Official Report 968KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 29A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division at stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letters RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 2—Code of ethics
Group 1 is on the code of ethics. Amendment 10, in the name of Katy Clark, is grouped with amendments 11 and 4.
I will speak to amendment 10 first and to amendment 11 later. I believe that the amendments are fairly straightforward. Their aim is to improve transparency and increase the amount of information that is provided to the Parliament.
Amendment 11, which I will speak to later, requires that, when the chief constable lays a revised code, they are also required to lay a statement before the Parliament that summarises any representations that have been made during the consultation and any representations that have not resulted in a revision to the code. The amendments seek to provide the Parliament with information about the arguments and representations that have been made that relate to the code.
The provision in amendment 11 is slightly different to the wording that I proposed in an amendment at stage 2.
My amendments in the group were submitted after discussion with the Scottish Government, and I thank the officials involved for their assistance in drafting them. I hope that the amendments are now drafted in terms that will enable them to have wide support.
I move amendment 10.
I call Sharon Dowey to speak to amendment 4 and other amendments in the group.
One of the provisions in the bill is the creation of a statutory obligation on the chief constable to prepare a code of ethics for the police service, such as the code that currently exists on a non-statutory basis. The bill requires that the chief constable consults with a variety of stakeholders when preparing the code of ethics.
However, in the drafted list of stakeholders that the chief constable must consult, I noticed that one very important group of people is missing: individuals who have made complaints to the police in the past. These are the very people who have experienced the process that the bill is trying to improve; that is the very purpose of this piece of proposed legislation. The Parliament knows the importance of including people with lived experience in policy discussions, and the new code of ethics is no different.
My amendment 4 is simple. It requires that the chief constable consult with those who represent the interests of individuals who have lived experience of going through the existing complaints procedure. The amendment is drafted to ensure that those important voices are heard without potentially delaying the preparation of the code by requiring consultation with too wide a pool of people. It would achieve a balanced outcome between thorough consultation and practical considerations, and I encourage the Parliament to vote for it.
Katy Clark’s amendments 10 and 11 would both make minor yet sensible changes to the bill. On amendment 11, it would be extremely helpful in the future to have a document that sums up any changes to the code of ethics and that also explains why any proposed changes were not implemented. The Conservatives will support those amendments.
I am happy to have worked with both members on the three amendments in the group. The amendments will enhance the bill and I am grateful to the members for their engagement.
Katy Clark’s amendments 10 and 11 will increase transparency and accountability. Amendment 10 will ensure that, if the chief constable decides not to revise the code when triggers for the review occur, they must give the reasons for that and explain why no change is needed.
Amendment 11 will ensure that, if mandatory consultees suggest changes to the draft revision of the code but those changes are not included in the final revised code, the chief constable must publicly justify the reasons why that decision is made. That level of transparency will build public trust and confidence in our police service.
Importantly, Sharon Dowey’s amendment 4 will ensure that, in preparing the code of ethics, the voice of people with lived experience of making complaints against the police will be heard. That input will help Police Scotland to achieve a culture of continuous improvement, transparency and inclusivity.
With regard to amendment 11, is it envisaged that only representations from people whose complaint has completed the complaints process would be considered by the chief constable or would it include representations from people whose complaint is still under way?
I will clarify the purpose of amendment 11. It relates to the revised code of ethics that must be laid before the Parliament. The purpose of Ms Clark’s amendment is to summarise any representations made during the consultation on the code of ethics and to put on record the reasons for any such representations not resulting in changes.
On Sharon Dowey’s amendment 4, I hope that it is helpful to add that it is important that the chief constable has an obligation to consult and hear the representations of the bodies and organisations that have a role in representing people with lived experience. In many ways, that is quite separate from the complaints process. I hope that that is helpful.
To conclude, I urge the Parliament to support the amendments in group 1.
15:00
I call Katy Clark to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 10.
I press amendment 10.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Katy Clark]—and agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.
Section 3A—Vetting code of practice
Group 2 is on vetting. Amendment 12, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 13 to 18, 24, 19 to 23 and 25 to 27.
This group contains a number of amendments, so I will try to be concise and clear. I believe that we require a proper vetting process that will give the public confidence in policing and in Police Scotland officers, and Scottish Labour is clear that we support the vetting provisions and their modernisation.
Police Scotland carries out checks and manages all levels of police vetting. It has an administrative role in managing national security vetting, with the process being undertaken on Police Scotland’s behalf by the Scottish Government. Currently, vetting includes recruitment vetting, which is the minimum level that is required for applications from all those who are seeking appointment as police officers or employment as members of staff in Police Scotland; management vetting; and vetting for a designated post.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland conducted a review of vetting policy and procedures in Police Scotland in 2023, and those new vetting provisions were inserted in the bill at stage 2 without adequate consultation with those with an interest, such as the Scottish Police Federation, staff trade unions and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. My amendments in the group seek to delete the vetting provisions, but I make it clear that I am probing the Government on the issue and inviting it to respond, particularly with regard to the lack of scrutiny of the provisions. That is my intention.
The Government indicated at stage 1 that it was considering putting vetting on a statutory footing. The Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report refers, on page 56, to a letter from the cabinet secretary in which she said that she was
“exploring the legislative basis for vetting, particularly in the context of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) Scotland Bill”.
The stage 1 report also refers to the “HMICS Assurance review of vetting policy and procedures within Police Scotland” report, which said:
“The Scottish Government should place into legislation the requirement for all Police Scotland officers and staff to obtain and maintain a minimum standard of vetting ... and the provision for the Chief Constable to dispense with the service of an officer or staff member who cannot maintain suitable vetting”.
Will the member take a brief intervention?
Sure—of course I will.
