Chamber and committees

It is important to recognise that the Government wants to act in good faith. Although, as I said, there has been no need for arbitration procedures to be used in the past, I consider protecting on-going arbitration arrangements to be a sign of strength, not of weakness. Bearing it in mind that police officers cannot withdraw their labour, it is imperative that they have access to other mechanisms.

As I said, under the 2016 act, the Parliament agreed that the Government would have to “take all reasonable steps” to implement any arbitration agreement. To put that into more human speak, we would seek, in the spirit of fairness, to fulfil any obligations that are placed on the Government when it comes to arbitration.

The wording in the legislation is “all reasonable steps”. It is not uncommon for such wording to appear in legislation. The Government accepts that arbitration arrangements should be in place and that we would act in good faith and seek to implement any arbitration decisions, other than in extreme and exceptional circumstances. I do not think that our position has changed over successive terms of office.

Good morning.

No. The constitution is what has been published.

I have tried to distinguish between the regulations and the constitution, and then the guide on the day-to-day operability and working practices of the PNBS.

I will ask officials to give some practical examples of what will be in the guide, which might help.

There is no change to what police officers can or cannot do, whether that be withdrawing good will or whatever. We know that they cannot withdraw their labour, because they are office-holders, not employees.

The agreement that we have reached, as set out in the regulations, is very much about continuity with a previous arrangement. Obviously, there is public scrutiny of the regulations and the constitution, and that certainly gives ministers an opportunity to say that they will participate in any process as fair actors. We as a Government are committed to collective pay bargaining and the principles of fair work.

In many ways, this is a bit of a legacy agreement. The nuts and bolts were agreed in 2016, but now that there will be a new chair, we need to move to a Scotland-only arrangement. Otherwise, I will have to ask the Prime Minister to appoint the new chair. We have been using a UK-wide system that has been operating only in Scotland for some years—

I met with the Scottish Police Federation. I would have to check the date in my diary, but it was not that long ago—it may have been three weeks ago. Those issues were not raised with me. I have seen the letter that was sent to the committee on 24 May. I did not see it on that date, but you would not expect me to be privy to correspondence that is sent to a committee.

That cannot happen today, but it might in the fullness of time, if the PNBS finds that any of those matters are in some way having an effect on its substantive business.

I am going to be dead direct. My view, here and now, is that we have addressed those matters. Nothing that is being raised would prevent the passing of the regulations. Some of the issues will be matters for the guide that will be developed in consultation with all PNBS members. Some of them are much more about the PNBS’s day-to-day working. The constitution does not need to say that non-members can make representations to a sub-committee or the main PNBS.

It is my understanding that past experience always informs future negotiations over matters in and around such important agreements.

It will be for the UK Government to meet the costs that are incurred by Glasgow City Council and Police Scotland. The Home Office has been very clear on that. We are still some distance away from the general assembly. We are looking at November next year, so much of the work on estimating costs will continue. Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council are confident that the plans that they have in place are appropriate, but there will continue to be very close dialogue between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and, of course, our partners in Glasgow.

As my speaking note and the policy memorandum indicate, the order has two functions. One is to enable Glasgow to host the general assembly of Interpol, so there is very specific consideration given to the operational needs of Interpol with respect to those functions. The other purpose to the order is that it is particularly important post-Brexit to ensure that the United Kingdom can continue to collaborate with Interpol, given its importance as an international forum of co-operation in law enforcement.

There is no end date to the order, and it is for either party—Interpol or the United Kingdom—to terminate it. It is a necessary order for the specific function of the general assembly and the individuals who will attend the general assembly. Its broader function relates to what the UK Government has negotiated in the agreement to secure an on-going relationship with Interpol, and it is in all our interests for the UK to continue to engage with Interpol.