Seòmar agus comataidhean

Currently, the PNB works by bringing together all the sides—the staff associations, the Scottish Police Authority, Police Scotland and Government officials—and then making recommendations to ministers. That is the size of it—I do not think that I have missed anything out.

The Government is represented in the room, so we would seek to fulfil what the PNB agreed.

As I said, I am happy to answer any questions from the committee if there are matters that the Scottish Police Federation has raised—that is not a problem.

If all sides cannot agree, the matter goes to arbitration. We have always avoided that in the past, but that does not mean that we will not go to arbitration in the future. I do not view going to arbitration as a negative; I think that I am on record as saying that I would view it as a strength, not a weakness, that we have built that into our system.

The best way to describe the arrangement is that there is a tripartite agreement between Police Scotland, the SPA and the SG. They are the three partners on the employer side, if you like, that would have to agree to fund any settlement.

Yes. Peter, when was the constitution published?

The constitution is referenced in the regulations. Today, we are agreeing the regulations in which the constitution is rooted. The legislation and regulations are a matter for the Parliament. It is now for the PNBS to agree its own day-to-day operations. I will just check with officials that I have articulated that correctly.

So some of this is just about practicalities.

On the specific point about deadlock, I think that I have spoken effectively to the principal point and the importance of arbitration and acting in good faith. We would accept any arbitration decision, other than in very exceptional circumstances, as you would expect any Government to articulate.

I also addressed the issue that the regulations are for the Parliament and the constitution is rooted in the regulations. The constitution has been consulted on and negotiated, and we have come to a consensus agreement on it.

I will ask officials to talk about the guide, how it will be developed and the type of issues that it will address.

I think that your other point was a worry about the arbitration process being stifled and blockers being put on it.

The whole purpose of arbitration is to avoid deadlock, and the whole purpose of having an independent chair is to bring the sides together if there is an inability to agree. Normally, it would be for both sides to agree that a matter needs to go to arbitration. If the independent chair thinks that one side or the other is blocking procedures, they have the power to kick off the arbitration process.

I will hand over to officials to give Mr Greene more detail.

The purpose of a PNB is to enable that negotiation to take place. I am not talking about specific pay claims or, indeed, specific circumstances, because any processes that exist must be respected and must have integrity. However, this is about ensuring that, for negotiating partners, whether they be doing annual pay deals or seeking something longer term—indeed, some parts of the public sector have negotiated multiyear or two-year pay deals—we continue to have in place arrangements that are solid and fair, particularly to police officers, who cannot withdraw their labour.