Pauline McNeill has a range of amendments in the group. How else would we seek to act in a timely way on the HMICS review’s recommendation that vetting is important and it should be put on a statutory footing, given that the bill is the most appropriate legislative vehicle for that? I am really concerned that some of Pauline McNeill’s amendments seek to remove all provisions on vetting from the bill, because it is so important to every aspect of our justice system.
I agree with Maggie Chapman that the vetting provisions are very important. However, as I said only a minute ago, I am not seeking to delete the vetting provisions from the bill. I am seeking to highlight that, in my view, there must have been some co-ordination between HMICS, which was conducting a review of vetting, and the Scottish Government. Whether that is the case or not, however, the Criminal Justice Committee got only a few days’ notice of the specifics of the vetting provisions and we could not take any evidence on them. We could not ask the staff unions or the Scottish Police Federation whether they thought that the provisions were fair and reasonable. It is a matter of principle for me that we should not approach legislation in a way that could impact on those groups of staff. I am sure that Maggie Chapman understands that parliamentary procedures would not allow me to make that point unless I lodged amendments at stage 3. However, I reassure her that I whole-heartedly agree with her point that we need strong standards of ethics and vetting.
The Scottish Police Federation has said that it had a general discussion with the Government and officials regarding the vetting provisions, but that there was no consultation. The former Scottish Police Federation general secretary Calum Steele says in his column in The Herald today that the vetting intervention has led to one of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary processes in recent years. He makes the point that
“no worker should be in a position where they can be sacked on the whim of their employer and never be told why.”
That is why I hope that Maggie Chapman and others will consider the detail of my amendments.
A key concern is about the use of vetting as a substitute for misconduct regulations. In some cases, officers who have faced formal misconduct proceedings and received outcomes such as final written warnings could subsequently be dismissed through vetting processes. That would circumvent the principles of due process and undermine the outcomes of the misconduct system.
The Scottish Police Federation says:
“transparency in vetting decisions presents a major issue. Officers who fail vetting are often left in the dark about the specific reasons for their failure, with data protection cited as a justification for withholding that critical information.”
It says that the
“application of recruitment vetting standards”
would be problematic if a serving officer with a moderately long career was held to the same vetting criteria as new recruits, and it adds:
“Scotland currently refuses to disclose detailed reasons for vetting failures to serving officers ... This lack of transparency breeds mistrust and prevents them from understanding or addressing the concerns raised.”
To ensure fairness and accountability, I believe that the service must look to disclose vetting issues where it can.
HMICS looked at 250 cases over a four-year period to review where vetting clearances were approved and where the applicant had previous convictions. It is unclear whether the new vetting procedures will have an impact on those cases. It is not a question of whether we think that that is right or wrong; the point is that we do not know whether the new vetting procedures will have an impact on those officers.
Although the bill does not specify the interval for new vetting, I think that HMICS has suggested that it would be every 10 years. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said that it is concerned that the proposals on vetting could be open to misuse through the service or authority seeking to create a fast-track or alternative method to dismiss police officers without notice. To put it simply, if the existing misconduct regulations and/or performance and capability regulations are not used correctly or are viewed as requiring more effort or creating a slower route to deliberation of an outcome, the failure or withdrawal of an officer’s vetting status could be misused as an easy shortcut for dismissal. We might think that that would never happen but, when we are looking at legislation as parliamentarians, we have to account for all scenarios.
The Parliament has not been able to examine the new vetting provisions or issues such as whether there should be an appeals process, yet many officers do not know why they failed their vetting. It could be due to a third-party association or it could be the result of wrongful information that they are unable to correct.
I will now address the specifics of the amendments in the group. Amendment 13 would insert a new subsection following the definition of vetting to clarify that it should not be an alternative to or substitute for misconduct proceedings.
Amendment 14 provides for an appeal if someone is dismissed or demoted as a result of a vetting outcome.
Amendment 15 makes a key distinction between misconduct and vetting. In a misconduct hearing, there is a process, and the person has the right to defend themselves against allegations, whereas in the vetting process there is not much scope for that. I want to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the two. The amendment provides that
“vetting cannot be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings where it was determined that ... behaviour or performance was not”
below the expected standard.
Amendment 16 would provide for the vetting code of practice to include a need for evidence. That evidence would be required to demonstrate that a person is not suitable to be a police officer.
Amendment 17 would require the code of practice to
“include provision for ... reasons to be provided”
if vetting leads to the vetted person being required to comply with conditions, redeployed, demoted or dismissed.
I turn to amendment 18. The vetting of a serving police officer cannot be the same as recruitment vetting. There should be different criteria. There are currently police officers who have been convicted of small offences such as speeding offences, and they may fail their vetting. They might have failed it if they had just joined, but they might now have 15 years’ service. Amendment 18 would add wording to the definition of vetting in the relevant section to specify that it is separate from any assessment that is required as part of the recruitment process. The amendment provides that information that has previously been disclosed may not be used later as a reason to demote someone. If information has already been considered and accepted, it should not be used again. I accept that what is proposed is a belt-and-braces approach.
Amendment 24 would make a deletion.
Amendment 19 would make the same change in section 3B that amendment 14 would make in section 3A, because there are two sections to be considered.
Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that is linked to amendment 19. It would remove the provision on appeals in proposed new section 50A(1)(b) of the 2012 act.
Amendment 21 provides that vetting may not be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings.
Amendment 22 would add to the definition of vetting to include that, in sections 3A and 3B, vetting is
“separate to any assessment required as part of the recruitment process”.
Amendment 23 would do the same as amendment 13 would do in section 3A. It says:
“For the avoidance of doubt, vetting is not a substitute for or alternative to misconduct processes where there are concerns around the standard of behaviour … of a constable”.
