Official Report 968KB pdf
As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter; therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
16:38 Meeting suspended.
We move to the debate on motion S6M-16093, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. I would be grateful if members who wish speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I call the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion. You have up to seven minutes, cabinet secretary.
16:40
I am pleased to open the debate on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. I express my thanks to the committees that took part in considering the bill. In particular, I thank the members of the Criminal Justice Committee for their detailed scrutiny and for gathering a wide range of views in written and oral evidence. I must also thank the clerks to the Criminal Justice Committee.
I thank everyone who has engaged with the committee and with the Government during the development and passage of the bill. I say a special thank you to those with lived experience of the police complaints and misconduct systems for their testimony, which was instrumental in developing the bill, and to Lady Elish Angiolini, whose recommendations formed the basis of the bill. I also want to make mention of, and express my particular thanks to, my bill team for their excellent support throughout the passage of the bill.
Police Scotland officers and staff work tirelessly to protect and support our communities. I reiterate how much I value the hard work and dedication of our police officers, who conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism, and that of the whole policing workforce.
The principle of policing by consent is central to the mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, so it is of the utmost importance that the public have confidence in our police service. We need to have trust that those who serve in the police continue to meet the very high standards of behaviour and conduct that we expect throughout their careers. It is therefore essential that there are robust, clear and transparent mechanisms in place to investigate complaints or other issues of concern about the police, and that, if things go wrong, the police must be held to account, lessons learned and improvements made.
The bill has four main purposes: to raise and embed the ethical standards of the police service; to strengthen the statutory framework on vetting; to reform how police misconduct is dealt with; and, finally, to broaden the role of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and therefore provide greater independent scrutiny of police complaints handling in Scotland.
The bill cannot be viewed in isolation, however. It is a further step on the journey of transformative change that has been delivered since the independent review by the former Lord Advocate, Dame Elish Angiolini, of complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing in Scotland. I will highlight some specific provisions that have the potential to bring about real and lasting change.
The bill enables the Scottish police barred list and the police advisory list, which will capture information about police constables who have engaged, or who are suspected of engaging, in serious misconduct. That information can then be shared as appropriate.
There is a strong public interest in dealing with allegations of gross misconduct that are made after officers leave the service. The bill will ensure that a conclusion is reached and, if that conclusion is that the officer would have been dismissed had they still been an officer, the person will be added to the barred list. The lists will improve police integrity, increase accountability of those who are dismissed from policing and support police vetting right across the United Kingdom.
The bill also puts a statutory obligation on the chief constable to prepare, regularly review and disseminate a code of ethics. There are extensive consultation requirements for the development and maintenance of the code, which reinforce its significance and embed a human rights-based approach to policing.
Every person who holds the office of constable and has the powers of that office has a higher duty to account for their own actions and for the actions of others that they have witnessed in the execution of their duties. Therefore, the explicit duty of candour on constables, and also on Police Scotland as an organisation, is another significant provision in the bill.
Several features will strengthen the role of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, including the power to take over the consideration of complaints that are being dealt with by the chief constable or the Scottish Police Authority and the transfer of certain functions from the authority to the PIRC. Taken together, those provisions strengthen independent scrutiny of the police complaints and misconduct systems.
I have been open to making improvements to the bill throughout the process, while maintaining a firm focus on what it seeks to achieve. The committee’s significant recommendation that the bill should include a power for the chief constable to remove someone who is unable to maintain their vetting was delivered at stage 2. As stated in his recent letter to the Criminal Justice Committee, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary reminded us that putting vetting on a statutory footing was vital and will ensure
“that all officers and staff meet and sustain the standards required and that the public are served by a workforce that they can trust.”
I thank the members who have engaged with me throughout the passage of the bill to make improvements at each stage. That includes Sharon Dowey, who lodged an amendment ensuring that victims, survivors, witnesses or suspects and the accused have the opportunity to have their voices heard as consultees in the preparation of the code of ethics. She also lodged an amendment to create a one-off duty on the chief constable to review and make changes to the policies, procedures and guidance that relate to misconduct in light of the code of ethics.
Katy Clark’s amendments increase transparency by obliging the chief constable to explain their reasons either for not revising the code or, in the case that it is revised, for why particular representations made by mandatory consultees did not result in a change. That will assure both officers and the public that the code is keeping pace with ethical standards.
The bill will ensure that the police complaints and misconduct systems are fairer and more transparent, accountable and proportionate, which will ultimately help to strengthen public confidence in policing in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:47
The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill today, believing that it will improve the complaints process for members of the public and for police officers. I acknowledge that there are still some concerns about certain elements, not least from the Scottish Police Federation, and it is important that we all work with the federation in future to ensure that those can be resolved in the best way possible.
