I welcome members back to the meeting. We move to item 4, which is the legislative consent memorandum to the Police and Justice Bill. Members should have a briefing note from the clerk and a memorandum from the Scottish Executive that explains the background to the bill. We received written evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, which was e-mailed to members on Friday. The return from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was circulated to members on Monday. The Law Society of Scotland has confirmed to the clerks that it does not wish to make any comment. Members should also have a copy of the written submission from the Scottish Police Information Strategy.
No.
I will give members a couple of minutes to look through what has appeared. I do not know whether Colin Fox has a copy of Sylvia Jackson's letter.
I do.
In case members are worried about what the outcome of our discussion will be, I remind them that it will be part and parcel of the report that we produce.
I intend simply to outline the relevant provisions, which are the abolition of the Police Information Technology Organisation and the establishment of the national policing improvement agency for England and Wales and the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody; amendments to the Computer Misuse Act 1990; and amendments to the Extradition Act 2003.
Thank you. Because of the timescale in which we must produce our report, I would be grateful if your department could give us a response during the coming week if there is anything you wish to add.
Okay.
Thank you. Do members have questions for the minister?
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised an issue to do with paragraph 46 of schedule 1 to the Police and Justice Bill and the functions of the NPIA. Paragraph 46(1) will give the secretary of state power to modify by order the objects, functions and structure of the NPIA. What opportunities does the Scottish Parliament have to approve such moves? Obviously, some of the matters are minor and inconsequential, but they are devolved to this legislature.
The new body will be for England and Wales only. It will develop and manage police information technology and police training and act as an agency to promote improvement within forces in England and Wales. We already have agencies within our devolved responsibilities to promote and manage those areas, but because the NPIA will take over responsibility for the Police Information Technology Organisation's business, we will have a continued interest in some of the systems that PITO currently runs on a UK basis—for example, the police national computer, the IDENT1 service and the Airwave project, which is a more topical issue. There will also be a continued interest in courses that are currently run by Centrex, including the strategic command course for senior officers, which Scottish forces buy into and which is regarded as an important part of helping to prepare people for promotion within police forces in Scotland.
What would the usual procedure be? Would it be the affirmative procedure?
Yes.
I am obliged for that.
The letter that the Justice 2 Committee received today from the Subordinate Legislation Committee states:
I will bring Bill Barron in on that one.
We have signalled to the Home Office what requires to be done and it has prepared the amendments through its solicitors. Our solicitors have checked them and I am sure that they are all in order. As the minister said, if amendments to acts of the Scottish Parliament are required, they will be proposed by the Scottish ministers and will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament.
So you can confirm that the amendments are in the process of—
They are in hand.
My second question is about Scottish representation on the board of the NPIA. At present, Scottish representation on the board of PITO is guaranteed, but with the abolition of PITO and the creation of the NPIA, there will be no Scottish police representation. It seems that there will be a reduction in the consultation and involvement of Scottish police forces in the cross-border authority. Both ACPOS and HM chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, Andrew Brown, raised concerns about that in letters to the committee. ACPOS states:
We do not believe that such representation would be appropriate. The NPIA will be an England and Wales only body and I do not think that it would be appropriate for a Scottish body to have a veto over the agency's activities in England and Wales. As I explained, we have asked for safeguards in relation both to what it is appropriate for ministers to do and to anything that the NPIA does that might impact on ACPOS and the SPSA. There must be consultation before any action or decision is taken that might affect policing in Scotland. That is the appropriate way in which to safeguard Scottish interests.
I did not understand your comment that Scottish representation on the board would amount to a veto over what the NPIA does in England and Wales. It seems to me that that is not the case. You said that the NPIA will be an England and Wales only body, but the evidence shows that it will deal with a number of UK-wide systems. I will not go through them all because you know what they are.
Clearly, that is a matter for them to discuss with the committee. The UK-wide systems that you mentioned include the IT systems that are shared by PITO, ACPOS, individual forces and the Scottish Police Information Strategy, but it is proposed that those IT systems will become part of the Scottish police services authority. Arrangements are being made to develop Scotland-wide IT systems so that there will be no need to retain PITO as a Scotland-only body when it is abolished in England and Wales. We are doing a number of things in a distinctively different way.
The committee has a difficulty. Because of the pressure on it to deal with the bill to suit the parliamentary business programme, it does not have time to take evidence from ACPOS and HMIC. Can you share with us the outcomes of any discussions that you have had with them on the topic?
