officers and staff experience poor service in a personal capacity, the bill clarifies that their complaint to Police Scotland will be able to be reviewed by the PIRC. That will give constables and staff an external body to go to.

To strengthen the role of the PIRC with regard to any recommendation that it makes to Police Scotland on its handling of individual complaints, there is a requirement that the outcomes of those reviews are published and that the chief constable must respond.

The bill provides the PIRC with the power to take over the consideration of complaints that are being dealt with by the chief constable or the Scottish Police Authority. To improve the transparency of processes around how public interest matters are investigated, the PIRC will have a duty to audit the arrangements for investigating whistleblowing complaints. That will encourage people to speak up when they see wrongdoing.

The PIRC will also be given new functions to investigate serious incidents or criminal offending that occur in Scotland that involve constables from forces outside Scotland. To support Police Scotland to improve, the PIRC will have a new power to review a policy or practice of the authority or Police Scotland if the PIRC considers that that would be in the public interest.

To improve efficiency, transparency, independence and public confidence in the police complaints process, the bill paves the way for the PIRC to independently and remotely have direct access to audit and review files in Police Scotland’s complaints database. To strengthen the PIRC’s decision making, the bill puts in place a statutory advisory board to advise the PIRC on governance and administrative matters.

I want to ensure that the public have confidence in the police complaints and misconduct system, and I am committed to working with members, policing partners and, importantly, people with lived experience to ensure that the bill achieves its aims.

I do. Your point about culture is very important, and HMICS has done a significant amount of work on scrutinising and making recommendations on how to embed a good organisational structure. I would never pretend that legislation alone was the magic bullet or the entire answer. However, the Scottish Government’s response to the independent Dame Elish Angiolini review was overwhelmingly positive. The vast majority of the recommendations were accepted. About two thirds of the recommendations were non-statutory, and 58 recommendations have already been implemented.

With regard to the oversight of that work, I chair a ministerial group that is about giving ministers assurance that policing partners are implementing recommendations, particularly non-legislative ones. That work was also supported by a strategic oversight group and a practitioners group. It is important to stress—I hope that I managed to do this in my opening remarks—that we have regularly informed the Parliament through Government-initiated questions and by writing to the committee a number of times on the thematic reviews.

We can group Dame Elish’s recommendations into categories, such as training and human resources and effectiveness and efficiency. There are many well-organised themes in her work and her recommendations, which has been of assistance in respect of policing partners’ reporting and in the correspondence that we have sent to the committee over a number of years.

We now have to move forward, build on the change that has begun and deliver on the commitments that we made to introduce legislation on the minority of Dame Elish’s recommendations that required statutory provision, including those relating to the code of ethics, the duty of candour and strengthening the independence and broadening the role of the PIRC.

I am not aware of any, but I can ask officials if they know what the position is historically—I will let them contemplate that. When it comes to improvements in relation to misconduct and complaints, I have been focused on the bill.

I suppose that that is an argument for the bill.

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?