There appears to be widespread agreement that the current system fails both victims and the police. That is why we have worked hard on the bill, successfully lodging a number of amendments to ensure that it is as fair and robust as it possibly can be. There is no shortage of examples of people who have been let down by the system, and I am sure that we will hear about many of those during the debate. It is worth remembering, however, that the bill aims to protect police officers to the same extent.
Every single day, both as a regional MSP and in my work in a justice-related portfolio, I see the sheer selflessness of police officers as they go about their work of keeping us safe. When they go to work each day, they have absolutely no idea what they are going to face, or indeed any guarantee of returning home safely at the end of their shift. Often, they arrive at an incident and are forced to deal with a whole series of events over which they have little control. They have no opportunity to deal with, and no responsibility for, the minutes or hours leading up to an incident, or with the weeks, months and years of chaos in someone’s life that leave them requiring the intervention of the law.
Police officers are sometimes themselves victims of vexatious complaints, often by some of the very worst people in society. When that happens, as unions repeatedly point out, they are guilty until proven innocent. That can mean being suspended or put on restricted duties—something that can be hugely damaging to an officer’s career, confidence, self-esteem and mental health. With policing numbers being as low as they are, and with officers increasingly being called to incidents that are arguably outside their remit, society can hardly afford to have innocent, hard-working policemen and policewomen being forced off duty for no good reason.
I have huge sympathy for the Scottish Police Federation and the concerns that it has raised around vetting and the harm done to officers when they are incorrectly accused of wrongdoing. That said, as the SPF said on a number of occasions, the police rank and file are merely a reflection of our society. In a 16,000-plus workforce, which replenishes regularly over time, it would be foolish to assume that every employee is perfect. Therefore, we must make sure that when misconduct occurs, it is dealt with swiftly and to the satisfaction of the complainer. I know that police officers are as keen as anyone for that to happen.
The bill is a very important piece of legislation that has involved good co-operation between all parties involved. It has not fallen victim to party politics or to petty point-scoring exchanges, and everyone can see the good motivation behind it.
It is crucial that we ensure that we pass good law in the Scottish Parliament, and that when legislation is introduced, those who are tasked with enforcing it are sufficiently resourced to do so. I hope that the Scottish Government works with Police Scotland to ensure that the finances are right, especially during a phase in which the senior leadership of Police Scotland is regularly forced to raise concern about resources, financial planning and the long-term security of the force.
On a personal level, I was pleased to secure five amendments to the bill at stage 3, which I will briefly summarise for the record.
The first is that the PIRC will immediately notify a complainer when it decides to conduct a complaint handling review, which is a straightforward requirement that will improve their experience within the process.
The next is that the chief constable must make appropriate changes in the light of the code of ethics as soon as possible. After all, what use is it if it sits on a shelf without ever being implemented?
Another amendment ensures that disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought against an officer more than a year after they have resigned or retired. That will ensure that stale proceedings cannot be pursued after an unreasonable amount of time has passed. That amendment will not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought in relation to historical allegations.
It is also important that officers are fully aware of the situation, and they should not be allowed to resign simply because they think that doing so will get them off the hook. Another amendment provides that a police officer must be informed at the earliest opportunity, if such a situation arises, that leaving the force does not safeguard them in the event of proceedings being launched.
The final amendment provides that, when the chief constable is preparing a code of ethics, they must ensure that, among the many groups and organisations that are likely to be consulted, people who have made complaints in the past are included. Lived experience in such cases will be essential.
There are considerable concerns around the vetting amendments that came in at stage 2, not least because no evidence was taken on them. That is not a good way to make law, and the committee was split on whether the approach should proceed. The fear that vetting could be used as an excuse to dismiss officers rather than purely to address misconduct is entirely legitimate. There are many good points in the bill, but those specific concerns must be placed on the record.
I will be pleased to vote for the bill. I fully believe that it will be of benefit to the public and the hard-working police officers who sacrifice so much to keep the streets of Scotland safe.
16:53
Scottish Labour believes that we must act to ensure the highest standards in our police force. The power held by police officers and police organisations requires the right structures and standards to ensure that we can have confidence in our policing. Measures in the bill seek to introduce robust mechanisms to address unacceptable conduct and behaviours of a minority of police officers and staff.
I, too, thank all the witnesses and the victims who spoke up and gave the Criminal Justice Committee first-hand evidence of how police processes can impact on their lives. I also thank my colleagues on the committee, the bill team and our clerks, who worked very hard to produce a constructive stage 1 report.
