Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—the position is as the cabinet secretary said. It is not about consulting every person who has had a complaint in the police system but about taking a group of those people, so that their voices can be heard. We heard evidence on that in the committee. Amendment 4 would ensure that a selection of people were consulted and that we heard their voices in the production of the code of conduct.

Amendment 12 seeks to define a time limit for misconduct proceedings being initiated against former constables. The amendment would mean that regulations would have to provide for a period after which the ability to take action against a former constable would cease to be available. The bill as drafted says only that such a time limit “may” be created. It is essential that proceedings against a former constable cannot be initiated indefinitely. I recognise the importance of being able to conduct proceedings against someone who has ceased to be a constable and that the provisions deal with an important issue, but a particular period must be set in which such proceedings can be initiated.

My amendment 13 proposes that the specific time limit is set at 12 months. That seems reasonable and reflects the suggestions in the Scottish Government’s policy memorandum.

Amendments 51, 14 and 52 set out criteria that would allow proceedings to commence outwith the time limit to ensure that proceedings could be initiated in appropriate circumstances. The criteria include a public interest test, circumstances in which the investigation leads to the person being placed on the barred list or the advisory list and circumstances in which the behaviour amounts to a criminal offence.

Amendment 13 is consequential to amendment 12 and would mean that a time “not exceeding one year” would be set in which proceedings against former constables could commence.

Amendment 51 relates to previous amendments. It would set a test for allowing proceedings to begin against someone more than a year after they had ceased to be a constable. The two criteria are a public interest test and if an officer, after being subject to an investigation, with unsatisfactory behaviour being proven, was put on the barred list or the advisory list. That would ensure that proceedings could, when appropriate, continue outside the set time period.

Like amendment 51, amendment 14 sets out a criterion that would allow proceedings to commence against someone who had ceased to be a constable. The criterion is that such proceedings would be in the public interest. The amendment would ensure that the proceedings could, when appropriate, continue outside the set time period.

Amendment 52 sets out a further exception to the time limit being followed for commencing proceedings against former constables. That exception is that, when the behaviour in question amounts to a criminal offence, proceedings can, when appropriate, continue outside the set time period.

Amendment 53 would add to the procedure for conducting misconduct proceedings against officers who left following allegations of misconduct. It seeks to ensure that a constable would be provided with notice that disciplinary proceedings against them would continue if they resigned during proceedings and that, if they did not engage, the proceedings would continue to a conclusion in their absence. The amendment addresses concerns about officers resigning and facing no investigation into their actions, so disciplinary proceedings would proceed and would come to a conclusion in their absence if they chose not to engage, although they would be kept informed of proceedings.

Amendment 54 relates to circumstances in which an officer was facing both disciplinary and criminal proceedings. First, it would mean that disciplinary proceedings could continue despite criminal proceedings also taking place. It would also mean that evidence and the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings would be kept private until the criminal proceedings had concluded. During our evidence, we heard criticism about delays to disciplinary processes. Amendment 54 seeks to tackle that problem. That would ensure that there were no unnecessary delays in conducting disciplinary proceedings and, subsequently, in dismissing an officer while criminal proceedings were on-going. The amendment would also mean that criminal proceedings were not impacted by the outcome of disciplinary procedures.

Amendment 6 adds to the provisions that would introduce a duty of candour to the Police Service of Scotland (Senior Officers) (Conduct) Regulations 2013. The amendment stipulates that officers who are suspected of committing a criminal offence would no longer be required to follow the duty of candour, which would give them the same rights as civilians. During our evidence sessions, various bodies raised concerns that the duty of candour conflicted with the right against self-incrimination. Notably, in England and Wales, the duty applies only when an officer has been identified as a witness and not a suspect. My amendments 6 and 9 address those concerns.

However, we will support the cabinet secretary’s amendments. The cabinet secretary has indicated that her amendments 7 and 10 address the intention behind my amendments, so we have the same aim. I do not intend to move amendments 6 and 9 at this stage.

Given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I will not move amendment 40, but I press amendment 39.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment 40 not moved.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.

After section 17

I will.

I agree with Russell Findlay’s comments, and I take on board all the cabinet secretary’s comments. It is a very sensitive subject. Amendment 41 was a response to comments about the stress and anxiety that officers felt when they were going through the misconduct process, which could have been a contributing factor that led to suicide. That is why we were looking to amend the bill. I appreciate that it is a sensitive subject and that we need to consider lots of other issues. We will probably want to come back to discuss the matter.

However, given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I will not press amendment 41.

Amendment 41, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 42 and 65 not moved.

Sections 18 to 20 agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment 47 moved—[Angela Constance].