Amendment 25 would leave out section 3B. As I have said, I do not intend to move that, and the same applies to amendment 26. Amendment 27 relates to the long title.
I apologise to members for the length of those comments but, given that the provisions were introduced at stage 2, I wanted to be quite thorough in trying to flush out some of the issues that we might all agree on and what might be fair and reasonable so that, if we sign up to this—if we vote for the bill at decision time tonight—the measures will at least have had some debate at stage 3.
I move amendment 12.
My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I remain significantly concerned about the inclusion of vetting in the bill. Vetting was not included in the bill as initially drafted, so no evidence was taken on the vetting process at stage 1. The Scottish Police Federation has highlighted several issues with the current vetting process. When officers fail vetting, many are not given clear explanations as to why, with many not being afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision. David Kennedy has also highlighted concerns that vetting would be used as a substitute for misconduct proceedings. The federation is therefore understandably concerned about moving to a system of continuous vetting when those issues have not been rectified.
Although many of Pauline McNeill’s amendments seek to rectify the issues that I have just mentioned, the way in which sections 3A and 3B were tacked on at stage 2 without being scrutinised by the committee was wholly inappropriate. That said, it is of paramount importance that officers who do not meet the standards that are expected of them are weeded out, and a more rigorous system of vetting may help to achieve that, as would updating misconduct policies and practices. Although I still have reservations about the wording of sections 3A and 3B, enhanced vetting may, in principle, improve public trust in the police, which is the entire point of the bill.
Before I give a detailed response to each amendment in the group, I will just say that I listened carefully to Pauline McNeill’s remarks and, if I understood her correctly, I understand that her motivation is to be confident that the measures that have been introduced will prevent the abuse of vetting procedures. I very much hope to provide the appropriate assurances to her and other members this afternoon.
By way of background information, as I set out at stage 1, I intended to introduce provisions for the vetting of police constables and police staff, following a recommendation that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland made after the bill was introduced, to ensure that there is a requirement for all constables and staff to obtain and to maintain vetting, as well as a power to dismiss, should they be unable to maintain vetting. The Criminal Justice Committee also made a clear recommendation that I should lodge an amendment to provide the chief constable with the power to dismiss anyone who is unable to maintain vetting.
15:15That was against the backdrop of Lady Elish Angiolini’s report into the murder of Sarah Everard by serving Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, which was commissioned by the then United Kingdom Home Secretary in November 2021 and published in February 2024. In it, she expressed concerns about a lack of periodic revetting in England and Wales, and, although the recommendations are for English and Welsh police forces, they are relevant to Police Scotland. I therefore lodged substantial and meaningful amendments that responded to that report.
The basis for placing vetting on a statutory footing is clear, and it will provide the appropriate levels of protection for the public by ensuring that all officers and staff meet and sustain the required standards and that the public are served by a workforce that they can trust.
The amendments from Pauline McNeill in group 2 relate to the vetting of police constables and police staff. I urge members to oppose all the amendments in the group apart from amendments 16 and 17, which I can support. I will set out my reasoning, but first I state, for the record, that we had a substantial and good debate on the issues at stage 2, and that, prior to and since stage 2, my officials have continued to engage with the statutory staff associations, through, for example, the Scottish police consultative forum.
I have a question about concerns that were raised by the Scottish Police Federation—particularly about the ability of someone who fails vetting to appeal or to get support to make amends, if that is appropriate. Is the cabinet secretary of the view that, if the amendments that she agrees to pass and those that she does not agree to do not pass, the bill will allay the concerns that have been expressed?
It is important for me to remind people of what is in the bill and what the stage 2 amendments provide for. The stage 2 amendments provide for provisions to be made on vetting. Once the bill passes and becomes legislation, as we hope that it will, work will need to be done to produce a code of practice and new and updated regulations. There must be consultation on those matters with the statutory and non-statutory staff associations.
Vetting is an area in which judgments will be made on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, when people are demoted or dismissed, they have the right of appeal to the police appeals tribunal, which hears appeals against police disciplinary actions. In future, the police appeals tribunal will cover vetting actions.
Does the existing statutory appeals provision apply when an officer has already been dismissed and appeals the dismissal? In my amendments, I am trying to get at the fact that people should at least have a right to rectify any information that might be wrong and has led to their failing their vetting and their possible dismissal.
The cabinet secretary referred to the regulations. Would there be scope to ensure that the regulations included something that an officer could use to correct misinformation in relation to vetting?
The purpose of regulations is to get into far more detail than would be appropriate in primary legislation. Members will appreciate that, when dealing with matters that are specific to a particular individual or circumstance, trying to cover each and every eventual possibility in primary legislation would lead to inflexibility that might be disproportionate and might disadvantage different officers.
As I will touch on when I get into the detail of the amendments, Police Scotland is clear that the provisions for recruitment vetting need to be different from those for in-role vetting. The provisions should recognise welfare issues, people’s service and the need for proportionality.
I will provide some further information. The police appeals tribunal is made up of three independent lawyers, who are chosen by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for clarifying her view on regulations with respect to appeals that relate to the employment contract and appeals that relate to vetting errors. In principle, does she agree that, if there was an error in the vetting process, an appeal should be possible, which could be dealt with in regulations?
The place for dealing with such an issue is in regulations, not in primary legislation, for the reasons that I mentioned a few moments ago.
I will address some of the specific issues with the amendments. Amendments 24 to 27 would entirely remove the vetting provisions from the bill. Notwithstanding Ms McNeill’s comments, I am deeply concerned that proposals to remove the vetting provisions have been made at this stage, without any consultation with HMICS or Police Scotland and without any supporting evidence. If we do not use the bill to introduce statutory provision for vetting and dismissal, it is likely that any meaningful vetting changes—which most of us want and which are in the public interest—will be delayed until the next parliamentary session at the very earliest.
