Item 2 on the agenda is correspondence from the Scottish Police Authority. Members have that before them. The first piece of correspondence is a response to our request for sight of the codicil referred to by the SPA chair in earlier correspondence regarding responsibility for human resources and finance; the second relates to staffing of the SPA’s interim project team.
Is that the letter from John McCroskie?
It is the one from Vic Emery.
The letter dated 4 February does not supply to us the codicil on which we received information from Vic Emery. As I understand it, a codicil is a document that amends but does not replace previous arrangements. We have a letter dated the day on which the clerks requested the update and which quotes two sentences, but I want to see the original evidence to which Vic Emery referred. I still think that we need to receive that evidence.
I will take a point from Graeme. I am sorry—Colin Keir. I keep calling you “Graeme”. I need to change my glasses.
I do not think that the round table is a terribly grand idea.
We are on to that bit.
The board members are going to report to the sub-committee, and the round table suggests that they are looking almost for parity at this time. That should not be the case; they should be here to answer questions on the grounds that the sub-committee is there to examine.
Yes. “Codicil” is a special word; a codicil is an addition to a will. I think that we should pursue that. It is not emails; the word has been chosen specially—it is not casual.
In the minutes of the SPA board, the chief constable makes reference to a similar piece of correspondence as a “codicil”. There must be something specific meant, which we are entitled to read for ourselves rather than having an excerpt presented to us.
We should say that we are not content, that the word “codicil” has a very particular meaning—it has a legal status—and that we would like clarification that this is all that there is and that there is nothing else. We should say something as straightforward as that.
I agree with what Graeme Pearson and you have said on that point, convener. We need clarity.
To pick up on your earlier comment, convener, there is a danger that if we just ask them to confirm they will just confirm, whereas we want to see the actual correspondence. That may be contained in a letter with other unrelated matters, but we want to see the particular reference topped and tailed from source.
I am content with that. It is not what one would call a “codicil”.
It refers to this committee.
My view is that we should say no. No other board gets to give us an informal briefing. Any board is entitled to approach individual members of the committee and to brief them or whatever, but I think that that would be inappropriate because we do not have the Scottish Legal Aid Board, for example, coming to brief us. It might look as though we were making a special case and that something was being done in private inappropriately, so my feeling is that we should not do that. What is the committee’s feeling?
I agree.
I agree very strongly.
Thank you very much. I am content for Graeme Pearson—if Jenny Marra does not mind, as he has got his teeth into this—to see the letter in order to see whether he is happy with the terms of it before it goes out. You both have the background to this. Is that all right?
Yes.
You can have a wee look at it before it goes out to see whether we have nailed the matter firmly enough.
Given all the talk about senior appointments and, not least, the concentration on human resources, it is ironic that someone who is styled the head of public affairs felt the need to communicate with us.
You have stolen Colin Keir’s thunder.
It is the interim head of public affairs.
That issue in itself is worth a few questions.
Actually, we did not ask for that letter—it was just sent to us.
I was going to make that point. It seems that the SPA has sent us the letter of its own accord. John Finnie is right to say that an interim head of public affairs is an unusual source for such information; a chief executive would be a normal source for such a document. The situation reflects the concerns that we are rehearsing week on week about what is going on.
The situation takes me back to what we said about a round-table discussion. Downgrading the person who writes to us is—I will choose my words as carefully as I can—almost disrespectful to the committee and the parliamentary function. I take some degree of offence at somebody in such a position writing to us, when Vic Emery should have communicated with us.
The letter was unsolicited—it is not as if we wrote and got this chap replying to us.
Yes, but the letter has come from somewhere.
I understand that we have received the letter in response to the discussion in the public domain about the appointments. I turn to the substance of the letter rather than who sent it. There is concern about the lack of transparency over the appointments, which is exactly why it is important to get the sub-committee up and running as quickly as possible. There are concerns about how the board is developing and the informal way in which it is being built up.
Even if we accept that things are somewhat accelerated, and I think that we agree on the need for that, the letter—I might even call it a codicil—seems like a bit of a public relations exercise.
The policing sub-committee might wish to consider the letter.
I would like to note the concern that external consultants are being brought in on what I understand is an inflated daily rate of £750 when major cuts are being made to the service and a lot of back-office staff are in danger of losing their jobs.
That matter is not before the committee at the moment. I note that you have an email about the issue, but we are not taking evidence. You have got that on the record, which will do for those involved. I have no doubt that they are following what we are saying. We note your concerns, which you have put on the record.
Next
Policing (Scrutiny)