Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, not on that.

I am not sure whether Mr Hogg wants to come in, but that point leads nicely into my final question, so I will ask it now, and Mr Hogg can reflect on both issues.

When the committee initially spoke about this in private, one of the things that we grappled with was that 16 and 17-year-olds who are not currently on supervision orders can theoretically still be referred to the children’s reporter. Although there is no presumption that they will be referred, in theory, they can be. Can witnesses confirm whether that is the case?

I checked again on the Scottish Government’s website before asking that question, and it says that they can still be referred to the children’s reporter. That might happen only in specific circumstances, but they can still be referred. They do not have the protection of not being kept in a cell or being unable to waive the legal right to a lawyer, and safeguarding protections might not exist, but my understanding is that they can still be referred to the children’s reporter. Does that happen or am I wrong?

I knew what IRD stood for, but my colleagues possibly did not, so thank you for explaining that, Claire.

I have one final question but, first, would Mr Hogg or Mr Donnelly like to add anything on that point?

That is very helpful. Maybe I was a daft laddie during the briefing session, but I do not think that that was made clear to us. Mr Hogg, do you want to add anything?

I have just a couple of questions to finish what has been quite a lengthy evidence session. Our briefing papers suggest that the bill’s provisions might have an impact on Police Scotland’s reporting jointly to the procurator fiscal and the principal reporter offences committed by children. I am keen to understand how that process operates currently and how it might have to be adapted in the light of the changes to the definition of “child” that the bill proposes.

Perhaps Claire Dobson is best placed to answer that question in relation to Police Scotland’s reporting requirements.

Just to push you on that, are you both saying that a referral can still happen but that a person has to have had direct interaction with the court system before they are sent back to the reporter? Otherwise, I am reading something very different on the Scottish Government’s website.

Okay. Do the other witnesses want to reflect on that aspect? As Claire Dobson mentioned earlier, we need to ensure that the bill’s provisions do not have wider resource implications. Has Police Scotland done work on additional officer time? You have given us a per case example, but have you done any modelling work on that, which you could share with us either today or at a later date?

That is helpful. It gives me some assurance that you do some modelling on that, although there will always be some outliers.

I know that we are not looking at councillor complaints, convener, but there is a direct connection between them and MSP complaints—a positive one, I think. I read that the entire investigatory team is now trained to handle MSP complaints, whereas there was more of a silo arrangement previously, in which not all investigators were trained in MSP complaints. Clearly, then, any backlog of councillor complaints could theoretically have a knock-on impact on the disposal of MSP complaints. Could you say a little bit more about whether that makes your organisation more fleet of foot? Or are you content that the backlog in councillor complaints will not compromise your performance in MSP complaints?

I agree with that, but anyone looking at that snapshot in time could go, “Oh, my goodness, there were 700 complaints. What on earth is going on?” I also accept that you are bound by very clear rules in statute and guidance about how you can interpret the data and what you can say publicly about it. Without dwelling on the matter—there are other matters that I want to move on to—would you take on board that, if one MSP were to allegedly err in some way and 200 complaints came in about it, all a wee bit different, the consistent way you report that, which is to say that there are 200 complaints, might give a false impression to members of the public, given that you are bound by confidentiality and cannot say that it is in effect one complaint about one MSP? Seeing that snapshot, members of the public might think, “What on earth is going on here?” Is that a reasonable point and would you look at ways in which you could say more about the number publicly and report more clearly? Where there are constraints, perhaps you could share with the committee how we could overcome those constraints.

I am pleased to accept that as a relevant matter that should be addressed.

I would like to move on to the complaints about MSPs: 738 in 2020-21 and 760 in 2021-22. Those have melted away, and I think that we all know about the reality there. Let me give you an example, rather than talk about specific cases. If I were to err somehow—not that I would do that, you understand, Mr Bruce—and a complaint came in, that would be one complaint. However, if 30 people complained about me slightly differently, that would be logged as 30 complaints. If 100 people complained about me slightly differently, that would be 100 complaints. Could you say a little bit more about the numbers for 2020-21 and 2021-22 and why they have melted away? An outsider looking in might think about those numbers, “Oh, my goodness, what on earth is going on with those MSPs? The place is an absolute riot. Look at all those complaints.” It is a wee bit unfair on MSPs. They absolutely should be held to high standards, but the data that is given by your office needs to reflect the reality, not just the raw data. Any information that you can give on that would be very helpful.