The bill cannot be viewed in isolation and is only part of a wider piece of work that must be done to improve police complaints and conduct systems. The code of ethics and the duty of candour will not have any particular legal effect, but they set out the expectations. There was quite a lot of debate on those, particularly from victims organisations such as Victim Support Scotland, which wants the code to be more transparent and publicly available, and wants there to be consequences of breaches. However, we are clear that the code of ethics should be robust and reflect the challenges of modern policing. In its report, the committee asked to be able to review the draft code.
Separately from that, there is the duty of candour, which is a standard requirement to assist in investigations. The duty is different to following any other duty or order; it is fundamentally of a more serious nature. Some witnesses advised caution on whether the duty of candour will extend in circumstances in which officers are off duty, but during the legislative process it has been made clear that it will do. However, that will not cut across the right of an accused person, whether they are a police officer or a member of police staff, not to self-incriminate in criminal inquiries. It is fair to put on the record that the Scottish Police Federation’s view was that a duty was not necessary as, in any case, 99.9 per cent of officers co-operate when asked to do so during the course of any inquiries.
One of the critical matters for both the Criminal Justice Committee and Scottish Labour was the financial memorandum. We could not have supported the bill if the Government had not corrected it. As early as this morning, we heard again from the PIRC, who reiterated that the financial implications of legislative decisions are important to consider. The PIRC remains opposed to taking on the responsibility of presenting cases against senior officers, not just from a financial point of view but in terms of the process itself, because they do not think that they should be “judge and jury”.
There are still things in the bill that are problematic, but because there are elements that we support, we will support it this evening. I hope that we can get a full update later in this session of Parliament on how it is proceeding.
One of the biggest issues with the bill is that it is not transformative in the way that the public might have liked. I do not know whether the public will notice any real difference in the handling of complaints, nor will the bill allow any new avenues for victims’ families to raise concerns about police inquiries. I have raised the specific question of the Emma Caldwell inquiry; if a family had some concerns about the avenue being pursued by the police, there is not really a route for that. It is pretty clear that there is a lot of work to be done.
The introduction of the barred list is an important aspect of the bill. It seems like a lifetime ago that the Criminal Justice Committee examined the issue of the length of time that cases involving police officers take to come to court. The committee did a good job of trying to thrash out why that was the case. I had a good session with Lady Elish Angiolini about the issue, which I think is contained in the stage 1 report, and I hope we have come to a conclusion on it.
The criminal allegations against the police division in the Crown Office—known as CAAPD—which is responsible for the investigation of criminal complaints, has said that it expects to
“progress and conclude 75 per cent of the cases that are reported to us within six months”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 15 May 2024; c 42]
Let us see whether that happens.
Although we have introduced new provision to pursue officers after they have left the service, I fully supported Sharon Dowey’s important amendments to ensure that the timescale for doing so is not completely open ended.
I will not reiterate what I said earlier about the vetting provisions that apply to police officers and staff, but I emphasise the fact that we agreed in our stage 1 report to the chief constable having the power to dismiss officers and staff who do not maintain their vetting before we had sight of the detail of the vetting provisions. Who knows what view we might otherwise have taken of that power? Because the chief constable now has that power under the new vetting provisions, we need to be clear that there is balance and fairness in the system.
It is important that the Government accepted my amendment 17 on written reasons, because it will provide substantial fairness for police officers who think that they should get to know why their vetting has been refused. As I said when we considered the grouping on vetting, my only remaining concern relates to the fact that we need to be clear, in principle, that there should be a right of correction or appeal.
I took a lot from what the cabinet secretary said about the discussions that we expect to take place between the police organisations and representatives of the police unions and staff. I hope that, in those discussions, we can thrash out something that everyone feels is a fair conclusion.
16:59
I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens and to support the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. I thank everyone who has worked on the bill, including the committee members, clerks and researchers, those who have given valuable evidence, and the successive cabinet secretaries with whom I have had positive and fruitful conversations. I thank all the organisations and groups that have sent in briefings or with which I have had very helpful conversations over the course of the bill’s passage.
Most of all, I thank those people who have shared their personal stories so bravely and generously. Stephanie Bonner lost her first-born child—her son, Rhys—when he was only 19. That is more than enough grief for anyone to bear. However, the pain of his death was multiplied by the failure of Police Scotland to investigate it properly, the betrayal through the lies that she was told, the way in which her simplest questions were met with what she has described as a “wall of silence”, and the four years that it took just to get through the complaints process. Nothing that we do today can redress those wrongs. Her questions have never been answered. She does not even know where to lay her flowers.
