Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

I have a couple of questions, the first of which relates to the functions of the PIRC, particularly in relation to police officers who have left the service. The bill clarifies the definition of the phrase

“persons serving with the police”

to allow the PIRC to investigate allegations of criminality against officers who have left the service, where the behaviour took place prior to their joining or while they were off duty. In your submission, you provide some evidence that the impact of such a provision could be that you would no longer have to run parallel investigations in certain circumstances. Do you envisage it impacting on any other aspects of CAAPD’s work or its role, given that it currently deals only with on-duty criminality?