Seòmar agus comataidhean

Because we do have that.

I have no objection to that, but it has spoken publicly about not answering phone calls on rest days, for example. As with most jobs, there is a lot of stuff that you are not required to do but you do it—it is that goodwill side of things. I do not mind if what you are asking for is written clarification of the new range of actions that it might take.

I agree with the points that have been made so far. As Russell Findlay has said, there is a slightly different perspective from Police Scotland than there is from the Scottish Police Federation. It is important that we establish why. One thing is clear: higher numbers of officers than usual are leaving the police service. Why is that the case?

From what I have read before, the statement in the federation letter that police officers feel “undervalued” came as no great surprise to me. For the life of me, I cannot understand why police officers were not given priority for vaccination during the pandemic, for example. Obviously, that was a matter for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation but, in reality, I felt that no one was really standing up for police officers.

As we in this committee have been examining, police officers are members of the one profession that cannot walk away from problems, whether they are dealing with 101 calls, mental health issues or crime, and we know that a lot of the calls that police officers deal with are not directly related to crime. That has to be recognised in some way, but it is the loss of experience that concerns me most.

I have looked at the breakdown over the ranks and it is pretty spread across them. There is a sense of urgency about the matter because, if the numbers that we have been given are correct and we lose that level of experience at all those grades, no level of recruitment will compensate for it. The service is already under pressure, so there are service implications that we need to discuss with the Government. The situation must be related to pay and conditions.

As politicians, we have to try to do the right thing. We need to try to retain some of those officers. The federation says that the change to pensions is minor and that police officers could always leave after 30 or 25 years’ service so the change is not the reason why they are leaving. If that is correct, there is a duty on the Government to make some inroads into pay and conditions that would persuade some of those officers to stay, because, if they do not stay, we will have real service issues in the police.

Do you mean the ranks of those who are planning to retire?

I have a supplementary question about something that Dr Plastow said earlier.

It surprised me when you said that local authorities hold most of the biometric data; that was news to me, I have to say. I am sure that the answer is obvious—maybe it relates to the delivery of services—but could you expand on why that would be?

My substantive question was going to be about how you intend to set up the framework to allow members of the public to make a complaint if they think that their data has been misused. However, from what you have said, I now wonder how a member of the public would even know how to go about that or that their data had been abused. Maybe you could speak about that.

Your evidence suggests to me that there is a massive gap in your role. Do you think that it should be expanded? I am sorry that I did not catch all of Jamie Greene’s contribution, but I am familiar with what happened with Glasgow’s CCTV cameras, and where the equipment was bought from is relevant, because that is controversial. Every weekend in Glasgow, there are protests and marches, some of which are controversial. Members of the public are probably concerned about being on CCTV, and want to ensure that the footage is used properly and is not abused. The police use CCTV, as do many other organisations, but there is a divide between the police using it and local authorities and private companies using it. That seems to be a very messy area.

You have produced a code on the substantive issues for which you are responsible, but should not your office, or another office, have some overarching view on the use and collection of surveillance data in which anyone’s face appears, whether it is detailed or not? That is what has surprised me about today’s evidence session.

On the question of surveillance that comes under local authorities, is it part of your role to ensure that those surveillance systems are not being abused? Who checks that?

When you were talking just now, I thought you were going to mention that, certainly in England, local authorities have been using surveillance to try to catch parents out in relation to school catchment areas. That seems to cross a line in some respects. I do not think that it has happened in Scotland.

I accept that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service but, as a legislator, I have had arguments over the years that they ought to provide more information because, at the end of the day, we are being asked to make a decision that might impact on the people whom we represent.

I do not disagree with anything that you have said, cabinet secretary, and it might be said that it is a matter for the committee, if it is concerned about this at all, to ask the Crown Office to clarify the situation for stage 3. However, I am clear in my mind that it is not unreasonable for us, as legislators, to ask the Crown Office this question: if we were to extend the fine to £500, albeit on a temporary basis, what breadth of summary offences would it be used for? I have to say that, in my experience, such requests have been refused, and I want to put it on the record that I disagree with the Crown Office if its position is not to provide us, as legislators, with some transparency about how it would use an extra £200.

Also for the record, I totally acknowledge Fulton McGregor’s contribution. Fiscal fines are really important for all the reasons that he has mentioned. My only disagreement is that, as legislators, we are entitled to have an understanding before we press our buttons and say yes or no to the powers that we are giving the Crown Office to prosecute people or not. It is wrong for us to be in the dark on that.

Amendment 1036 is specific to appearances from custody in police stations. It does not interfere with any of the other discussions about the balance for victims in the system. Victims are not involved in that process. If someone appears from custody physically, they get to see their solicitor, they appear in court and, arguably, the process goes more smoothly. For a period, we did not do that. I thought that you might be unclear about that. For that reason, amendment 1036 is the amendment that I am interested to press.

I am very sympathetic to what Russell Findlay is trying to achieve here. I have felt over the years that, when there is a request or a proposal to extend fiscal fines, it is important that, as legislators, we are clear about the parameters of how that is used. I think that it has been difficult to get that information in the past. I also think that it is fair, in those circumstances, for victims to be told.

I know anecdotally of cases in which people have said, “Well, I did have a defence, but I just thought that, rather than go through the court process, I would accept a fiscal fine.”