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure that that is an issue that the cabinet secretary will comment on, but we have heard that constables against whom there is irrefutable evidence that they are guilty of a criminal offence continue to get paid in the police force. That provides no justice for victims, and it represents a cost to the police. The bill says that disciplinary procedures “may” be postponed to allow the criminal case to go first, but it does not say that the criminal case must proceed first. We need the cabinet secretary to clarify that.

My proposal would result in a cost saving for the police force, because it could dismiss someone sooner. In addition, the fact that the outcome of the disciplinary process would be kept private and would not be disclosed to anyone would mean that it should not have an impact on the criminal case.

Some of my amendments are probing amendments, and I would be happy to work with members to tighten them up.

In lodging my amendments, I have sought to address some of the many concerns that were raised in our evidence sessions. I want to tighten up the police’s procedures to make sure that the bill addresses some of the concerns that were raised. When we asked victims and survivors whether the bill would fix the problems that they had encountered, they said that it would not. I would be more than happy to tighten up my amendments. I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I am happy to speak to anybody in order to get my amendments pushed through at stage 3.

Amendment 55 seeks to add provisions on timescales in misconduct procedures. The amendment seeks to provide for regulations to be made that would include timescales for the completion of investigations into alleged unsatisfactory behaviour and the disciplinary process. During evidence sessions, we heard from people who had experienced the impact of delays in the complaints process. For example, we heard Stephanie Bonner’s account of the delays that she faced, which were unacceptable. Amendment 55 would go to the root of the problem by ensuring that clear time limits were identified.

Amendment 15 seeks to add to the bill a section relating to a power of the chief constable to dismiss constables on conduct or behaviour grounds. It would give the chief constable the power to dismiss any constable whose conduct failed to meet certain behaviour standards or the code of ethics.

Amendment 15 seeks to address the significant concerns about delays in the process. If an officer’s behaviour fulfils the criteria, the chief constable should be able to dismiss them without going through the process, where an outcome is inevitable. I mentioned the existence of irrefutable evidence.

Secondly, the amendment seeks to address the public concern about constables who have done significant wrongs but have been kept on, on full pay, while their case has been investigated. Recently, we heard about a constable who was arrested in August 2021 and who, despite being suspended, received full pay until he quit the force earlier this year. He was sentenced to prison for his conduct.

Amendment 58 is like amendment 15 in that it would give the chief constable the power to dismiss a constable for their behaviour. The amendment would give the chief constable the power to dismiss an officer with or without notice when the chief constable considers the officer’s behaviour to be unacceptable. That relates to the officer’s compliance with behaviour standards or the code of ethics. Similarly to amendment 15, amendment 58 addresses concerns about delays in process. Under the amendment, the chief constable would have to give written reasons for the dismissal and prepare and publish guidance on the use of the power.

Amendment 26 relates to the right of appeal to a police tribunal. The bill, as drafted, allows only a senior officer to do that. Amendment 26 would also allow constables to do so. Currently, the bill limits the right of appeal to senior officers. Any constable is allowed to appeal to a police tribunal against a decision to dismiss them or to demote them in rank. However, section 8 gives only senior officers the additional right to appeal against a decision to take disciplinary action short of dismissal or demotion due to their conduct. That right should be extended to all constables.

Amendment 27 has the same effect as amendment 26. Amendment 28 is consequential to amendments 26 and 27 and relates to the meaning of “a constable” in relation to the right to appeal at a tribunal. Amendment 29 has the same effect as amendment 28.

Amendment 30 concerns the circumstances in which a constable can be suspended from duty pending investigation. The amendment would mean that regulations for automatic suspension from the role of constable would apply only where the investigation relates to gross misconduct or a criminal offence or, in other words, an allegation that would lead to their dismissal. The amendment is needed to clarify in the legislation the reasons why automatic suspension can apply.

Amendment 31 deals with the notification to constables of misconduct proceedings against them. The amendment would require regulations to be made that would require constables to be notified as soon as an investigation into their standard of behaviour has commenced. The amendment would ensure that constables who are subject to misconduct proceedings are kept informed of the proceedings against them.

Amendment 32 concerns how disciplinary provisions relate to a constable during a criminal investigation. The amendment seeks to clarify that the procedures in the proposed new section apply to constables when they are subject to criminal investigations and proceedings. The amendment would ensure clarity.

Those amendments seek to address a number of concerns that were raised during evidence sessions to do with officers resigning and no further action being taken; the lack of timescales for conducting and completing misconduct complaints and investigations; the chief constable’s inability to dismiss a constable where there is irrefutable evidence of guilt; and constables being suspended without being informed of the reason why.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated that the Government will support amendments 12 to 14, 18, 20 and 22 to 24. The Government has agreed to work on amendment 53 for stage 3, so I will not move it today. The Government has also indicated that it will support amendment 17 if amendment 21 is not moved, and I will not move amendment 21. My other amendments were lodged with the best intentions of improving the bill. I agree that some could be defined more for stage 3, and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments on them.

I move amendment 12.

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