Following the lodging of those amendments, Craig Naylor, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, and Deputy Chief Constable Speirs wrote to the Criminal Justice Committee to highlight their concerns about Ms McNeill’s proposals and the case for a statutory framework for vetting. Victim Support Scotland also urges members not to back the amendments. It has stated its support for periodic revetting and has talked about the role that the bill’s vetting provisions will play in the public continuing to have trust in Police Scotland.
I turn to other amendments in the group. I will refer to some together, because they would achieve the same effect in respect of the vetting code of practice, which will apply to police officers and police staff, and the regulations, which will apply only to police officers. I appreciate that the amendments might be intended to prevent abuse of the vetting procedures, but the proper way to prevent that is through a robust appeals process, rather than by inserting various provisions in primary legislation that could trigger unintended consequences. I assure members that the regulations will be developed in consultation with staff associations and that fairness for all will be at the heart of the process.
I am genuinely interested in this debate. How would the cabinet secretary respond to Calum Steele’s challenge this morning? He said that, because of how the provisions have come about, we have not heard evidence on them from people who will be directly impacted by them.
I am grateful to Mr Kerr for his contribution. As I intimated earlier, we had a substantial debate on the issue at stage 2, although I appreciate that Mr Kerr was not on the committee at that point. I subsequently wrote to the committee, because there was some confusion or misunderstanding about the level of engagement that my officials had had, whether individually or collectively, with all the staff associations. I provided the committee with a series of dates on which my officials had engaged collectively with police and partners in the context of the Scottish police consultative forum and on which they had met the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Chief Police Officers Staff Association individually. I put on record—without reading out my entire A4 sheet, Presiding Officer—that intensive engagement took place at official level. I also meet staff associations regularly, as members would expect.
I remind members that my response was rooted in a clear recommendation from HMICS. In addition, the Criminal Justice Committee, in its stage 1 report, made a clear recommendation to me, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, to address the issue, and I gave that commitment to the Parliament during the stage 1 debate. I appreciate that the stage 2 amendments were somewhat involved and lengthy, but they needed to be so, as the matter cannot be dealt with in a few lines. I hope that most people would agree that I needed to meet the commitment that I made to the Parliament in response to a parliamentary committee.
Amendments 12 and 22 would amend the definition of vetting to say that recruitment vetting is separate from in-role vetting and that it is not an assessment as to character and so on. However, the assessment that is carried out at recruitment is a form of vetting and is an assessment as to suitability for the role, so the amendment would create an inaccurate statement. Although recruitment vetting and in-role vetting have different implications, they are both still assessments of suitability. The amendments could undermine the basis for on-going recruitment vetting by leaving a suggestion in primary legislation that recruitment vetting is not, and cannot be, an assessment of suitability, when that is in fact exactly what it is.
The amendments would also prevent the code of practice from being able to make provision about recruitment vetting. Given that Police Scotland’s existing vetting manual of guidance and the equivalent version in England and Wales cover both recruitment vetting and in-role vetting, it is desirable for Police Scotland to have the ability to provide for recruitment vetting in its code, which will help to provide for a consistent and coherent system of vetting.
Amendment 13 would provide that
“vetting is not a substitute for or alternative to misconduct processes where there are concerns around the standard of behaviour or performance of a constable or member of police staff.”
Amendments 13 and 20 would risk forcing the code to send cases down the misconduct route, even when vetting was appropriate, which could lead to increased costs and take up additional resources that were not warranted. That goes against the Angiolini review, which proposed to use alternatives to misconduct proceedings when that was reasonable and appropriate. The amendments could also open up vetting determinations to challenge, even when the use of the vetting procedures was perfectly appropriate, simply because misconduct proceedings were also an option.
Amendments 14 and 19 would set up the “consideration of alternative measures” as a separate procedure from the initial decision-making process and from appeal. Although there is no issue with the requirement for appeals, as it is intended that there will be an appeals process, the separate requirement for a “consideration of alternative measures” is problematic.
A decision maker must already have considered a range of possible outcomes and have selected the least serious one that meets the risk. A failure to consider less serious measures will be a good ground for appeal. The duplication of procedures that the amendments would require could lead to contradictory decisions, confusion, delays and costs.
15:30Amendments 15 and 21 would provide
“that vetting cannot be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings where it was determined that the standard of behaviour or performance was not unsatisfactory.”
There are many good reasons for carrying out vetting that do not justify a finding that conduct or performance was unsatisfactory. Those reasons might come to light during misconduct proceedings or be part of wider facts and circumstances that were relevant to the conduct proceedings.
The whole point of introducing dismissal for vetting is to provide for cases in which someone poses a risk but their conduct and performance are not such as would warrant dismissal. Amendments 15 and 21 would seriously undermine that purpose.
Amendment 18 would require the code of practice to prohibit the use of information
“disclosed during previous vetting, either as part of the recruitment process or ongoing vetting,”
in subsequent vetting as a reason for the person who has undergone vetting to be subjected to a determination. I cannot support the amendment, as it would prevent a vetting decision from taking into account a cumulative pattern of behaviour that emerged over years. Something that can seem to be risk managed on a first occasion might become more worrying on a second or third occasion, and it would be necessary to consider the information in a subsequent determination. Stakeholders have grave concerns about the amendment and have cited the escalating pattern of behaviour in the examples of David Carrick and Wayne Couzens.
I am able to support amendment 16, because it would simply require the code to set down whether there were any limitations on the types of evidence that can be used to demonstrate suitability, or to list those types of evidence. I hope that that would go some way to alleviating the concerns that we have heard this afternoon.
