Seòmar agus comataidhean

There have been a number of developments. For clarity, I note that some of the recommendations of the Angiolini review were on having two deputy commissioners and redesignating the PIRC from a commissioner to a commission. I understand that the underlying raison d’être of those recommendations was to ensure accountability to the Parliament.

After some consideration, it became apparent that we could not establish a commission as well as accommodate two deputies. The reason is that there has to be a clear line of accountability. If all commissioners share legal accountability, some commissioners—the deputy commissioners—are subservient to the primary commissioner.

That was a bit of a wander into the detail, but a more simple point is that Dame Elish was initially inspired by the Irish model. However, with the passage of time, the Irish model, too, is now moving towards the commissioner model, as opposed to other models.

I have tried, in the most basic way possible, to talk through some of the technical issues. If members want more information, officials can come in, or we can follow up in writing.

I argue that the PIRC is already accountable to the Parliament via parliamentary attendance—whether that is through Scottish ministers or the commissioner. It is accountable to other organisations for its other functions, but I contend that it is also accountable to the Parliament.

It is not happening, for reasons that I outlined.

You are quite correct that there was a robust exchange of views between me and the convener of the finance committee; it was all in the interest of transparency and scrutiny. My officials had a session with the finance committee and, a few weeks later, I also went in and had that pleasure.

I have repeatedly stated, verbally and in writing, that at the time of the bill’s introduction, the financial memorandum was the best estimate of costs. Those costs have now been revised because of different information from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation.

I am considering that. We will do some further work on it during the summer.

In essence, that provision is about reassuring the public, police officers and staff that the PIRC can conduct independent investigations into the most serious non-criminal cases of complaint at any time if there is sufficient evidence that the complaint is not being properly considered by Police Scotland. With regard to the call-in of relevant complaints, it is important that that can be done of the PIRC’s own volition or that it can consider the request of a complainer, so it does not have to wait to be asked.

The point that you make about the need for accelerated hearings is important. Of course, accelerated hearings are not always possible or appropriate if we are committed to a process that is fair to all parties.

You are correct that there can be a connection with criminal proceedings, and there is a programme of work on court efficiency and court catch-up, so I accept the point about the efficiency of proceedings. Of course, that was subject to some of the non-legislative recommendations.

With regard to the bill, the gateway to addressing some of the issues that we would like to address via secondary legislation is primary legislation. We currently have a situation in which police conduct regulations are all in secondary legislation, and have been for years, and you heard earlier from Caroline Kubala that that level of detail would not be put in a bill.

Timescales are important. If Parliament consents, the bill will pass at the end of the year and will get royal assent in the first quarter of next year, so the earliest that aspects of the bill can be implemented would be next summer. We will want to have a cohesive programme, particularly in and around conduct regulations, because I do not want to take a piecemeal approach to pursuing matters that need to be addressed. I do not want to come to committee with statutory instruments in dribs and drabs.

On the overall delivery of the bill, when secondary legislation is required, we will probably do it on three or four occasions and group things together in a way that makes sense, particularly in and around conduct.

That would be my understanding.

There are no statutory time limits in the bill. I understand the point that Ms McNeill makes, which is about efficiency and fairness. It is also about how the person who is being complained about and the complainer are treated. Across the justice system, we talk a lot about trauma-informed practice. That is germane to the matter.

A number of strands of work on police complaints handling processes are being carried out by Police Scotland and the PIRC and they should improve timescales. I mentioned the front-line resolution process. That is about broadening the opportunities for early engagement and, where possible, early resolution. That has coincided with some structural changes in the professional standards department. There is also the PIRC statutory guidance that was introduced in 2021.

There have also been further improvements to audit and review practices in Police Scotland, the PIRC and the SPA. That is about the regular cycle of monitoring and understanding where people are in the resolution of complaints to avoid backlogs, for example. However, there are no statutory time limits.

I suppose that the duty of candour, being rooted in legislation, recognises what is already implied. Legislation makes it crystal clear, and the expectations are crystal clear around that culture of co-operation. That raises the significance of the duty of candour. It was a clear recommendation in the Angiolini review that the office of constable needs to be held to a higher level of duty. Raising the significance of that by locating it in legislation would allow case law in and around this area to grow.