Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 41, by agreement, withdrawn.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].

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.

Yes.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendments 13 and 51 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendments 52 and 53 not moved.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

After section 6

Amendments 54 to 56, 15 and 58 not moved.

Amendment 39 concerns reviews that the commissioner can undertake into a practice or policy. It will ensure that, before commencing such a review, the commissioner has to consult HMICS. The intention of the amendment is to avoid the duplication of work and to ensure that bodies work co-operatively to streamline the complaints process.

Amendment 40 adds to amendment 39. It would require the commissioner to assist HMICS with any work that is related to such a review. The intention of the amendment is, again, to avoid duplication of work and ensure that bodies work co-operatively to streamline the complaints process. That is a role that sits with HMICS. The cabinet secretary has indicated that she will support amendment 39. I ask her to consider working on amendment 40 to bring it back at stage 3. I look forward to her comments.

I move amendment 39.

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.

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

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

I will not press amendment 16.

Amendment 16, by agreement, withdrawn.

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

Amendments 19 and 59 not moved.

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

Amendment 21 not moved.

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

Amendment 25 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Procedures for misconduct: senior officers

Amendments 26 to 29 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

After section 8

Amendments 30 to 32 not moved.

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

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

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

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

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

I move amendment 33.

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

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

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

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

I ask members to support amendments 41 and 42.

I move amendment 41.