Chamber and committees

On a point of information, I am not trying to be difficult with the Government on this. Cabinet secretary, you have said that these are the timetables that we have to work to, and that is true, but, having dealt with quite a lot of legislation over the years, I know that it is not usual for the Government to introduce a substantial procedure at this stage. I know that you said that it was not a new procedure, but it looks to me as though it is, and I am going to be asked to vote on it in five minutes. I think that it is a new procedure, and we have not consulted on it, so it is not fair to represent the process of legislation in that way.

We are probably all dissatisfied with regard to how fast the process is. However, it is unusual for the Government to lob in an entirely new process at this stage. We are not really sure about the effect that it will have on people. You said that you consulted the federation, but the committee is confused, because we have been told that you have not done that. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Government would even concede that it is not normal to lodge a three-page amendment to a procedure when we have had no discussion of that amendment.

I acknowledge that. I thought that you could draft something that would allow for an extension of that. It is really about the principle of not having a completely open-ended investigation. Something should go in the bill that tries to ensure fairness. Without revision, an investigation could just run on for years and years, as some have done.

Does something need to be standardised?

Has the reduction in police officer numbers exacerbated the situation that you describe?

His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Craig Naylor, made a point to the committee some time ago in this inquiry that is similar to the issue that you describe. He said that police officers are asked to do difficult things, such as use firearms, and if they are not backed up by senior officers, they feel vulnerable. Is that what you are talking about? Is it the same issue?

Your submission says:

“There was very mixed feedback regarding the introduction of the Duty Modifications Posting Panel within the service”.

Please explain to the committee what the duty modifications posting panel is.

Yes, thank you.

My final question is for David Threadgold. The Police Scotland submission says:

“This Autumn, Police Scotland will publish a long term vision for the service and a three year plan to deliver the next wave of policing reform. A thriving workforce is a central ambition in that work.”

Given what you have said, do you have concerns about that plan or is it all interwoven into the same issues about policing reform?

The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said in its submission:

“There is some evidence to suggest retention rates, historically very low in Scotland, have begun to increase, with more officers leaving the service early in their career.”

It also points out that

“police officers joining the service today require to work until 60 years old to obtain a full pension”.

That requirement is quite different, because, up to this point, many police officers have had the benefit of retiring much younger. It that a factor in your thinking? I presume that telling many police officers to work for longer will make it harder to retain them.

Good morning. My question is similar to Sharon Dowey’s. I do not recall Police Scotland using the phrase “warranted officer” in the past. An officer is, by definition, warranted. Is that not more an English term?

I am just a bit concerned that maybe Police Scotland is not being up front with us. Surely, if that is the plan, there should be full transparency.