Chamber and committees

The legislation on whistleblowing is reserved. We are, of course, in discussion with the UK Government and with the PIRC. That is an example of where the commissioner makes a fair point, in my opinion, although the Parliament may have a different view.

I am committed to the transfer of functions from the SPA to the PIRC, because that is the prudent thing to do, given the perception of proximity between senior police officers and the Scottish Police Authority.

It does apply to off-duty officers.

I am not sure that any more clarity is required on that.

We have to remember that staff are employed on a different basis to police constables. Police staff are employed in the traditional manner, as most people in this country are. However, constables are not employees. They are office-holders who have very particular rights and responsibilities and they are in a heightened position of trust. Therefore, the roles are quite distinct. One is employed in the traditional sense and the other is an office-holder who is safeguarded with particular responsibilities and duties.

With regard to the public’s confidence in policing and how we continue to ensure that public confidence is high, recognition of the heightened role and responsibilities of constables is important. That does not mean that ethics are not important to police staff. There is also an ethics and values framework that applies to police staff.

I do not want to repeat myself. The core of that issue is about the distinction between being employed and being an office-holder, although I understand the logic of some of the arguments that have been marshalled around the fact that some police staff have particular responsibilities, such as the example that you have given. I do not have anything further to add on our overall position but I will check with Steven Bunch and Caroline Kubala.

It is a professional judgment.

Yes. The PIRC is well aware of processes and people’s rights to defend themselves.

Although the context of our discussion is police officers, who have a higher threshold, we can think of many scenarios in any workplace where it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt in court that someone is guilty of a criminal offence but they might still be guilty of a misconduct offence, which would be determined on the balance of probabilities. It is not that there is an automatic assumption or conclusion. It is just not unusual for criminal proceedings not to proceed or to come to an end but, thereafter, for there to be a fair process in relation to whether someone has committed a breach of conduct.

When it comes to holding gross misconduct hearings in public, I am not instinctively agin it. There are arguments for it. However, we will continue to engage with our policing partners. As you have indicated, there are a range of views. We will take the opportunity that we have in the time that we have to consider the impact of public hearings south of the border. As with any secondary legislation or other propositions, we have the opportunity to engage and consult further through the Scottish police consultative forum. As I say, I am not instinctively agin the idea, but I am still listening to the range of views.

I would be happy to correspond with you, Mr MacGregor, because I realise that you are walking a tightrope in citing an individual case while also wanting to make broader points that are relevant to the legislative and non-legislative recommendations that have been, or are about to be, implemented.

I am happy to correspond with Mr MacGregor in detail about that, convener.