We cannot do so today, because we are not entirely familiar with those discussions. However, we can come back to the committee on the point by letter later in the week. I know that my colleagues who specialise in the topic have been in constant debate with ACPOS and, I imagine, HMIC while negotiating the safeguards that have been secured.
I would be grateful if you could provide the information to the clerks by Thursday, so that we can consider it over the weekend.
I will do so.
That will be helpful.
It is certainly helpful, because I have a sense that the debate about membership of the NPIA arises from a feeling of uncertainty about whether the safeguards are sufficiently robust. I would be happy if we could resolve that issue. I am conscious that there will be a duty to consult on measures that will or might have an impact on Scotland, but I wonder who triggers such consultation. Minister, you spoke about the management statement, which is very helpful. However, given that the category is so broad, I assume that you cannot list in advance all the areas where there is likely to be an impact. What process is in place to ensure that the appropriate dialogue takes place and that we do not miss out, either as a result of deliberate intent—which I do not imagine would be the case—or by accident? We do not want to create anomalies.
I ask Bill Barron to deal with Jackie Baillie's questions.
I did not fully understand the technical question, but I will tackle the first one.
Perhaps Jackie Baillie was referring to removable storage disks and so on.
I am impressed, convener. I am sure that I was referring to such things.
Many police IT systems work on a UK basis, although some are particular to Scotland or to England and Wales. We do not need to take any action in legislation to ensure that those who are in charge of police IT systems talk to one another across the UK. By the use of the words "would" or "might", we were keen to ensure that if the NPIA or the police down south invented a totally new system and did not know whether we wanted to buy into it or to do our own thing, they would have to go into consultation mode, because the system would or might have an impact on Scotland. We do not think that a heavy piece of legislation is needed to ensure that the person who is in charge of police IT in Scotland talks to the person who is in charge of police IT in England.
A little confusion seems to have arisen from the letter from ACPOS, which we had not seen before today. It refers to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, rather than the proposed legislation.
We have not seen the letter.
To save time, we will ensure that you are supplied with copies of it—I am not sure whether it is the committee's role to help the Executive in that way, but we need to be as co-operative as possible. As a new boy on the committee, I have seen the time pressures to which the committee is subject. Any speedy help that the minister can provide will be gratefully received.
Certainly. If the issues that the committee has raised could and should have been clarified in discussions between the Executive and ACPOS, I will take them up. Concerns about policy that cannot be resolved can be brought to the committee, but matters that could have been sorted out before we came to the committee should have been dealt with.
That is why I asked for details of your discussions with ACPOS and HMIC. We need to be in the loop as much as you are.
I was not aware that ACPOS and HMIC had raised that issue. They might be doing so for the first time or they might have taken the matter up with the Home Office, which is drafting the provisions. We will ensure that the loop is closed.
I am sorry to be demanding, but it would be helpful if we could have the information by Thursday.
ACPOS and HMIC have expressed legitimate concerns. I accept the minister's comments about the safeguards that will be put in place to attempt to avoid problems. However, we do not have sight of the proposed amendments to which the Subordinate Legislation Committee referred—I attended that committee's meeting this morning—and we do not know what discussions have taken place between ACPOS, HMIC and the Executive, so I am concerned that a gap might be created. We would be right to express concern about that in our report. There must be provision for proper safeguards and consultation, however that is formulated, to ensure that the Scottish police forces are properly represented.
I agree. We must take on board what we were told about amendments being in hand. They will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so the Parliament will quite rightly have a scrutiny role in that context. Jackie Baillie asked whether the safeguards in relation to the NPIA are sufficiently robust, which is a matter that we can legitimately include in our report. I hope that we receive information by Thursday that will inform the draft. We will have an interesting discussion at our next meeting.
I agree with members' comments. However, notwithstanding the fact that we need to be comforted by the amendments that are proposed for the UK bill, it seems that an innovative approach is being proposed. As I understand it, the Sewel convention allows Westminster to legislate on a matter and make changes without going back to the Scottish Parliament for approval. In the context of the bill, however, there is a suggestion that subsequent proposals be decided on by the Scottish Parliament, through an instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. Such an approach is interesting, novel and welcome. It is worth putting on the record that the Executive should be commended for moving in that direction.
Obviously we have not yet agreed on the conclusions to our report, but I think that all members who spoke made it clear that we must consider how the application of the proposed new system will affect policing in Scotland. I am grateful to members for their comments and I hope that everyone will act speedily when they have an opportunity to engage in dialogue with the clerks, who are under tremendous pressure.
Meeting continued in private until 17:01.