Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 3 April 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1492 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

You supply the resource budget, so you have to sign off the cheque.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

Good morning, cabinet secretary and other guests.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

I apologise if I have not explained myself properly. I just want to ensure that the very specific comments that the SPF has made will be taken into account by the PNBS as it finalises the wording of the constitution.

10:15  

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

Yes, it would. In doing so, perhaps the officials could refer to the issues that the SPF has raised. It has clearly pre-empted scenarios that might be problematic and that it feels need to be addressed to avoid any future deadlock.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

You are right. The SPF requests the following wording:

“Sides may nominate persons who are not”

necessarily

“representatives to serve on subcommittees and working groups with the permission of the”

chair. I presume that that permission will be carried forward in the new set-up.

This is important, given that, in the past year or so, we have seen disagreements over pay settlements and, as the cabinet secretary has said, the police cannot take the same type of strike action that other public services have taken or have threatened to take. However, they have taken industrial action of a different type, which has clearly had an effect on their ability to carry out certain functions. As we have already seen, they have, for example, resorted to principal statutory duties, withdrawn good will and so on.

Given the knowledge that there is a history of disagreement over pay, is the new scenario more or less likely to produce agreement? Will there be any alterations to the action that the police can or cannot take in the event of a dispute or, indeed, deadlock?

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

To follow on from the convener’s opening line of questioning, the submission from the SPF is dated 24 May 2023 and is addressed to the committee. Has the cabinet secretary had sight of it and does the Government intend to respond formally to its content? The SPF has made a number of very specific suggestions for changes that it would like to be made to the constitution. I am happy to go through those in public if that is helpful, but it would be quicker and easier if the Government just responded to the suggestions en bloc. Does the cabinet secretary propose to do that?

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

Absolutely.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

I understand that, but the problem with continuity—and what I think people will be concerned about—is that it might be continuity of the status quo, which, in this case, means annual pay bargaining that ends up in industrial dispute and the removal of services and withdrawal of good will by officers.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

The rabbit hole that we are going down is based on the evidence that we have in our committee papers from one of the leading protagonists in negotiations, so it is absolutely right that we raise those points, given that the SPF is not here to give us evidence prior to the vote.

The problem that we have is more of a procedural one. From what I understand, there is potential to revise the constitution but that would need to be done by regulation. What is the point of passing regulations to rubber stamp the constitution as it is, knowing that there are stakeholders who wish changes to be made and that future regulations that implement any changes will have to come back to the Parliament? Why not do it in one go?

It would be better for the Government to have a discussion with those who have presented evidence and, if any changes to the constitution have to be made, come back with regulations and do it as a one-hit wonder. I have no problem with the regulations, but I have a problem with being asked to rubber stamp a constitution with which some stakeholders clearly have problems.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 June 2023

Jamie Greene

Okay. So, the PNB makes recommendations to ministers. Is it then up to ministers to agree or disagree, or is the final decision what the PNB has recommended?