As members will be aware, the interception of communications commissioner released a statement last week confirming that Police Scotland did not seek the judicial approval that is required when applying for communications data in five cases relating to one investigation. The committee has had an interest in the issue since it first emerged that Police Scotland might have been one of the forces under investigation by the commissioner, and we agreed to return to the issue once the findings became available.
We have just agreed to consider our work programme in private later on in today’s meeting, so I suggest that we could have a more detailed discussion then of witnesses and where we might fit any evidence sessions into the work programme, if we decide to take further action on the matter. We will have to move things around, but I am open to hearing members’ general views.
Are the public allowed into the meeting at the moment? They seem to have been shifted outside.
Yes, they are. We are not in private.
I wrote to you last week, convener, after the information was published, to ask that the committee make it a matter of priority that we consider the issue further. The commissioner said that he had uncovered reckless behaviour. It is pretty outrageous that the police force has acted above the law. The protection of a free press is very important in a democracy, and journalists’ sources are as important as the journalists themselves. There has been significant abuse in this case. I urge the committee to think carefully about inviting witnesses. In particular, I would want to hear from the cabinet secretary and from senior police officers.
As you know, I responded to your letter and suggested that we also invite the Scottish Police Authority, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland and the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office, to ensure that we get a rounded picture.
Yes. We need to be absolutely clear who knew what, when they knew it and what action was taken.
I want to back up what Alison McInnes says. It is absolutely essential that we have some transparency and accountability in the matter. We should call those witnesses. There should not be any problem with that, even if someone goes to tribunal, because sub judice rules do not seem to affect tribunals. I hope that when the meeting moves into private we will simply be confirming which witnesses we want to hear from.
We will also have to move our agenda around for the coming weeks, given that we have certain statutory obligations.
It is important to note that although IOCCO said that there had been contraventions in respect of five applications, they related to one investigation. However, I agree that it is a matter of public importance and that the committee should carry out some investigative work on the issue. I agree with the convener that any panel of witnesses that we choose to call should be rounded and not just drawn from Police Scotland.
We want to hear from the full cast.
I agree with other members that it is important that we do some work on the matter. I concur with your suggestion, convener, that the SPA should present evidence; we have had concerns in the past that the SPA has not been scrutinising Police Scotland appropriately, so it is important that we speak to it.
I agree with everything that my committee colleagues have said. There is an oversight role for the committee. As Elaine Murray says, people would anticipate that the SPA would have a similar role. I do not wish to discuss individuals, but I am not clear whether any criminality is associated with any of the actions and, if so, what the implications would be if we were to ask individuals who might be, in other circumstances, the accused.
That is the issue that we must resolve in private: if things move in that direction, we could find ourselves prevented from doing things. If there were any hint of criminality in a fatal accident inquiry, it would come to a halt because of the possibility of prosecution and the fact that people would have a right to silence and so on. Those are important issues, but can we leave them for later?
I did not intend to say that I do not think that we should do something vigorously. Rather, I do not want to do anything that would intrude on another locus.
That is my point. We really need to discuss the issue fully so that we look at all the other issues that are involved in it. We will do something; it is just a question of the remit that we can take on. Do we agree that we will discuss it further in private when we look at the work programme?
Members indicated agreement.