Seòmar agus comataidhean

Strangely enough, I agree, but that is for a debate on independence.

The proposed new UK legislation would massively expand the powers of the Scotland Office. It was started by the Conservatives but, of course, Labour is just following happily in their footsteps, like a puppy. Does it matter? Of course it does. Policies on domestic issues such as poverty are made here in Scotland, for Scotland, by the Scottish people. Perhaps we should all repeat the mantra that power devolved is power retained. We are watching this happen before our very eyes. There is not even an attempt by any UK Government—Tory or Labour—to hide it.

I will finish with a quote from Tony Blair, because we seem to be seeing Blair policies again.

Certainly—I am delighted to do so, although I do hope that it is worth while.

Heavens, I seem to have stirred a bit of interest. I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie.

I beg your pardon.

Does the member therefore consider it, to put it very—[Interruption.]

This is from just before when the Scottish Parliament was established. He explained:

“I don’t see what the problem is. We will not raise the basic or top rate of income tax. That is our commitment here in Scotland as much as it is our commitment in England and that will remain ... The Scottish Labour Party is not planning to raise income tax and once the power is given it is like any parish council, it’s got the right to exercise it”.

He said what he really thought of the proposed Scottish Parliament. A “parish council” seems to be the route that Labour is taking. That is what it really thinks of us. We must remember that what the UK says it gives, it can take away.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I apologise to Daniel Johnson and to the other members in the chamber for my incompetence in handling my phone. I am very sorry—I genuinely am.

You caught me on the hop.

I thank Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion, the subject of which seems, on the surface, to be esoteric, in legalese and, true to Gibson form, very lengthy. However, I say to Mr Kerr that it is significant, not meaningless.

By way of background, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Green Party rejected the UK Internal Market Act 2020 in the House of Commons, and it received the largest Government defeat in the House of Lords since 1999.

The UK Government did not seek legislative consent from the devolved legislatures, and the Scottish Parliament debated and voted on a motion to refuse consent, which, again, was supported by the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish National Party.

Although the 2020 act has had a far-reaching effect on the devolved Administrations, there was no discussion or agreement with them. I say to Mr Kerr, who is looking for dispute resolution, that the key to that is mutual consent, respect and partnership—none of which happened in all of those years under the Conservative Government.

What does the 2020 act do? It is best to give some examples, which are all connected to the sale and price of certain goods in Scotland, such as the banning of fireworks, vapes, rodent glue traps and animal snares, and matters that relate to safety and animal welfare—policy issues that are reserved to this Parliament. Much though we might have wanted to ban the sale of glue traps or snares, even if there were a unanimous vote by this Parliament, a ban on their sale could not be introduced unless the UK Government mandated it. The way around that would be for us to ban their use, which would make it pretty pointless to sell or buy them, but that should not be necessary. Fortunately, England has banned the use of glue traps. Indeed, the rules on sales and pricing could have impacted on alcohol minimum unit pricing but, as my colleague Kenneth Gibson has already said, that measure was already in force and predated the 2020 act and, therefore, is exempted.

Anything that could be deemed by the UK to cause a barrier—and I will stick to trade—within the UK would fall foul of the legislation, such as price differentials. That would be the case even if, for the best of reasons, Scotland wanted those price differentials. The 2020 act is an example of the UK policing devolution, and I do not think that it is by accident.

When a devolved policy has the backing of this democratically elected Parliament, if it affects sales or prices—either upwards or downwards—compared with England, why should that policy require the affirmative nod from the UK or even be blocked? It is an erosion of devolution.

As well as the internal market’s penetration into devolved areas, there is the reallocation of funds that previously came directly to the Scottish Government from the EU and are now allocated directly by the UK Government to communities, which bypasses our devolved responsibilities—Michael Gove labelled that as “levelling up”. That is bad enough, but it is compounded by the fact that Scotland voted by 62 per cent to remain and, therefore, clearly rejected Brexit. There was a face-saving announcement that those funds would be dispersed in partnership, but there was no partnership and there is still none. There is no new respect for devolution.

