Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are just coming up to time. Thank you, Lady Elish, for joining us today. That was a very interesting and informative session, and I very much appreciate it.

I wonder whether I could follow up a line of questioning from Pauline McNeill about misconduct proceedings relating to former officers. In its review of the process of police officer dismissals in 2023, the Home Office notes that the process of continuing misconduct proceedings against former officers

“is an expensive, time-consuming process which draws forces’ resources away from dealing with those individuals who are still serving.”

I am interested in your views on that conclusion and your reflections on why it is important that there is a provision in the bill on misconduct proceedings against former officers.

Thank you. That leads on quite nicely to another piece of work—I am stepping outside the bill for a moment, but I suppose that it is indirectly relevant.

You will be aware that the Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration Committee is doing a piece of work on the commissioner landscape in Scotland, and is taking evidence on the effectiveness of commissioners and their role.

A number of new commissioner posts have been proposed. However, one of the things that the finance committee has been looking at is why we need commissioners in the first place. What is happening or not happening that means that we need them? Are public bodies not fulfilling some of their duties around the conduct of staff or is there perhaps a wider societal issue, such as the cost of living crisis, that is having an impact on the public generally?

That is a really big question but I am interested in your perspective. You have a very demanding commissioner role—there are no doubts about that. Do you have any comment on that wider analysis or the question around the role of commissioners? Do we need them? [Laughter.] I know that you will say yes, and that is absolutely fine.

That is helpful. I must admit that I was unaware of the difference in the threshold in respect of police officers being reported to the Crown. It is helpful to understand that better.

Are you saying that, where more evidence obviously emerges in respect of an individual who has been reported to the Crown in relation to an incident, that would be passed to you for further consideration?

I presume that, once you have a report and have had time to consider it, the Crown Office processes the report in the same way as it processes any other report in terms of the threshold for evidence that is required under Scots law.

As the cabinet secretary noted, we are aware that there will be further LCMs, which the committee will consider.

Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a short factual report to the Parliament on the LCMs?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now have a brief suspension to allow for a changeover of Government witnesses.

Our next item of business is consideration of evidence at stage 1 of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting Michelle Macleod, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner; Phillip Chapman, director of operations; and Sharon Clelland, head of legal services, and I thank them for their comprehensive written evidence.

I refer members to papers 3 and 4. I should say that I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this evidence session.

I will kick off with a question for the commissioner. I was interested to note in your written submission your comments on the proposal for a duty of candour, specifically on the issue of officers timeously producing an operational statement to ensure that an investigation can continue without undue delay, or with as little delay as possible. We know that that can be challenging. You suggest:

“A legislative duty of co-operation for police officers—and police staff—would compel police officers to provide operational statements and attend within a reasonable timescale for interview.”

You then give an example of when that has been challenging. You go on to say:

“Taking into account a person’s right not to self-incriminate”—

which we have discussed in previous evidence sessions—

“the duty should apply only to officers and staff whose status has already been confirmed as that of a witness”.

All of that makes sense, but I am interested in hearing more about where that particular proposal comes from. What are the blockages that have created the timescale issue that you are dealing with? Do you think that compelling someone to produce a statement would work in practice?

There were a couple of questions in there, so I will now hand over to you.

Both.

That is an interesting response, which speaks to or is relevant to the potential for your role and the resource requirement around that to expand. The finance committee will look at the issue of models of commissioners.

I will go back to a question on the bill before I bring Sharon Dowey back in, if she still wants to ask a follow-up question.

In evidence, a lived experience witness spoke about the “weaponisation” of the system against those who are making complaints—perhaps through intimidation or obstruction. Is that something that you recognise? Is that a fair characterisation? That was commentary in evidence to us from a person who had been the subject of an investigation.