What we can do, though, is to honour Rhys’s memory and Stephanie’s courage and compassion, for she does what few would be prepared to do: she speaks for not only herself but all who have experienced the pain and betrayal of police failures and the obstruction and intimidation that are used to defend the indefensible.
Others, including Magdalene Robertson and Bill Johnstone, have generously shared their own terrible experiences to help develop and scrutinise the work of the bill. We stand in gratitude, admiration and respect.
Our society, and the legislation that has been passed in this and other places, gives an extraordinary range and depth of power to its police officers. That power can be misused in the most horrific ways. The bill that is before us was instigated by the work of Lady Elish Angiolini. It represents one strand of response to the recommendations of her report on the police complaints system, which was published in 2020.
Between that report and the introduction of the bill, she was called on to chair another inquiry, which was into a crime that prompted grief and rage across the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. Sarah Everard was a young woman of 33 who was raped and murdered by an elite Metropolitan Police officer in an act of premeditated and deliberate femicide. She was murdered because she was a woman, because he was a misogynist predator, and because the recruitment, vetting and management processes that should have recognised his utter unsuitability for any position of power were broken or non-existent.
As Stephanie Bonner has been, Sarah Everard’s relatives have been heroic and selfless in their determination to bring about change—to shine a light on that culture of misogyny, those institutional failures and that lack of attention, foresight and care. Those failures are perhaps especially evident in the Metropolitan Police, but no force, including Police Scotland, is entirely free of them.
Not only misogyny but racism and other forms of discrimination are embedded deep in institutional cultures, attitudes and processes. That fact has been acknowledged at the highest levels. That is why I end by remembering Sheku Bayoh and reiterating my sorrow, sympathy and solidarity with his family as they endure their own long wait for answers and accountability.
The work that we do here, this afternoon, can bear fruit only if it is part of a wider endeavour of transforming our systems, challenging our institutions and making genuine, open and accessible justice a reality for us all.
17:04
I add my thanks to the committee and those who gave evidence. I also thank Lady Elish for laying the foundations for the important and necessary reforms that we are debating as part of the bill.
The vast majority of police officers conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and work tirelessly to keep people and communities across Scotland safe. They do so as the demands that are placed on them and the challenges that they face grow ever greater. Last month, at the Scottish Police Federation awards ceremony, I was privileged to witness the commitment, selflessness and bravery that are shown daily by officers around the country. That was truly humbling.
At the same time, to protect those in its service and those whom it serves, policing requires officers and staff to adopt the most stringent of ethics codes. Service in the force, while uniquely challenging, also provides a unique degree of power over fellow citizens. When that power is abused or misused, accountability and transparency must be paramount. Too often, however, that does not appear to be the case, and victims are often left feeling shut out from the complaints system. Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the bill and the efforts that have been made to provide a clear regulatory framework and more robust vetting procedures, to increase the scrutiny role of independent bodies and to strengthen the consequences of misconduct.
The Angiolini report emphasised the need for a proactive approach, as well as an open and frank debate on the state of Scottish policing. Let us not forget that there are 2,000 unresolved complaints against members of the police force, of which 1,200 are yet to be even allocated an investigation—a point that Douglas Ross made in relation to his amendment. I therefore welcome the approach of the justice secretary and the Criminal Justice Committee in consulting those with lived experience of the complaints system—both civilians and those on the police side.
I commend and congratulate Sharon Dowey and Katy Clark on the amendments that they have had accepted at stage 3 today. I also welcome Pauline McNeill’s moves to air a subject that needed to be debated around the vetting system. We accept the need for vetting, but there are genuine and reasonable misgivings about how it might be used inappropriately. The debate that we were able to have today was worth while, so I thank Pauline McNeill for allowing it to happen.
I echo Victim Support Scotland’s assessment that it is not enough simply to have in place procedures that deal reactively with those who violate the code of ethics or engage in misconduct. Periodic vetting procedures provide scope for proactive scrutiny and reflect the intentions of the Angiolini report in that regard.
I recognise the concerns that have been raised by the Scottish Police Federation and by ASPS in a meeting with me this morning. We will need to keep the issue under review. I welcome the reassurances and clarifications that the cabinet secretary has offered in response to the amendments. As she said, policing by consent demands that the highest ethical standards are upheld.
For the public to have trust, they must see and feel that systems are in place that are designed to protect them should they encounter misconduct. The points that Douglas Ross made in relation to his amendment indicate that there are still gaps, but the exchange with the cabinet secretary was very helpful. On the whole, I believe that the bill takes us much closer to that point, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of the bill at decision time.
