Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning.

Our business is the continuation of our stage 1 evidence on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. We have two panels of witnesses. We will hear first from the Scottish Police Authority.

I give a warm welcome to Fiona McQueen, who is the vice-chair of the Scottish Police Authority board, Katharina Kasper, who is the chair of the SPA complaints and conduct committee, and Mr Robin Johnston, who is the head of legal at the SPA. I thank them for agreeing to provide evidence to the committee.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to 80 minutes for the evidence session.

I invite Fiona McQueen to make some brief opening remarks.

While we are on the subject of policy, practice and process, and sticking with the PIRC, I note that the bill would allow the PIRC to undertake the preliminary assessment of misconduct allocations against senior officers. The committee has received evidence suggesting that either the PIRC or an independent body should carry out that assessment for complaints against all ranks of officers. As members of the public tend to deal with rank officers, rather than senior officers, do you think that, if that initial assessment proposal were extended to all officers, that might enhance public confidence in the complaints system—which Russell Findlay touched on, albeit in a different context? Perhaps Mr Johnston might like to come in with any thoughts on that.

Thank you, that was really interesting.

Before I bring other members back in, I note that, on the proposal for a statutory code of ethics, some witnesses have questioned what difference a code of ethics will have if there is no sanction for breaching it. I would be very interested in hearing whether you have a view on that and whether such a provision should be considered at stage 2.

That is interesting. I have a final, quick question from Rona Mackay, and then we will have to draw the session to a close.

As we have been considering the bill, I have found myself becoming interested in what brings a police officer or member of staff into the process, whether it is in relation to a complaint against them or an allegation of misconduct. What is it about the demands of the job, the environment or the circumstances that results in them ending up in that conduct space?

Pauline McNeill spoke about a relatively high number of incidents involving allegations of police assault. Given your longevity in the world of justice, I am very interested in your observations on what is pressing down on police officers or staff that puts them in a position where they are facing a complaint or an allegation of misconduct. It is a big question, but I am interested in what the societal factors might be.

The Home Office review, which I mentioned in my first question, also notes that the introduction of legally qualified chairs for all ranks has introduced delays into the system. It has also left chief constables with “insufficient responsibility” or oversight

“over proceedings relating to their own workforce”.

Do you have any comments on that? Would that finding shift your view on recommending the introduction of independent, legally qualified chairs for all ranks of officers?

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Our business today is to continue our evidence taking on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I welcome to the meeting the Rt Hon Lady Elish Angiolini KC, who joins us remotely. We are grateful to her for agreeing to provide evidence to the committee.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to 60 minutes for this evidence session.

I have an opening question, Lady Elish. Since you produced your review of the police complaints process in 2020, the Scottish Government has introduced the bill that we are currently scrutinising. There have also been high-profile cases involving complaints and matters such as vetting, such as the Gemma MacRae decision in Scotland and the Sarah Everard case in England. Will the bill as it is currently drafted make the difference that you would like to see? Alternatively, do changes or improvements need to be made to it? If so, how?

Thank you. That is an interesting perspective.

I will now open up questions to members. I will bring in Russell Findlay and then Sharon Dowey.

That is a comprehensive and helpful opening response.

I would like to stay with the statutory duty of candour that is included in the bill, on which you have set out your views. The Scottish Government has chosen to introduce that duty in the bill, but not a duty of co-operation or a duty to provide the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner with a statutory power to compel officers to attend for interview within a reasonable timescale, as your review recommended. Do you agree with the position that the Government has taken? Is the way in which the duty of candour has been laid out in the bill sufficient to ensure the level of co-operation that would be required to allow investigations to be undertaken and concluded timeously?

I will come back to you, Sharon, if we have time, which is very limited.