I am also able to support amendment 17. Providing written reasons for a vetting outcome would promote fairness and transparency, which I would expect to be part of the process anyway.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her thorough response and for acknowledging that, at this stage, I am seeking to go over the provisions with a fine-toothed comb to ensure that there is fairness and that there is reasonable application of something that the Parliament did not get a proper chance to discuss at stage 2.
The cabinet secretary is quite correct to say that, in our stage 1 report, the committee asked for the chief constable to have the power to dismiss an officer or a member of staff who was unable to maintain their vetting. However, the proposals that we are discussing now came after the stage 1 report. For my part, had I had the detail at stage 2, I might have taken a different view—or maybe I would not have. I make the point that I supported the stage 1 report for the reasons that I have mentioned. However, now that I have had sight of the proposals, I want to examine them in detail.
I get some satisfaction from what the cabinet secretary said about what she expects of the regulations. For example, I raised the issue of ensuring that evidence that was previously used to maintain vetting cannot in all cases be used at a later date. I am satisfied that some of that can be dealt with in the regulations.
I have noted what the cabinet secretary said about my amendments. Given the concerns that the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents have raised—I note that they did not get a chance to examine the provisions at stage 2—I was trying to ensure that vetting is not used when misconduct processes should be used. I plead for that to be clear as the regulations are taken forward.
As I indicated from the outset, I will seek to withdraw amendment 12, and I will not move my other amendments in the group, for the reasons that I have outlined—I have got some comfort on them. My one fundamental disagreement with the cabinet secretary relates to the appeals process. Forgive me, as I have not had a chance to examine the full detail of what an appeals process looks like under the statute, but it seems that someone could already have been dismissed. The thing that seems to be missing is the possibility of correcting something quite simple through some kind of corrections or appeals process.
I share Pauline McNeill’s concern regarding appeals in relation to the vetting process. Appeal provisions apply under the English vetting system when errors have been made accidentally and information has then become available. I am a little disappointed that the cabinet secretary was unable to give a categoric assurance that the question of an appeal in respect of the vetting process could not be put in the regulations, although she indicated that it might be if that were sought by stakeholders.
That is where I have some difficulty. We are creating a framework, but it seems to me that a right of correction or appeal should be in the legislation. My problem with the statutory proposal is that the person will already be dismissed at that point—but perhaps I am wrong.
Perhaps I could put this to Ms McNeill so that we have clarity on the record. It is my view and the view of the Government that a key way to protect the rights of staff and constables, while allowing for a vetting regime that protects the public, is through a very robust appeals process. Police constables who are dismissed or demoted as a result of failing to maintain the minimum required vetting clearance will be able to appeal to the police appeals tribunal, which, as I outlined earlier, is an independent tribunal. Police staff already have full access to an employment tribunal.
In addition, as I have said that I will support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 17, to ensure that written reasons are given for vetting decisions, I intend to consult on further safeguards to be built into the vetting processes as part of the vetting regulations for constables. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the member.
I was going to get to amendments 16 and 17. I fully welcome the Government’s position on them, as it will make a substantial difference in relation to fairness. I welcome the Government’s response.
I remain concerned about not having something in primary legislation on correcting information on vetting, but I am content for the most part. The only amendment in the group that I intend to move is amendment 14, on appeals; I will not seek to move the other amendments in my name. I thank the Government for the response on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 13 not moved.
Amendment 14 moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend proceedings for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:39 Meeting suspended.
We proceed with the division on amendment 14. Members should cast their votes now.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay]
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Amendment 15 not moved.
Amendments 16 and 17 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.
Amendments 18 and 24 not moved.
Section 3B—Procedures for vetting
Amendments 19 to 23 and 25 not moved.
That concludes discussion on group 2.
Section 6—Procedures for misconduct: former constables
Group 3 is on procedures for misconduct. Amendment 5, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is grouped with amendment 6.
Prior to the bill’s enactment, a police officer whose behaviour was found to amount to gross misconduct would be able to avoid disciplinary proceedings simply by resigning or retiring. Fortunately, the bill seeks to close that loophole. However, when taking evidence on the bill, the Criminal Justice Committee heard concerns that officers might not be aware of that change. As such, a constable might resign, thinking that that would get them off the hook, only to realise, when it is too late to rescind their resignation, that proceedings will continue in their absence.
My amendment 5 therefore seeks to ensure that a constable is informed at the earliest possible opportunity that resignation or retirement is not a route to avoiding disciplinary proceedings. It does that by requiring notice to be given to a constable, following a determination that the allegation against them amounts to gross misconduct, that disciplinary procedures may be applied in relation to a person who resigns or retires. That means that, at the point at which the constable is informed that there are proceedings against them, they are also informed that those will continue whether or not they resign. The drafting ensures that notice is given at the most useful time, making sure that the constable has all the information that is available before they make any decision to resign.
Amendment 5 is very similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I thank the Scottish Government for working with me to bring it back at stage 3, ensuring that constables are kept fully informed of the new rules at the earliest possible opportunity.
I turn to amendment 6. The bill as originally drafted would allow for disciplinary proceedings to be conducted against police officers after they had left the force as long as they were being disciplined for gross misconduct. A caveat to that was that the bill also included a requirement that a time limit must be set out in regulations for disciplinary proceedings to be brought forward after a constable had resigned. That is sensible, in my view, as it is important to prevent stale allegations from being pursued against former constables for an indefinite or lengthy period after they have ceased to be a constable.
