Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 60 and 61 are connected. They seek to do something very similar but in different ways. I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to why I think that they are necessary and to hear whether, if the amendments are not practical, there might be a way of achieving at a later stage a practical agreement on the issue that they address.

Amendment 60 has come about via representation from HMICS, which has already influenced some of today’s proceedings. The amendment seeks to create an offence whereby an officer or member of police staff can face a charge of committing misconduct in public office. That would bring Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom; in other parts of the UK, officers can face the charge of committing misconduct in public office if they abuse their position, but that offence does not exist in legislation in Scotland.

Some examples have been cited of officers committing wrongdoing in England and Wales, one of which involved taking photographs of a murder victim and sharing them on WhatsApp groups. As it stands, it seems that legislation in Scotland would not allow for criminal prosecution for misconduct in public office in that example. Amendment 60 would plug a gap and bring consistency.

Amendment 61 is a gentler way of getting to that point. Instead of legislating for the offence, my amendment 61 would require ministers to publish a report on police misconduct in public office

“no later than one year after the date of Royal Assent”.

The bill’s team in Parliament were kind enough to advise me of amendment 60’s potential legal difficulties and to suggest that amendment 61 might be a way in which the statutory offence could be introduced, after ministers have given consideration to introducing it and outlined the steps that they might take.

In an ideal world, amendment 60 would be the way to introduce an offence of misconduct in public office. However, amendment 61 might be a way for the Government at least to go away for a year after the legislation has been passed and consider whether the measure ought to be brought into play.

I move amendment 60.

I have a funny feeling that the cabinet secretary is going to agree with you.

Thank you very much. There is no cake, I see, but that is fine. [Laughter.]

I have learned a lot in this committee over the past three and a half years, and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to work with you all. It just shows that we can forget party allegiances sometimes and work for the common good.

I cannot thank the committee without thanking the clerks, who, as we all know, run the show. Thank you very much.

I apologise for that procedural hiccup.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the lack of discretion in respect of the Crown Office. However, there have been approximately 350 deaths in prisons in Scotland over the past decade and in none of those cases were the families’ views a factor in whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry, because it is a statutory requirement.

Furthermore, in respect of the line of argument that the cabinet secretary put forward about the airing of sensitive information, my understanding is that a sheriff who presides over a fatal accident inquiry has mechanisms to put in place reporting restrictions in respect of any information that is deemed to be sensitive, so that it is not put in the public domain.

I understand the problem with amendment 41, because it does not differentiate between a tragic officer suicide, when misconduct has absolutely not been a factor, and cases in which misconduct might well have been a factor. It is a bit of a blunt instrument.

I wonder whether there might be a way of working with the Government to lodge an amendment whereby, if the Crown’s initial investigation of the circumstances found that there was the possibility of police misconduct, or if regulation issues were perhaps a factor in the death, that would trigger the requirement for a fatal accident inquiry. There has been a failure of the SPA and Police Scotland to look properly at the circumstances of deaths that we know about. That would be a way of plugging that gap and righting that wrong.

I understand the problem with amendment 65, because it talks about a mandatory FAI for all deaths and does not differentiate deaths in which misconduct issues might have been a contributing factor. I would be happy not to move my amendments if my concerns could be addressed through a change to either amendment 65 or amendment 41 and an acceptable version of what I have proposed could be found that would seek to respectfully and sensitively address what I believe is a big gap in the current system. I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s position.

The cabinet secretary made an appeal for common sense, which is good news, because I am big on common sense. I heard everything that she had to say. I was not aware that there is an offence of wilful neglect of duty by a public official in Scotland that is in some ways comparable.

In the spirit of common sense, therefore, I am minded not to press amendment 60 and not to move amendment 61. I would be interested to hear what HMICS might have to say about what we have put in the amendments and how the cabinet secretary has responded. That might give us scope to look at the issue again at stage 3.