We move to the open debate.
17:07
Although I am not speaking this afternoon in my capacity as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, I put on the record my thanks to my committee colleagues for their commitment to effective scrutiny of the bill and for lodging a range of constructive amendments, as well as my thanks to the cabinet secretary.
The Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill outlines a range of provisions, at the heart of which is ensuring strong and transparent processes to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct involving police officers and certain police staff. The vast majority of police officers and staff are absolutely dedicated and honest and they do an incredibly difficult job. A key objective of the bill is to ensure public trust and confidence that, when something goes wrong, a complaint will be taken seriously and dealt with in a timely manner. That came across loud and clear at stage 1, when the committee took evidence from members of the public who had made a complaint to Police Scotland or the PIRC, and from an officer who was the subject of a complaint. Much of their evidence demonstrated the profound impact that the shortfalls in complaints handling had had on them.
It is clear that, when the standard of behaviour of officers or staff falls short, there must be accountability. In that regard, I am pleased that the bill addresses the issue of enabling gross misconduct proceedings to continue or to commence when a person ceases to be a constable. I am pleased that that has developed further through stages 2 and 3.
Stage 2 saw a detailed debate on the bill’s provisions, including on the vetting code of practice, which was the subject of extensive amendments this afternoon. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s detailed rationale for the vetting code of practice. No one doubts the importance of a vetting process for officers and staff. However, the provision was a clear recommendation of the “HMICS Assurance review of vetting policy and procedures within Police Scotland.”
Concerns about today’s amendments were clearly set out by HMICS and Police Scotland in their respective correspondence to the Criminal Justice Committee on 9 January. As His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland set out in its report, vetting has historically been used to reduce corruption, with the focus being on the protection of police information and assets. For example, if intelligence is lost to serious and organised criminals, the harm to vulnerable people and the damage to public confidence and to the reputation of the police service can be considerable. It also undermines colleagues and the communities that they serve. Vetting policy is fundamental to reducing risk but, importantly, the application of a code of practice must be robust and effective.
I understand the spirit of amendment 28, which was lodged by Douglas Ross, in relation to the transparency of the process. Mr Ross set out his intention clearly, and I understand the shortcomings of the process. Should the amendment have been moved and agreed to, however, my concern would have been about the absence of consultation, which Mr Ross recognised, and the potential safety risks that are associated with the provision of personal information if it finds its way into the public domain. I am confident that that was not the intention of the amendment and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary responded to it in detail.
The bill provides a range of additional provisions that will allow greater scrutiny and transparency in the handling of complaints and allegations of misconduct. I urge members to support it at stage 3.
17:12
When I spoke in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I reiterated the point, which has been made today, that we police by consent in Scotland. We ought to cherish that value, which can never be taken for granted. We all expect the highest standards of everybody in our police service, but we know that, by some, that trust has been well and truly broken. Equally, I make the point that passing laws that were born from a virtuous desire to root out malpractice or to fix procedural failures should never be done in a way that undermines greater morale among serving officers, nor should any such legislation be used as a loophole to remove unwanted characters from the force in situations in which conduct is not the issue but personality is.
Calum Steele did not mince his words when criticising the bill in The Herald today. I do not necessarily agree with everything that he wrote in his article, but he made some pretty prickly points. The loss of public confidence in Police Scotland is, in his view, largely thanks to a
“lack of training and organisational negligence”.
In his view, a litany of leadership issues have created the perfect environment for declining standards in Police Scotland. That is compounded by the fact that officers with limited experience are now serving as mentors to their peers and new recruits. When I was on my party’s front bench as shadow justice secretary, I recall raising on numerous occasions the fact that a loss of expertise in the higher ranks of Police Scotland would lead to newer and far less experienced officers making judgments that others might not have made.
That must all be seen against the backdrop of the vastly changed role of police officers in Scotland today. They are tackling a mental health crisis and picking up the pieces when every other broken public service has closed its doors and gone home. The backdrop also includes crumbling police buildings and cars, a lack of kit, information technology and software systems that leave much to be desired and, in my view, clear clashes in direction between those at the top of policing and those on the ground who are doing the work. I have witnessed and heard anecdotally that a glacial “them and us” environment exists between the leadership and the rank and file, and equally between civilian and commissioned roles in Police Scotland. The bill will not fix any of that; it conveniently ignores those long-standing organisational failures in Police Scotland.