As such, the effect of my amendment 6 would require that those regulations set out that disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought against an officer more than a year after they have resigned or retired. That would ensure that investigations into an officer’s misconduct were current and timely, and would prevent regulations from allowing for a time limit that is of an undue length. It would also ensure that stale allegations were not routinely pursued to the extent that the investigatory body was overwhelmed by historical allegations that limited its ability to investigate current and live officer misconduct.
That comes with two caveats. First, this is a presumption only, and the Scottish Government assures me that the regulations will set out tests or special criteria to determine whether it is reasonable and proportionate to apply the disciplinary procedures to a former constable after more than one year. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary would reaffirm that when she sums up.
Secondly, although amendment 6 means that disciplinary proceedings could not be pursued against an officer for an indefinite period of time, that would not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against an ex-officer over historical allegations. That is a sensible measure to add to the bill.
I am happy to move amendment 5.
Again, I am happy to have engaged with Ms Dowey after stage 2 on amendments 5 and 6, which I support. It was intended that requiring notice to be given to a constable that proceedings would continue in absentia should be provided for in regulations, so I support the principle of amendment 5.
A requirement that conduct regulations state a time limit of no more than one year from the date of resignation, after which misconduct procedures cannot be applied, is another provision that was intended for inclusion in regulations. I agree that it is important to prevent stale allegations from being pursued against former constables, but of course the time limit must be capable of being disapplied, when justice requires it.
The regulations will set out tests or special criteria that will determine whether it is reasonable and proportionate to apply the disciplinary procedures to former constables after more than one year to provide for exceptional cases.
I hope that Parliament will support the amendments.
I call Sharon Dowey to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 5.
I have wound up, so I press amendment 5.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Scottish police advisory list and Scottish police barred list
Amendment 26 not moved.
We move to group 4, on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
The three amendments in this group are minor tidying-up amendments.
The first relates to the advisory and barred lists provisions in section 7. It simply removes unnecessary repetition of a number—namely “59A”—to comply with standard drafting practice and does not have any practical effect.
Amendments 2 and 3 relate to the provisions in the bill that give the PIRC a new power to review a policy or practice of the police, where the PIRC considers that it is in the public interest to do so.
At stage 2, the Criminal Justice Committee supported an amendment lodged by Sharon Dowey to require that the PIRC must consult HMICS before undertaking such a review, which I supported. The provision that that inserted would better meet the intention if it appeared on its own and earlier in the process, so amendments 2 and 3 remove the provision from its current location and insert a new subsection requiring the PIRC to consult HMICS before deciding whether to carry out the review.
I ask all members to support technical amendments 1 to 3.
I move amendment 1.
No other members have asked to speak, and the cabinet secretary does not have anything to add by way of winding up.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
After section 8
We move to group 5, on review of misconduct policies, practices and guidance. Amendment 7, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is the only amendment in the group.
What good is a new code of ethics if it is not reflected in practice by Police Scotland? One of my biggest concerns about the new code of ethics would be that it becomes simply another piece of work that sits on a shelf and gathers dust for years, not making the change that was promised.
My amendment 7 creates a new free-standing section that places a one-off duty on the chief constable to review misconduct policies, practices and guidance. The chief constable is also required to make changes that are appropriate in light of the code of ethics, as soon as practicable. The amendment requires the review to take place within a year of the commencement of the new section, allowing time for the code of ethics to be published and the new set of conduct rules to be put in place before the review begins. That means that the review will be of the new policies, practices and procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
It is our responsibility as a Parliament to ensure that the legislation that we pass is meaningful and effective. Amendment 7 goes some way towards ensuring that
I am happy to move amendment 7.
I support amendment 7, which places a one-off duty on the chief constable to review misconduct policies, practices and guidance. I have worked constructively with Ms Dowey on it following her stage 2 amendments in this area. I agree very much with her intention of ensuring that practices, policies and guidance related to misconduct are aligned with the code of ethics, as appropriate.
Amendment 7 will mean that the chief constable will have one year from the commencement of the new section to carry out the review. That is important because it will allow the code of ethics to be published and the new set of conduct regulations to be made, ensuring that the review will be of the up-to-date polices, practices and guidance. I ask Parliament to support the amendment.
I call Sharon Dowey to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 7.
I have nothing to add. I press the amendment.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Group 6 is on complaints handling: information provided to complainer. Amendment 28, in the name of Douglas Ross, is the only amendment in the group.
16:00
I begin by thanking the Presiding Officer for accepting amendment 28. It is unusual—particularly at stage 3—to bring into the debate a topic that has not been discussed by the committee and did not face scrutiny by the committee, but I hope that I can explain in my opening remarks the reasons for the lateness of the amendment and my reasons for that.
Only one week ago, the First Minister and I met the family of murdered Nairn banker, Alistair Wilson. Veronica and Andrew Wilson came to the Parliament to meet the First Minister. John Swinney gave a commitment in the chamber to meet them, and he delivered on it.
During our discussions with the First Minister, the family raised issues about the system that is used to make complaints against Police Scotland. The First Minister and I mentioned the bill that is being debated today, but as I came out of that meeting, I realised that we had passed the deadline for lodging amendments. However, I was still keen to try. We therefore came up with the amendment that is in the Business Bulletin today, which was accepted by the Presiding Officer.
Amendment 28 seeks to provide complainers such as the Wilson family with information on the full resolution of their complaint. I will explain what the Wilson family went through. They put in a complaint about a very senior officer in Police Scotland, which was originally dismissed by Police Scotland. The family was clearly not happy with that, so they went to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. The PIRC said that Police Scotland should look at the matter again. The family went back to Police Scotland and their complaint was upheld: when it was reinvestigated by the force, Police Scotland said that the family was correct to put in the complaint and upheld it. However, the family does not know the outcome of their complaint against the officer about misconduct or about any sanctions that were applied to the officer.
