���˿���

That answer is helpful.

Russell Findlay can ask his final question on the bill.

A very good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have apologies from John Swinney. I welcome Jackie Dunbar to the meeting.

Our first item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on two legislative consent memoranda—LCM-S6-43 and LCM-S6-43a—that have been lodged by the Scottish Government in relation to the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and Scottish Government officials. Ms Alison Morris is head of serious organised crime policy—divert and deter; Kristy Adams is a policy officer in the organised crime unit; and Ruth Swanson is a solicitor in the equalities and criminal justice division.

I refer members to paper 1. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for this evidence session.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the legislative consent memoranda.

The next item of business is consideration of oral evidence on an affirmative instrument.

We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance. From the Scottish Government, I welcome Susan Black, who is a senior policy officer in the civil law and legal system division, and Emma Thomson, who is a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 2. I intend to allow up to 10 minutes for the evidence session. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I have a supplementary question about policy, practice and procedures. In one of the evidence sessions with witnesses with lived experience, we heard from a witness in relation to the provision of family liaison officers. We heard that her family had not been given support by a family liaison officer in the circumstances of an unexplained death—you are probably aware of the case. I found it quite distressing to hear that.

You have spoken about highlighting to Police Scotland issues that you are seeing emerge around good practice. Would the onus be on the PIRC to flag issues of the type that I have just set out, or would it perhaps be more on HMICS?

Thank you. That leads on quite nicely to another piece of work—I am stepping outside the bill for a moment, but I suppose that it is indirectly relevant.

You will be aware that the Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration Committee is doing a piece of work on the commissioner landscape in Scotland, and is taking evidence on the effectiveness of commissioners and their role.

A number of new commissioner posts have been proposed. However, one of the things that the finance committee has been looking at is why we need commissioners in the first place. What is happening or not happening that means that we need them? Are public bodies not fulfilling some of their duties around the conduct of staff or is there perhaps a wider societal issue, such as the cost of living crisis, that is having an impact on the public generally?

That is a really big question but I am interested in your perspective. You have a very demanding commissioner role—there are no doubts about that. Do you have any comment on that wider analysis or the question around the role of commissioners? Do we need them? [Laughter.] I know that you will say yes, and that is absolutely fine.

I have a couple of questions, the first of which relates to the functions of the PIRC, particularly in relation to police officers who have left the service. The bill clarifies the definition of the phrase

“persons serving with the police”

to allow the PIRC to investigate allegations of criminality against officers who have left the service, where the behaviour took place prior to their joining or while they were off duty. In your submission, you provide some evidence that the impact of such a provision could be that you would no longer have to run parallel investigations in certain circumstances. Do you envisage it impacting on any other aspects of CAAPD’s work or its role, given that it currently deals only with on-duty criminality?

As there are no further questions, we move to consideration of the instrument. I am sure that I do not need to remind officials that only ���˿��� may speak in a debate on the motion. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S6M-12734.

Motion moved,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Angela Constance]

Motion agreed to.

Do members agree to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a short factual report to the Parliament on this affirmative SSI?

Members indicated agreement.

Thanks very much for that comprehensive answer. I will now bring in Sharon Dowey, after which we will draw our session to a close.

I will bring in other members and then come back to you.