���˿���

In the interest of speed, I will just say that I will reflect on the cabinet secretary’s comments and consider whether I can work on any of my amendments in order to bring them back with more clarity at stage 3. I take on board all the cabinet secretary’s points, and I do not have any further comments.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments. I am still hopeful that some of the amendments could be brought back at stage 3 if we do a bit more work on them. As I said, the amendments were lodged with the intention of trying to improve the bill.

I will not press amendment 16.

Amendment 16, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendments 19 and 59 not moved.

Amendment 20 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendments 22 to 24 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Procedures for misconduct: senior officers

Amendments 26 to 29 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

After section 8

Amendments 30 to 32 not moved.

Amendment 33 concerns how a complainer is notified of the commissioner’s decision to conduct a review. It seeks to ensure that, when the commissioner decides to conduct a review, the complainer is notified of that decision. The amendment is needed as the bill provides that the PIRC

“may carry out a complaint handling review of the Commissioner’s own volition if ... it is in the public interest to do so.”

Currently, they would do that only if asked by the public. The amendment will ensure that people who make complaints are kept up to date and informed about the progress of those complaints.

Amendment 36 concerns the information that the commissioner has access to during the investigation. It seeks to ensure that regulations will be made that will allow the commissioner to require a relevant person to provide documents that they believe will assist in the investigation of the complaint. That will ensure that the commissioner can gain access to and gather as much information as possible to allow them to progress the investigation. The main intention behind amendment 36 is to address the circumstance where the call-in complaint does not come from Police Scotland. It would allow the commissioner to gather anything that may be of use.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated her support for my amendment 33. I look forward to hearing her comments on amendment 36.

I move amendment 33.

Amendment 41 would add a new section to the bill altering the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016. It would provide for a mandatory fatal accident inquiry to be undertaken if a constable “is suspected to have” died by suicide.

In England and Wales, there are statutory inquests. Although we do not have the same requirement in Scotland, the committee found out recently, in an evidence session, that “few” officer suicides have been subject to a fatal accident inquiry despite the fact that workplace-related issues were possibly relevant. Police Scotland has acknowledged that it is out of the organisation’s control whether an FAI takes place in that context. Amendment 41 is needed to ensure that an FAI is always undertaken when a constable dies by suicide.

Amendment 42 would add a new section to the bill providing for a mandatory FAI to be undertaken if a constable has died by “suspected ... suicide”. It would add to the provisions in amendment 41 by allowing for a mandatory FAI to be undertaken if the family of the deceased requests one.

The police go out every single day not knowing what they are going to face. They can be faced with circumstances that none of us would want to be involved in, whether it is the death of a child, a murder or a road traffic accident. They face a lot of traumatic situations. Bringing in a fatal accident inquiry if there is thought to be a constable suicide would mean that an inquiry could be undertaken to find out what has happened, which could prevent any further suicides from taking place.

I ask members to support amendments 41 and 42.

I move amendment 41.

We intend to support the amendments in the group if they are pressed to a vote.

Amendment 4 seeks to add to the list of people who should be consulted on the preparation of the code of ethics; it provides that representatives of people who have made a complaint against Police Scotland should be consulted on the preparation of the code. The bill does not currently provide for people who represent individuals who have made a complaint against Police Scotland to be consulted.

When the new code of ethics is prepared, it will be important to take into account the views of people who have experience of the system. During evidence sessions, we heard directly from people with experience of the system about the difficulties that they had incurred. To get the best version of a new code, it would be beneficial for such views to be considered.

Amendment 50 seeks to add a new section to the bill relating to the consequences of a new code of ethics for the police’s policies, procedures and guidance. It would require the chief constable to undertake a review of Police Scotland’s policies, procedures and guidance and to consider what changes were needed because of the new code of ethics. Furthermore, it would require that any changes that were identified under the proposed new section should be implemented within a year of the bill receiving royal assent. I had intended the proposed timescale to be realistic, and I appreciate from what the cabinet secretary has said that a one-year period would not be realistic.

The new code of ethics must be reflected in Police Scotland’s disciplinary policies and procedures. The new section that amendment 50 seeks to insert would ensure that the chief constable revisited Police Scotland’s policies and procedures to reflect the changes. That would address the concern that has been raised that the code of ethics will be symbolic and will have no effect. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has shown support in principle for my amendments and has agreed to work with me on them ahead of stage 3. For that reason, I will not move them today.

A lot of the points that I wanted to make have been covered. Are retailers knowingly selling such products or are they unwittingly selling them? You have mentioned it being a mix of the two. We have had the tuna incident, and I also note the Findus incident—that was from a while ago—in which retailers would not have been aware of the horsemeat in the products. However, it sounds to me as though the retailers that are selling the vodka are aware that it is counterfeit, as they are getting it from another source.

You mentioned resourcing earlier. It sounds like a technical job and you need a certain skill set. What are your resources like? Do you have enough staff? Are you able to find enough skilled people to fill the roles? We know that budgets are tight. Have you had any conversations with the Scottish Government about on-going budgets?

You referred to “proportionate sentencing outcomes” in your opening remarks, and to your use of common law rather than food law when progressing cases. Do the current laws provide a big enough penalty to act as a deterrent, or do they need to be strengthened?

What about the proceeds of crime? Are we getting money back from the proceeds of crime? You have said that people are making a lot of money. When we get a result and somebody is charged, does that money come back?

Would everybody who is on modified duties be unable to carry out full operational duties?