David Kennedy, the current secretary of the SPF, wrote to every MSP yesterday and raised more worrying points about the bill. His concerns that vetting could be used as a poor substitute for misconduct practices and as a blunt tool to dismiss officers via the back door have been well debated today. I will not dance on the head of the procedural pin, but such substantive amendment should not have occurred without proper consultation at stage 1. It is unsatisfactory.
The public deserve due and robust complaints procedures. Unfortunately, however, we are now faced with the conundrum of being asked to support a bill whose aims and ambitions are broadly welcomed by victims organisations, for which I have the greatest respect, but whose detail has been described as problematic and concerning by the body that represents front-line officers. That is far from ideal.
I have no doubt that there are bad eggs in policing—as there are in any large public body—so the beefing up of the misconduct rules is broadly welcome. I also believe that too many people have been let down in the face of very complex complaints procedures. That, too, must be fixed. For some people, trust in Police Scotland has been lost forever due to what they deem to be institutional cover-ups fuelled by colleague camaraderie or even misplaced loyalty.
I will therefore support the bill today but, in supporting it, let us never forget that it is always the tiniest minority of police officers who fall short of our high expectations. I want victims and the public to know that we take misconduct seriously, but I also want every serving police officer and civilian member of staff in Police Scotland to know that the Parliament has their backs, too. Striking that balance has never been easy and it will never be easy, but it must be done for all of our sakes.
We move to winding-up speeches.
17:17
In my opening speech, I spoke about some of the worst things that bad policing can lead to—about people lost to violent and early deaths and about families who hold, with their loving memories, clear visions for transformational change. Those are not random tragedies; they are deadly intersections of harm by individual officers with institutional, cultural and systemic patterns of prejudice, misogyny and intimidation.
That is why, to make effective change, our response must be threefold. First, it must address the individual, making sure that serious inquiry is made of all police officers and anyone who applies to join. That means scrupulous, robust and repeated vetting. I am grateful that the issue has been well discussed this afternoon, and I have no doubt that there will be on-going scrutiny of it and related issues in the coming months and years, because nothing that the police do is more important than ensuring that they are not the cause of serious harm.
Secondly, our response must address police culture, dismantling the “wall of silence” described by Stephanie Bonner and the toxic assumptions that enabled Wayne Couzens and others to abuse their power so horrifically. That requires a code of ethics that is not only disseminated but adhered to and internalised, with robust duties of candour and co-operation that are universally understood and enacted. I am sure that Sharon Dowey’s amendment will go some way to ensuring that.
Thirdly, our response must ensure that complaints are taken seriously and investigated properly, independently, swiftly and comprehensively with respect and humanity. That means having systems that are accessible, fair, trauma informed and appropriately transparent. Policing by consent, which has been discussed by the cabinet secretary, Liam McArthur and Jamie Greene, cannot mean mere public toleration but must mean active relationships of trust, communication and responsibility. That responsibility must include acknowledgement when mistakes are made and apologies to those who are harmed. In her evidence to the committee, Stephanie Bonner said:
“The system is absolutely designed to break you.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 April 2024, col 8.]
Presiding Officer, it is now time for healing. I reiterate Scottish Greens’ support for the bill. It is an important step in making Scotland’s policing more sensitive, just and accountable, but the bill alone, as many witnesses have testified, will not be enough. We need to change cultures and attitudes both within Police Scotland and in our wider society, and that will not be easy.
Can police officers maintain their camaraderie and concern for one another’s safety and welfare without the secrecy, impunity, prejudice and misogyny that too often accompany them? Can our media, our educators and we ourselves dare to shine a critical light on police institutions and activities while still recognising the good to which the vast majority of officers aspire? Can individual police officers speak out when their consciences require it, without being intimidated or ostracised?
As I suggested back in the stage 1 debate, if we were starting from scratch, we might create something very different from today’s police forces. However, this is what we have now, and it is the system with which we must engage. Reform will be an on-going and iterative process—sometimes painful and faltering—but our vision is clear. It is a vision of a future where policing is truly for the benefit of all, not only those of privilege; where wrong can be redressed; and where justice for all in Scotland is an active reality.
Members will wish to know that we have a little time in hand.
17:21
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We will support the bill today, although we have had significant concerns about it during the scrutiny process.
We recognise that the bill comes to us as a result of the Angiolini review, and we accept that some of the changes should be made. We believe, however, that there still needs to be significant cultural change in our police service and that the bill in itself is not going to deliver that. The police service itself accepts that it is institutionally sexist and racist, and the Sheku Bayoh and Ian Packer cases, for example, highlight some of those concerns. The bill is technical and far from transformational, and we believe that it fails to address some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised by the public about policing and about the handling of complaints. We therefore agree with Maggie Chapman that the bill is unlikely to address some of the significant issues that are raised in high-profile cases.
