Chamber and committees

It is important that we are alert to any risks of duplication, because duplication of functions leads to confusion or inefficiency.

I was heartened by the contribution of Michelle Macleod, who spoke to the PIRC’s commitment to work closely with HMICS. However, to pick up on the point that you raised, Ms Dowey, I am aware that Mr Naylor raised the prospect of the bill being amended to give the PIRC the power to refer particular matters to HMICS should that be appropriate. I assure you that I will give that all due consideration.

In broad terms, HMICS provides close scrutiny, commentary and recommendations on whether policy and procedures are appropriate and in the right domain, whereas the PIRC is often more concerned with the application of existing policies and procedures. However, based on the recommendations that it can make to police and partners, the PIRC is well placed to highlight any gaps and measures that are needed and to inform partners of any vital learning.

The way to do it is through the bill as opposed to through a directive from ministers. I think that I am right in saying that.

There have been a number of developments. For clarity, I note that some of the recommendations of the Angiolini review were on having two deputy commissioners and redesignating the PIRC from a commissioner to a commission. I understand that the underlying raison d’être of those recommendations was to ensure accountability to the Parliament.

After some consideration, it became apparent that we could not establish a commission as well as accommodate two deputies. The reason is that there has to be a clear line of accountability. If all commissioners share legal accountability, some commissioners—the deputy commissioners—are subservient to the primary commissioner.

That was a bit of a wander into the detail, but a more simple point is that Dame Elish was initially inspired by the Irish model. However, with the passage of time, the Irish model, too, is now moving towards the commissioner model, as opposed to other models.

I have tried, in the most basic way possible, to talk through some of the technical issues. If members want more information, officials can come in, or we can follow up in writing.

I argue that the PIRC is already accountable to the Parliament via parliamentary attendance—whether that is through Scottish ministers or the commissioner. It is accountable to other organisations for its other functions, but I contend that it is also accountable to the Parliament.

It is not happening, for reasons that I outlined.

You are quite correct that there was a robust exchange of views between me and the convener of the finance committee; it was all in the interest of transparency and scrutiny. My officials had a session with the finance committee and, a few weeks later, I also went in and had that pleasure.

I have repeatedly stated, verbally and in writing, that at the time of the bill’s introduction, the financial memorandum was the best estimate of costs. Those costs have now been revised because of different information from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation.

I am considering that. We will do some further work on it during the summer.

In essence, that provision is about reassuring the public, police officers and staff that the PIRC can conduct independent investigations into the most serious non-criminal cases of complaint at any time if there is sufficient evidence that the complaint is not being properly considered by Police Scotland. With regard to the call-in of relevant complaints, it is important that that can be done of the PIRC’s own volition or that it can consider the request of a complainer, so it does not have to wait to be asked.

The point that you make about the need for accelerated hearings is important. Of course, accelerated hearings are not always possible or appropriate if we are committed to a process that is fair to all parties.

You are correct that there can be a connection with criminal proceedings, and there is a programme of work on court efficiency and court catch-up, so I accept the point about the efficiency of proceedings. Of course, that was subject to some of the non-legislative recommendations.

With regard to the bill, the gateway to addressing some of the issues that we would like to address via secondary legislation is primary legislation. We currently have a situation in which police conduct regulations are all in secondary legislation, and have been for years, and you heard earlier from Caroline Kubala that that level of detail would not be put in a bill.

Timescales are important. If Parliament consents, the bill will pass at the end of the year and will get royal assent in the first quarter of next year, so the earliest that aspects of the bill can be implemented would be next summer. We will want to have a cohesive programme, particularly in and around conduct regulations, because I do not want to take a piecemeal approach to pursuing matters that need to be addressed. I do not want to come to committee with statutory instruments in dribs and drabs.

On the overall delivery of the bill, when secondary legislation is required, we will probably do it on three or four occasions and group things together in a way that makes sense, particularly in and around conduct.

That would be my understanding.