Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2015
Section 1 of the bill is about the power of a constable and section 2 is about exercise of that power, which has been a key part of what we have discussed in the course of looking at the bill.
If I noted him correctly, the cabinet secretary talked about the complicated mixture of statutory and common law that the bill will address. One power that I fear may have been lost of those that surround stop and search is the power of discretion—indeed, there is a suggestion that discretion is not being exercised at all.
Some additional powers are being given. I was happy to support amendments 6 and 8 on transport of individuals and sports grounds respectively. I supported them because they were proportionate and have put searches on a statutory basis. I am very pleased that a code of practice will be put in place, and I am happy that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner will be included in the list of people who will be consulted on that. That is important, because PIRC is one of the organisations that deal with complaints that arise from misuse of the powers. I hope that there will not be any such complaints.
Members have referred to the work of John Scott QC and his committee. The cabinet secretary described his report as “thorough and balanced”; I concur with that view. I also concur with my colleague Alison McInnes’s comments on Kath Murray’s excellent work. When I met Mr Scott, I was aware of the tensions that remain in the police service regarding uncertainty among junior officers. Those officers have used so-called—I still struggle with the term—consensual non-statutory stop and search. Lots of members have commented on the powers that constables have; they have common-law powers and statutory powers, but I was not aware that they have non-statutory consensual powers. That is the challenge. I acknowledge what Alex Salmond said, but there have always been common-law search powers. We should recognise that having everything on a more formal basis is perhaps the way ahead.
When I met Mr Scott, we talked about human rights. I am delighted that, as a result of an amendment that I lodged when we considered the bill that introduced the single police service, human rights is now part of the police oath. Mr Scott said—I think that he said it in his report; I hope that I quote him correctly—that police officers are the front-line defenders of the public’s human rights. That is important; the police should defend human rights with pride. It is also very important that the police recognise the power that they have to impact on individuals’ rights.
We have talked in the debate about the rights of children and young people. I share the disappointment that the advice of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has not been taken on board.
I welcome some of the changes that have been made, particularly on supervisory oversight and the important decisions that are made about individuals’ liberty. Police Scotland will, of course, have its standard operating procedures, which I hope will accurately reflect the intent of the bill. The change regarding access to a lawyer is a very important development.
There is a lot to be said, but in the few minutes that I have left I want to quote the policy objectives, which say that the bill contains the
“next stage of essential reforms to the Scottish criminal justice system to enhance efficiency and bring the appropriate balance to the justice system so that rights are protected whilst ensuring effective access to justice for victims of crime.”
If we get individuals’ rights and victims’ rights correct, we will be doing no bad.