Chamber and committees

It will not change it.

Good morning. I wanted to examine the question of what difference the bill would make to the duty of candour and ethics in relation to current codes for police officers. Police Scotland is very concerned about this and you will have read its evidence. Police Scotland says that the insinuation is that most police officers do not currently abide by some code of ethics and all the rest of it. You probably read that. I am trying to discern what difference the bill would make.

Kate Wallace, you said several things to Russell Findlay. The first thing that you said was that you have had some cases where there has been sexual exploitation by police officers, and I just want to separate out the different things. Sexual exploitation is obviously a criminal act. Do you have concerns that there are gaps here when there is a criminal act by a police officer in some of your cases?

I just wanted to be clear about that.

I am not talking about the complaints process, because it is clear that, when complaints take a long time, that is unacceptable, and it is something that could be fixed.

I am sure that you, of all people, are very familiar with the tragic circumstances of the Emma Caldwell case, as we all are, but one of the issues with that case is the way in which the police investigated it. It was a long time ago. Is there anything in the bill that would change anything about the way in which that case was investigated, simply being that the police followed lines of inquiry that did not stand up and, eventually, 20 years on, that became clear? Is there anything in the bill that would allow for a complaint or anything? I am trying to come at it with a view to what difference the bill would make to big cases like that.

You said that senior positions in an independent body should be taken by retired police officers and not by serving police officers. Do you accept that, as in all professions, particularly where there are complaints, people would need some expertise? Someone who has never served as a police officer would not understand what the job was. Surely an understanding of the role of a police officer in Scotland would have to be factored in when such a body was designed.

It would be helpful for us to understand how that body would operate.

In my line of questioning, I am trying to understand what good this bill might do, what the gaps are and whether, if we were not doing what was in the bill, there is anything else that would need to be resolved. Would you be able to provide the committee with any details about the length of time that officers have been waiting for their court trials and so on?

Lastly, on the question whether an independent body is the answer, this is my concern in that respect—and I have to say that I do not have a view on this, myself. An example suggested in our papers relates to someone making a complaint because a police officer has used too much restraint. That must be a difficult judgment for anyone but, if you have no experience of restraint, how can you make a judgment on that sort of complaint against a police officer? That is the question that I have with regard to whether a completely independent body is the answer.

But does it prejudice the court case, then?

That is covered.

Would any other witnesses like to contribute to that?