At stage 1, there were significant concerns about the adequacy of the financial memorandum, and we are pleased that those have been addressed. We were also concerned specifically, as Pauline McNeill said, that the amendments relating to vetting procedures were lodged late and were therefore not scrutinised by the committee. The Scottish Police Federation and Unison have raised concerns about some of the potential implications for police officers and civilian staff. Scottish Labour has been concerned about both the level of engagement with the unions and some of the concerns that they are raising.
As I have said before, I warmly welcome the additional resources that have been put into vetting by the Scottish Government as a result of high-profile cases such as that of Wayne Couzens. We recognise that there is a need for vetting to be strengthened, but, given the lack of scrutiny during the bill process and what the cabinet secretary has said today, I very much hope that it will be possible to have a cross-party consensus as we proceed with the changes.
There is real concern about how the legislation will be perceived in the employment space and that it will be used as a disciplinary procedure. I understand that the Scottish Government’s position is that the duty of candour relates to institutions and does not impact on the employment rights of individuals. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could put that on the record today, given the specific concerns that have been raised by Unison and the Scottish Police Federation.
The Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses who complained about their treatment by the police and about the police complaints process. It is fair to say that some of the evidence that the committee heard was shocking and harrowing. Both Fergus Ewing and Maggie Chapman have spoken today about specific cases. However, it is far from clear that the bill that we are discussing will make any difference to the experience of such witnesses.
We recognise the very difficult job that our police service performs and the significant risks that the police take daily. However, public institutions must behave with candour. We pay tribute to all the campaigners whose activity has led to this type of legislation being lodged across the UK, although we recognise that the bill falls short of what is required to address some of those injustices and breaches of trust. We look forward to continuing to work with members across the chamber on the issues, recognising that the bill, if passed, is unlikely to make the significant differences that we believe are required if we are to meet the challenges that have been put to us.
17:25
I have listened carefully to the stage 3 debate, having not been directly involved in the bill until shortly before the stage 3 consideration commenced. Since becoming an MSP, I have heard a number of members plead that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I fear that, by failing to seek perfection in the bill, which I think that we need to strive for when we are legislating, the Parliament risks settling for the bill being just about good enough. On the one hand, the bill is important and it will achieve important changes, as my colleague Sharon Dowey set out. That point was also reinforced by the persuasive submission that we received from Victim Support Scotland last night, which actively urged us to support the legislation.
The bill introduces changes such as the new code of ethics, which has been welcomed as a step in the right direction. Although the duty of candour has been welcomed, some stakeholders and members have questioned whether it will have a meaningful impact. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can allay those fears in her closing remarks when she answers the concerns of Unison and the SPF, as raised by Katy Clark. There are changes to the disciplinary processes to allow them to continue even after the cessation of engagement, and on the independent adjudication of senior officers, and there are significantly expanded powers for the PIRC.
During the consideration of amendments, I cited a constituency case of someone who made a complaint against the police 16 months ago but was told yesterday that the complaint has still not been allocated to someone to investigate it. Does the member agree that, if we are to have confidence in the system, Police Scotland needs to get an awful lot better at dealing with those complaints and resolving them, because complainants need answers?
That is a very important point, which goes towards what the bill will achieve. As I set out at the start, there are areas in which I think that the bill is far from ideal. Just this morning at the Criminal Justice Committee, the PIRC candidly admitted that it is unclear at this stage what the extent of the extra workload that it will be required to do will be. It acknowledged that it is running at full capacity already. Although it will, of course, do its best to meet all the objectives that are put on it, it will require adequate resource. At this stage, it is not in a position to say what additional costs the bill would impose. That is in a situation in which the PIRC has already said in its annual report that it is having to request additional funding for staff costs and temporary funding for legal fees.
Its uncertainty is understandable, given that, as Katy Clark highlighted, the financial memorandum’s projections for the bill from last summer were at least £4 million lower than was necessary in order to meet the obligations as they existed at the time. The Government admitted at the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it had failed to take account of inflation and pay rises, and that it was using scenarios and figures that related to September 2022—yet the bill was being discussed in 2024. Of course, we have a new financial memorandum that was published in November last year, which the Government will say is authoritative. However, a whole raft of new features and requirements have been added to the bill, such as vetting and other items that will be developed as a result of the bill. My general position of having little, if any, confidence in the Government’s financial projections has not changed.
Finally, like Pauline McNeill, I am deeply uncomfortable that something that is as important as vetting was introduced at stage 2, which means that it has not been subject to the usual call for views or consultation process. There is a wider point about how we legislate in the Parliament, which is for another day.
