Chamber and committees

First, I consider the PIRC to be an independent and robust organisation. With regard to the bill, there are a range of measures—I will not go through them all, as I will not test your patience, convener; I referred to them in my opening remarks—that broaden, strengthen or clarify the role of the PIRC.

On the role of Police Scotland’s professional standards department, it is entirely proportionate and reasonable for any front-line operational organisation, where appropriate, to be the first port of call to deal with complaints and issues. There are ways in which such matters can be escalated. A number of changes have been made by the professional standards department, to which I referred earlier, including earlier engagement and earlier resolution where it is appropriate.

The creation of the national complaints assessment and resolution unit also facilitates the requirement for all front-line resolutions processes to be dealt with by the professional standards department.

I have already—I hope—addressed the point that police staff are employed and are not office-holders, so the duties on them are very different from the duties on constables. They are, however, subject to Police Scotland’s competency and values framework, which supports all professionals, and to the code of ethics, which is at the core of that framework.

With regard to matters of pay, that involves a separate process that commences annually.

But they are not regulated in the same way as police officers are. That is the point that I was trying to make.

I am happy to discuss and engage on those matters with Unison—in fact, I think that I am due to meet its representatives soon.

The processes are independent. Nonetheless, I understand the position that many of the witnesses who have given evidence to the committee have come from, the fact that they have felt disenfranchised with regard to the system and the fact that they have not been treated well under the historical system. People are raising questions about fairness as well as about effectiveness and efficiency.

With regard to the work that has already been delivered or that has been in train since before the bill was introduced, there has been work on transparency and accessibility. There were eight recommendations in the Angiolini review on improving transparency and accessibility, including those on publicising the right to complain, the recourse—beyond the PIRC—to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and greater public sharing of the work of the SPA’s complaints and conduct committee, for example. The recommendations were very focused on training and human resources—for example, with regard to mediation and customer handling training and support for front-line managers. The changes that have taken place in the police standards department, which is much more focused on early engagement and early resolution, and Police Scotland’s work on front-line resolution are particularly important.

Over a number of years, the PIRC has adapted its recruiting practices. In 2013, when the PIRC was established under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, there was a preponderance of recruitment of former police officers, given their skills and experience in investigation. However, recruitment policies have now changed, and there is acceptance that broader diversity among the people coming into the organisation is needed and that policing is not the only area in which people develop experience and skills in investigation.

A number of changes have taken place in the Police Scotland professional standards department, and the PIRC has made changes in its governance in response to the Angiolini interim review.

It is important that we are alert to any risks of duplication, because duplication of functions leads to confusion or inefficiency.

I was heartened by the contribution of Michelle Macleod, who spoke to the PIRC’s commitment to work closely with HMICS. However, to pick up on the point that you raised, Ms Dowey, I am aware that Mr Naylor raised the prospect of the bill being amended to give the PIRC the power to refer particular matters to HMICS should that be appropriate. I assure you that I will give that all due consideration.

In broad terms, HMICS provides close scrutiny, commentary and recommendations on whether policy and procedures are appropriate and in the right domain, whereas the PIRC is often more concerned with the application of existing policies and procedures. However, based on the recommendations that it can make to police and partners, the PIRC is well placed to highlight any gaps and measures that are needed and to inform partners of any vital learning.

The way to do it is through the bill as opposed to through a directive from ministers. I think that I am right in saying that.

There have been a number of developments. For clarity, I note that some of the recommendations of the Angiolini review were on having two deputy commissioners and redesignating the PIRC from a commissioner to a commission. I understand that the underlying raison d’être of those recommendations was to ensure accountability to the Parliament.

After some consideration, it became apparent that we could not establish a commission as well as accommodate two deputies. The reason is that there has to be a clear line of accountability. If all commissioners share legal accountability, some commissioners—the deputy commissioners—are subservient to the primary commissioner.

That was a bit of a wander into the detail, but a more simple point is that Dame Elish was initially inspired by the Irish model. However, with the passage of time, the Irish model, too, is now moving towards the commissioner model, as opposed to other models.

I have tried, in the most basic way possible, to talk through some of the technical issues. If members want more information, officials can come in, or we can follow up in writing.

I argue that the PIRC is already accountable to the Parliament via parliamentary attendance—whether that is through Scottish ministers or the commissioner. It is accountable to other organisations for its other functions, but I contend that it is also accountable to the Parliament.

It is not happening, for reasons that I outlined.