For example, the restrictions on winter fuel payments were announced and imposed without so much as a phone call to the Scottish or Welsh Governments. Under Labour, the Scottish Office, under the stewardship of Ian Murray, has its own funds for investment. The figure is £150 million, and, according to the oracle for Labour, the Sunday Mail,

“Labour is set to change the law within months to allow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray to bypass Holyrood and directly fund anti-poverty schemes.”

Incidentally, he could have passed that over to the Scottish Government to allow all pensioners to access the winter fuel payment, but of course he did not.

The proposed new UK legislation—

Unfortunately, Mr Kerr, you are an expert in bleating, and that intervention was not very worth while.

I beg your pardon.

Mr Kerr bleats regularly, and that just bypasses me, thankfully—rather as funding on devolved issues bypasses the Scottish Parliament.

Of course poverty is important. Incidentally, we would not be so poor if we had not had so many years of the Tory Government and its austerity, which is now continued by Labour. However, that is another matter.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green) rose—

I, too, congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee on its report. At this stage of the debate, much has been said, so I apologise in advance for revisiting points that have already been made.

Let me preface my speech by stating clearly, as others have done—I think that we all endorse this view—that the overwhelming majority of police officers carry out their vast range of duties professionally and ethically. Those duties range from dealing with theft, attending road traffic accidents, carrying out drug investigations, helping folk with mental health issues, dealing with disputes between neighbours, dealing with domestic abuse and social disorder to investigating murders. The circumstances can vary as much as the incidents that I have identified. Police officers might simply need to be gently helpful, they might need to deal with someone who is confused or they might have to deal with threats to their life by a mob or an individual—they have to be ready for practically anything.

That is in a society in which regard for the police is not as it was in the days—here I will show my age; everyone over 70 will understand this—of the fictional “Dixon of Dock Green” or even the more recent but still distant “Z-Cars”. These days, respect for those in any position of authority has to be earned, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Thankfully, in this democracy, police also police by consent. Therefore, trust in the police must prevail, and that is most tested when policing goes wrong.

In every organisation, there will be bad eggs, and the police force is no exception. Who suffers from bad policing? It is the public and, of course, the individual, but it is also every other police officer.

On the Police Scotland website, there are currently directions on how to complain. For example, there are headings such as “What is a complaint?” and “Investigating your complaint”. There is an explanation of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the criminal allegations against the police division, which is part of the Crown Office.

What if someone is unhappy about their complaint? What happens to it? The Police Scotland website says:

“If the reasons for your complaint are clear and we see it’s a minor, non-criminal complaint, we will record it. An officer from our Professional Standards Department will contact you to discuss the details of your complaint.

It may be that we can resolve your complaint quickly by providing information or explanation.

If we need to look at your complaint in more detail, our Professional Standards team will record it and contact you to explain the next steps. Your complaint may be allocated to an investigator to carry out further enquiry.

If you make a complaint direct to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC), they will direct you back to Police Scotland. We will then follow the same process as if you had contacted us directly.”

As Dame Elish Angiolini conceded, the system was reasonably good already, but there was room for improvement. One of the major parts of the bill that will strengthen the system is that an offending officer will not be able to escape discipline and punitive measures simply by retiring and, therefore, avoiding the outcome of a finding of gross misconduct. That practice is too often used as an escape route, and it is totally indefensible. The bill will also create barred and advisory lists to stop people who do not meet the high standards that are expected of police officers from gaining employment in policing anywhere in the UK.

I will conclude this brief contribution by referring to my experience as an MSP in my dealings with the police. In the vast majority of cases, we worked as a team, often in the interests of a vulnerable constituent, but—however rarely—I have experienced slipshod policing, as has been referenced by previous speakers. In those cases, only the use of what pressure I could bring to bear ensured that my constituents’ concerns were appropriately addressed. That should not have been necessary. However, I repeat that my contact over 25 years has been overwhelmingly positive.

I welcome the fact that the bill will weed out those who fail to meet the high standards that are rightly required of our police service, make those who are found guilty of gross misconduct pay the price for that, and strengthen the PIRC to ensure public confidence in the whole complaints procedure—by which I mean either complaints by the public against the police or complaints by police against fellow officers. However, there is one important issue. We must ensure that the balance is struck between fairness to the complainer and fairness to those who are subject to a complaint. That is crucial.