When the family explained that to the First Minister, they made it clear that not knowing whether sanctions had been applied or what the sanctions were was almost as bad as the original complaint having been dismissed. The family do not feel that they have had the resolution that they are looking for.
I spoke to Andrew and Veronica last night via email. Andrew put it very well when he gave me his statement. He said:
“The amendment is hugely important for us, as victims of the police complaint system, but also for anyone who has put a complaint in against the force. The fact that we do not know the outcome of our complaint and that the officer remains in post suggests a lack of justice and punishment to the point that we do not know whether our upheld complaint was taken seriously or just brushed under the carpet.”
That is from a family who have suffered for more than 20 years because the killer of their husband and father remains at large. Concerns that they have against our force in Scotland were originally dismissed, then they were upheld, but they still do not know the outcome. Andrew also made in his statement the point that this is not only about Andrew and Veronica Wilson and their family: other victims have been affected in the same way.
That is why I was very pleased that Victim Support Scotland wrote to all MSPs last night, urging them to support amendment 28. Victim Support Scotland said that the amendment
“provides more transparency to victims of crime and families bereaved by crime who have made complaints against police officers, and it provides people with information as to the outcome of their complaint, which is vital to ensuring the safety of those who made complaints.”
I welcome that from Victim Support Scotland.
At this point, Deputy Presiding Officer—I include you in this, as spokesperson for justice for your party—I am extremely grateful to representatives of all the political parties whom I contacted during the weekend about amendment 28 for the constructive way that they entered into discussion with me.
I am also grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who met me at very short notice this morning to discuss amendment 28 and its implications.
I have picked up from many members whom I have spoken to that there is a desire to get to the bottom of the matter and to rectify the problems that the family have articulated for many years, particularly about the complaint with Police Scotland.
I also recognise—I hold my hands up regarding my haste to get my amendment 28 lodged and accepted—that there are issues with it that I do believe cannot be resolved today. It is never my intention—I am sure that the cabinet secretary will go over this—to put any officer at risk due to their name being made public if it should not be made public.
However, I hope that there is also recognition that the system at the moment is not delivering for victims—it is clearly not delivering for Andrew and Veronica Wilson. As Victim Support Scotland tells us in its briefing, the system is not delivering for many of the victims whom it deals with daily. I will listen to the debate and I will hear what others say.
I recognise the trauma that has been experienced by the family that Douglas Ross referenced in his comments.
I want to put on the record the extent of the scrutiny that was undertaken at stage 1 by the Criminal Justice Committee—in particular, the evidence that was heard from people with lived experience of the complaints and misconduct process. Things are not great—that is for sure—so I just want to make sure that the member is aware of that scrutiny.
I am very much aware of it, and I record my thanks, as someone with an interest in the subject, to the committee for its deliberations at stage 1, stage 2 and again today. There were representatives from Victim Support Scotland at the meeting with the First Minister that I sat in on last week, and it also gave evidence to Audrey Nicoll’s committee at stage 1. I know that that has been valuable in relation to the formulation of responses to get the bill to where it is today.
Another issue, which I am sure that the cabinet secretary will mention, is that my amendment 28 will perhaps not be required, because there are already provisions on the matter. She mentioned that this morning in our discussion, and in correspondence with the local MSP, Fergus Ewing, who, I have to comment, has been extremely helpful to me since I lodged the amendment, and who has done—and continues to do—a lot of work for the Wilson family over many years.
However, in response to both me and Mr Ewing, the cabinet secretary mentioned the PIRC’s statutory guidance from October 2022. Paragraph 150 goes over what the resolution of complaints should look like for complainers. It says that the response to the complainer must
“contain details of any action taken to avoid a recurrence of the situation which gave rise to the complaint, including any learning or improvement action”.
It also goes on to state that responses must
“where misconduct proceedings have been taken, advise of the determination made at those proceedings and any disciplinary action ordered, if permitted by the applicable legislation”.
The phrase
“if permitted by the applicable legislation”
led me to lodge amendment 28, because I felt that it was an opportunity to strengthen the applicable legislation.
Even though the process is in black and white in the statutory guidance from 2022, it is clear that it is not working. We know from the example of the Wilson family that I cited, and from many other examples that have been advocated for on victims’ behalf by Victim Support Scotland and others, that that element of the complaints process is not being delivered. We would not be discussing amendment 28, or my and others’ concerns, if it was being delivered. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary will say to that during the debate.
Amendment 28 seeks to improve the complaints system. In normal circumstances, people do not complain against the police unless they have good reason. There is a growing frustration about the system of complaints against the police, which is partly why we have the bill that is in front of us today. Not only will the legislation potentially not work, but the system is not working because of the number of complaints or the lack of officers looking into them.
I will cite examples. I wrote to the cabinet secretary about the matter this week. In the space of a few days, two constituents contacted me who are extremely concerned that, in their view, their complaints are not being treated seriously enough by the force. One constituent complained last summer and heard nothing for months, and the complaint has still not been allocated.
More worryingly, I received a response yesterday from a constituent who had received his ninth correspondence from Police Scotland about his complaint. The complaint was originally submitted in September 2023, and as of yesterday, he had received a response from the professional standards department that did not say that his case had not been determined, but that it had not been allocated. A professional standards officer has not even looked into his complaint yet, although it was submitted in September 2023.
On nine separate occasions, the force has taken the time to write to, or email, my constituent to say that, because of workload pressures, the complaint has not yet been looked at. Nonetheless, for the complaint not to have even been allocated in well over a year is, I think, indefensible. We need to see improvement, and I hope that people in Police Scotland, and others, who are following the debate today, will take on board the fact that the complaints are serious matters to the complainers, who want resolution and believe that they are being fobbed off and not taken seriously because the complaints have been lying on a desk, unchecked and unallocated, for well over a year.
