���˿���

That makes sense.

The committee has taken evidence on the suicide of police officers, which is a very sensitive subject. The criminal allegations against the police division was able to tell us, when it gave evidence, that five officers took their own lives, four of whom were subject to non-criminal misconduct proceedings; one of them was accused of a criminal matter. The family and friends of some of those who have died have expressed concerns about not only the impact of the proceedings on those people as a potential contributory factor in what happened to them, but the subsequent lack of scrutiny of the circumstances of those cases.

They are absolutely tragic and suicide is complex, but are you satisfied that the bill will, in some way, address that apparent blind spot?

Another issue that the bill seeks to address is protection for police whistleblowers. We have heard about horrific cases, and there have been cases reported in the public domain, of the service losing good officers and good officers losing their careers. That is a huge financial cost to the service, and it impacts on people’s health and wellbeing.

Again, taking the bill in the round, is there enough in there that would protect those officers whose only wrongdoing appears to have been trying to make a valid complaint and blow the whistle from having their lives destroyed as a result? Does the bill partly fix that, or is it more about culture?

But we are talking about police officers who have cause to blow the whistle in relation to what is going on in the organisation.

You spoke to Pauline McNeill about section 15 giving the PIRC the power to review Police Scotland and the SPA’s work. You are opposed to that, but the PIRC is supportive of it. In its submission to us, it said:

“there have been occasions where at the conclusion of investigations, matters have been highlighted to HMICS for review, however, due to capacity, HMICS has not been in a position to undertake same.”

I do not think that that is a criticism; it is more the case that the PIRC believes that including it by giving it the proposed power will add capacity. Is that a compelling argument?

Good morning, panel. Much of the SPA’s position seems to be supportive of the PIRC getting new powers and even taking on some of the responsibilities that currently lie with the SPA. However, the PIRC has told us that it cannot—it is unable to, or perhaps it does not want to—take on some of those powers I will not bog you down with the specifics. I am sure—I hope—that you are across some of the PIRC’s evidence.

For example, in your responses to sections 11, 12 and 13 of the call for views, I see that you have suggested that the PIRC should take things on.

In the rather unusual set of circumstances in which two bodies are apparently trying to give away or not take powers, are you talking directly with the PIRC, or do you hope that the problem will be resolved through the legislative process?

[Inaudible.]—blaming Westminster legislation for 10 years of hell in the police complaints process, you know.

A similar theme arises in respect of the proposed police barred and advisory lists. The bill proposes that those would be managed by the SPA. The SPA’s position is that Police Scotland would be better served taking those on, and Police Scotland has told us the same. Does that not perhaps go the other way and risk giving the public the perception that the police are controlling the lists? Is that a good thing? What is your thinking behind why it should be done the way in which you propose?

Those sorts of issues are, quite suddenly, taking up a huge amount of the PIRC’s time. Uniquely, Police Scotland does not have body cameras as standard issue, although that is going to be announced very soon by the Scottish Government. Do you believe—or hope—that that will result in a reduction in the number of complaints in general, but also of those of assault? It seems logical that it would, but I do not want to put words in your mouth.

We have also taken evidence from a solicitor called Margaret Gribbon, who has acted on behalf of a number of police officers, some of whom are female. The cases, which are in the public domain already, were protracted and resulted in huge financial pay-outs. Careers were destroyed and, in some cases, health was impacted. Margaret Gribbon said to us:

“I am afraid to say that nothing that I have seen has convinced me that there has been sufficient change since the Rhona Malone”—

Rhona Malone was one of her cases—

“judgment. It is inevitable that there is going to be another case or cases of that type.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 24 April 2024; c 3.]

People who are, and have been, involved for many years in seeing the worst excesses of the system are not confident, given what has gone on previously. Can you reassure them? What in the bill specifically will persuade people that that situation will be fixed?

I have an extension to the question about procedures and what is happening now that perhaps did not used to happen. One thing that we have learned is that, since 21 October, any allegation of assault is automatically reported to the PIRC. Does that include minor offences, such as the classic tightened-handcuff allegation? Would that count as an alleged assault?