Amendment 60 is clearly wholly impractical. Amendment 61 has its own issues, but at least it is food for thought and it gives us something to consider. The last thing that I want to do is create a two-tier process in which police officers are being held to a particular standard that we as politicians are not, so I will not be pressing the amendments.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 61 not moved.

I do not doubt that the cabinet secretary is acting in good faith—not for a minute would I suggest otherwise—and I do have some sympathy with her position given that HMICS has come up with this reasonably late in the day. I have a couple of stage 2 amendments that are borne out of the representations of HMICS, but the difference is that they relate to existing procedures and structures, whereas a lot of what is proposed by these amendments on vetting will be done by way of regulation after the event, which is quite far reaching and significant.

I have genuinely seen enough cases of good police officers who have done nothing wrong and who have become whistleblowers under the legal definition of the word finding themselves subject to disciplinary proceedings that have, in some cases, destroyed their careers, health and finances. It would be irresponsible to push forward with these amendments without really knowing what their impact will be.

I have heard that the cabinet secretary does not want to press pause, but I think that it would be sensible to do so. We could look at the issue once we have had the benefit in the forthcoming weeks of the federation and others laying out in clear and articulate terms—rather than my trying to represent the position on the hoof with a week’s notice—why they believe that it is of concern. At that point, the Government could lodge stage 3 amendments, in all likelihood with the support of all parties.

Could I make a quick point?

I understand that amendment 62 may potentially seem to be out of place in the bill, but we have been told by the Scottish Government, the SPA and Police Scotland that Scotland’s police officers are finally about to start being required to wear body-worn cameras as standard. It has been a slow process, but the pilot scheme has begun. The last that we heard from the chief constable was that, while the roll-out had been delayed, it was—apparently—still going to happen.

The amendment’s purpose relates to the understanding that, when body-worn cameras do become commonly used, they will in all likelihood have a significant impact on the matters that the bill deals with—namely, police misconduct and regulation. Amendment 62 would request that

“Ministers ... prepare and publish a report on the”

value of

“body-worn cameras in ... enforcing standards of”

constables’ behaviour. For all that body-worn cameras will in the main—I imagine—be used in the pursuit of dealing with criminality by the public and as evidence in that regard, they may, in other cases, potentially be used to deal with police misbehaviour or other matters that relate to the bill.

Amendment 62 would ask the Government to publish a report within one year of the bill receiving royal assent or of the conclusion of Police Scotland’s body-worn cameras pilot—whichever of those dates was the earliest.

It has been said that body-worn cameras

“will transform policing in Scotland”.

My amendment seeks to future proof matters slightly in anticipation of body-worn cameras coming into use by legislating at least for assessing, in some way, how significant they may or may not be in respect of police misconduct cases.

I move amendment 62.

I share the cabinet secretary’s view about the importance of body-worn cameras. It is worth repeating that Police Scotland, which is the second-largest force in the UK, is the only police force in the UK not to have them. Every one of the 40-plus other police forces has not only had them for many years but is on to second and, in some cases, third-generation technology. There has been a complete failing, in my view.

I agree that there will be a fundamental role for Police Scotland, the SPA and, indeed, HMICS in assessing body-worn cameras, as and when they are in use. On the basis of the reasons that have been given, I will seek to withdraw amendment 62.

Amendment 62, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

Section 11—Complaint handling reviews

Although I have withdrawn or not moved most of my amendments today, I am minded to put amendment 66 to a vote, if necessary. Angiolini made a large number of recommendations, most of which were non-legislative and, on the face of it, relatively minor, but her recommendation that the PIRC should be accountable to Parliament is fundamental to the job that she was tasked with—that of looking at the entire picture. She saw the current arrangement as a weakness.

It is worth putting on the record the fact that the PIRC would still be accountable to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on criminal matters. My proposal relates entirely to operational matters relating to non-criminal issues. It simply seems like a bit of sensible housekeeping. I have not been persuaded by the arguments against what I propose. There are some practical issues, but they could readily be overcome if the Government was so minded. I will therefore put the matter to a vote.