I will listen with interest to what is said before finally deciding whether to press or seek to withdraw amendment 28.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland.
I move amendment 28.
It was on 28 November, in the year 2004, that my constituent Alistair Wilson was shot to death on his own doorstep at his home in Nairn, with the family inside the house. For the past 20 years, the family have pursued a campaign for justice, and they have suffered unending grief such as is unimaginable, I suspect, for all—or most—of us in the chamber.
As the constituency MSP, I have worked with Veronica and the family for some years now and have pursued certain concerns. Yesterday, I spoke again to the family, and they agreed that this is what they wish me to say on their behalf today. They wish me to express their extreme disappointment that the chief constable of Police Scotland—the top police officer in the land—has thus far refused to meet them. They hope that that is something that can be put right.
Following my intervention with the cabinet secretary last year, the Lord Advocate met the family. At that meeting, they heard that there had been the most serious failures in the investigation, such that a reinvestigation has had to be ordered after two decades—a reinvestigation which could, the family fear, take another five years. They appreciated the meeting with the Lord Advocate, who was honest and candid, but their requests thus far to meet the chief constable have not been agreed to. I will quote Veronica Wilson herself, who said:
“I cannot believe how little information I am given after a fight lasting 20 months”
in respect of the complaint. We heard the same from Mr Ross.
Surely the head of policing in Scotland should, as a matter of human decency, and taking account of the tragedy that has befallen the family and the grief that they have suffered, and continue to suffer, be willing to meet them.
I have always believed that the buck stops at the top, and the top person in every public body in Scotland is still a servant of the public. I hope that the cabinet secretary, in her remarks, can indicate, if possible, a wish that the chief constable should now meet the family and see that they can get answers to their questions, which have thus far eluded them.
I will not repeat the arguments that Mr Ross has put today—he has put them clearly and at length. I was pleased to work with him and with you, cabinet secretary. I appreciate your letter this morning setting out technical reasons why amendment 28 might not work. I accept that they are valid reasons and am therefore not minded that the amendment should be pressed to a vote today.
However, I think that Mr Ross is right that the current system is patently not working as it should. I hope that you can reflect further on that and perhaps give members a clear indication that you will continue to look at those matters to try to improve the service for victims, especially victims of the most serious crimes in Scotland.
16:15
Thank you, Mr Ewing. Comments should always be through the chair.
Section 11—Complaint handling reviews
Group 7 is on complaint handling reviews. Amendment 8, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is the only amendment in the group.
If an individual who has made a complaint against the police is unhappy with the way in which the complaint has been handled, they can request that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner conduct a complaint handling review. The bill expands that aspect of the complaints procedure to allow the commissioner to conduct a complaint handling review if they think that it is appropriate, instead of having to rely on the complainer to bring the matter to them.
At stage 2, I successfully amended section 11 to require the PIRC to notify the relevant complainer if they decide to conduct a complaint handling review, and I am glad that the Scottish Government agreed with me on that issue. However, my stage 2 amendment focused only on the new power that will be granted to the PIRC to conduct a complaint handling review of their own volition. It was my understanding that, if the PIRC decided to review a case at the request of a complainer, the complainer would be notified, but that is not the case, largely due to a defect in existing legislation.
Amendment 8 attempts to fix that situation by ensuring that the complainer is notified if a complaint handling review takes place, regardless of whether the complainer or the PIRC requested it. The amendment will ensure that, in every case, the complainer will be made aware that the PIRC will be reviewing the handling of their complaint, thereby keeping them informed and allowing them to engage with the review. It is a very simple amendment that I hope the Parliament will support.
I move amendment 8.
I am pleased to have been able to work with Ms Dowey on the amendment, which is subsequent to an amendment that she lodged at stage 2, to place a duty on the PIRC to notify the relevant complainer that a decision has been made to carry out a complaint handling review of the PIRC’s own volition. I supported that amendment and the policy intention of requiring the PIRC to notify the complainer of any decision to carry out a complaint handling review, regardless of how it came about, in order to make the complainer aware that the PIRC would go ahead with a review. Amendment 8 will ensure that the complainer is, in every case, made aware that the PIRC will review the handling of their complaint, keeping them informed and allowing them to be engaged with the review. I ask members to support amendment 8.
I call Sharon Dowey to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 8.
I take this opportunity to thank the legislation team, the cabinet secretary and the Government officials for their help in working with the amendments at stage 2 to get them passed at stage 3.
I press amendment 8.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Section 15—Review of, and recommendations about, practices and policies of the police
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Group 8 is on the PIRC review of practices and policies of the police. Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
The bill gives the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner a new power to review a policy or practice of the police when it considers that it is in the public interest to do so. It also provides the PIRC with protection from legal actions for defamation in relation to statements made in the course of that new function. However, the same protections are not currently in place for those persons making statements to the PIRC when the PIRC is carrying out that new function, and the amendment will ensure that those protections are put in place.
There is a concern that the absence of such protections for those making statements to the PIRC would affect the information provided to the PIRC in conducting that new function, to the detriment of the ability to report and provide recommendations. Therefore, after consultation with the PIRC on the matter, I lodged amendment 9 to allow “absolute privilege” to protect those persons making statements to the PIRC against defamation in relation to the PIRC’s new function to review and make recommendations about practices and policies of the police as set out in section 15. The amendment will ensure that the law is consistent with the protections from actions for defamation contained in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006.
I move amendment 9.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 27 not moved.
That ends consideration of stage 3 amendments.
Air ais
Business Motion