Chamber and committees

The next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. I refer members to paper 2. Do members have any questions on the instrument, or are we content with it?

Thank you for setting out those points. Since members have no further comments, I propose that the committee writes to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to raise those points and ask for a response from her on the particular issues that Mr Findlay has raised.

That is in order. That completes our deliberation of the Scottish statutory instrument and concludes the public part of our meeting.

I will bring you back in at the end if there is time, but I want to bring in other members now.

On the complaints process, the committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses that, although they feel that the bill’s provisions are fine in themselves, they would like to see a more radical overhaul of the complaints process so that it is as independent as possible. Does the bill go far enough to meet those aspirations, particularly the aspirations of members of the public and former officers who have had experience of the complaints system and have indicated that an independent process would be more transparent and effective?

Last week, HMICS picked up on the point that you made about the inclusion of former officers in the PIRC. It highlighted the balance between independence and staff in the PIRC having the skill set to run complex investigations involving things such as mobile telephony and data. It seems to be about getting that balance right.

I will open up the questions to members.

In its evidence, the Scottish Police Authority expressed support for the provision that relates to calling in complaints being a function of the PIRC. It felt that that was a positive step forward. I am interested in the backdrop to the inclusion of that provision.

As I said, the SPA was broadly supportive of that provision. The committee also heard other evidence that that provision would enhance the investigation process.

The bill places an individual duty of candour on police officers only, although staff would be covered by a separate organisational duty of candour, achieved by amending the policing principles. Should that individual duty also apply to all police staff or at least to those with the same powers and responsibilities as police officers, such as custody staff, who have a particular role? They are not police officers—they are staff—but they have a type of role about which there is the potential for complaints to be made. That is the view of the PIRC, Police Scotland and HMICS, although that is opposed by Unison. I am interested in your response to that.

I am sorry, Ms Dowey, but I need to bring in other members.

Three members still want to come in. We have 15 minutes or so left, so I ask for succinct questions and responses.