The fact is that we have heard in the past couple of days significant concerns from the SPF about those changes to the vetting process, as Jamie Greene flagged earlier. Those concerns worry me because, from listening to the amendment debates and reading the SPF’s concerns, I think that it seems more than possible that there is something to them.
As MSPs, we have done our best to amend the provisions, but will the amendments address the concerns? Will they head off the unintended consequences? It is difficult to say, because the provisions were introduced only at stage 2 and lack detail. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can in closing set out her response to the federation’s concerns and, I hope, allay them, because that is the issue.
Given all the good things that the bill will bring in, I will vote for it at decision time. However, as with so many bills emanating from the Scottish Government, it is far from perfect. I hope that the cabinet secretary will make the case that it is good enough for now.
17:30
I thank all members for their contributions and for the spirit of constructive co-operation that has, by and large, been evident throughout the journey of the bill, despite one or two feisty moments.
It is clear to me, from listening to the contributions of Maggie Chapman, Douglas Ross, Fergus Ewing and many others today and throughout the committee process, that they have been deeply affected and touched by the personal testimony of individuals and their families when matters have not been dealt with as they should have been. Members know the value of those who have lived experience of the complaints and misconduct system. That lived experience has been deeply informative to all our collective deliberations, not least in the journey of the bill.
In equal measure, it has also been apparent to me throughout the scrutiny of the bill that there has been a very deep desire to ensure fairness to our police officers. I pay tribute to Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, who, as a former police officer, embodies the determination to have exemplar public services, particularly in policing, where we must always strive for greater and better, as well as the determination to ensure fairness to front-line staff. I pay tribute to her scrupulous approach and to her fairness and her determination, on behalf of all members of the committee, not just to raise issues but to follow matters up. The committee as a whole will never just raise a concern as a one-off but will always see issues through. I have seen that with regard to this bill and other work that the committee has pursued—particularly the work in relation to policing and mental health.
I echo the comments of Ms Dowey and other members that we will all have to continue to work together, not least because there will be a massive amount of regulation to bring to the committee. I reiterate that, whether it is in relation to the issues raised by the PIRC on its new responsibilities, should the bill be passed, or the debate that we have had on vetting, there will be further consultation. That will happen at the Scottish police consultative forum, before regulations are brought to Parliament, or in the engagement that I have with individual organisations.
Our approach to improvement has been, first and foremost, to concentrate on Lady Elish Angiolini’s non-legislative recommendations, and then to focus on the bill to take forward the legislative requirements. We now have to get into the business of regulations. With all of that in mind, I reiterate my thanks to my Scottish Government officials.
Cabinet secretary, could you pause for a second? I am aware of several conversations taking place across the chamber, and I would be grateful if we focused on the cabinet secretary’s remarks.
I reiterate my thanks to the bill team and to officials from Government departments and policing bodies across the four home nations who have engaged with my officials to help form cross-border provisions, which the bill provides powers to enact. That includes officials from the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scotland Office and the College of Policing.
It is important to acknowledge the wealth of evidence that was submitted to the Criminal Justice Committee to help shape the bill, which came from organisations such as Amnesty International UK, Victim Support Scotland, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. Of course, I also thank again all those individuals with lived experience, police and stakeholders who have supported and informed the bill’s development.
I will not reiterate the stage 1 and stage 2 debates, but I will say two things briefly. First, if I had ignored the recommendation of HMICS and the Criminal Justice Committee to lodge an amendment on vetting, I think that I would have received criticism that was equal to the criticism that I received for lodging it. Nonetheless, the debate in and around the detail of the vetting provisions has been well motivated and will strengthen our engagement as we go forward.
On Katy Clark’s question about the organisational duty of candour, the individual duty of candour will apply only to those who hold the office of constable, while the organisational duty of candour will apply to those who are, in an indirect manner, under the control of the chief constable—that is, constables and police staff.
I will end with two quotes that capture what we are all endeavouring to achieve. Last year, when Lady Elish Angiolini gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, she said:
“the system in Scotland is possibly nearly as good as you can get it. It is always possible to improve the system, and to incorporate good ideas that could enhance it, but, generally, it is significantly better than it was when I started as a young fiscal depute.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 May 2024; c 11.]
Of course, our journey must continue. As Lady Elish wrote:
“Instant results are seldom possible and seldom sustained. Changing the culture is a long game but it is worth investing time, effort and resource now to lay solid foundations for a process of change that is absolutely essential.”
I commend the bill to Parliament, as it is another vital step forward.
Air adhart
Business Motion