Committee
Criminal Justice Committee 02 October 2024
02 Oct 2024 · S6 · Criminal Justice Committee
Item of business
Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I am extremely concerned about these amendments. The bill was published on 6 June, and here we are, 12 weeks later, considering a load of amendments from the Scottish Government that fundamentally broaden the scope of the legislation. 09:45 These amendments were published only a week ago today, and the proposed changes are so broad that they have required the Government to change the introductory text of the bill. Based on the evidence that we have heard, these are not small, tinkering amendments. This morning, I spoke with David Kennedy, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, and he shares our concerns. He described the amendments as “deeply concerning and frankly dangerous”, and he believes that they “risk the creation of a fundamentally unfair system”. The amendments would allow the chief constable to dismiss an officer for failing vetting. On the face of it, that might sound reasonable, but there appears to be no definition of what that vetting would look like; that would be decided only by way of regulation after the legislation is passed. The committee has not taken any evidence on these amendments, and there has been no consultation with any witnesses, including from the SPF. I know that the cabinet secretary said that the SPF would be consulted after the event, but there is no real requirement for its position to be heard. If we accepted the amendments, we would, therefore, in effect be giving the Government carte blanche to come up with a system that could be fundamentally unfair. The SPF’s other concern, which I share, is that vetting regulations that could lead to whistleblowers being targeted could be introduced by way of these amendments. Police officers, as whistleblowers, could have legitimate points to raise, and a decision could be taken to weaponise the regulations against them. I have seen that happen in the past with police officers, some of whom have given evidence to this committee. They had done nothing wrong, but having attempted to draw attention to wrongdoing, they felt the full force of the police regulations being used against them. I urge the cabinet secretary, therefore, to press pause on these amendments today, and to give the committee and interested parties, including the SPF, time to submit a formal response to them. That would be sensible and reasonable, given that we have had just a week in which to consider them. If the cabinet secretary insists on pressing or moving the amendments today, I would urge all committee members to vote against them at this stage. That would allow us to revisit the proposals at stage 3 in a measured and sensible way.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Audrey Nicoll)
SNP
Good morning, and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies. Our main item of business is consideration of...
The Convener
SNP
The first group of amendments is on the code of ethics. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 48, 2, 49, 3, 4 and 50.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs (Angela Constance)
SNP
Good morning. I will first speak to amendments 1 and 2, which will add further sources that the chief constable must refer to when preparing the code. That f...
Katy Clark (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I will support the Government’s and Sharon Dowey’s amendments, if they are pressed to a vote. I do not intend to press my amendments 48 and 49 to a vote toda...
Sharon Dowey (South Scotland) (Con)
Con
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 th...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lab
I seek clarification on the cabinet secretary’s position on Katy Clark’s amendments. The Government’s amendment 1 seeks to adopt, for example, the European c...
Sharon Dowey
Con
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 gro...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
Right. I know that that will be for discussion between you and the cabinet secretary but, when the revised amendment is being framed, I would like it to be c...
The Convener
SNP
I will bring in the cabinet secretary, and Sharon Dowey can come back in if she wants to add anything.
Angela Constance
SNP
I reiterate that I am more than happy to work with Katy Clark and Sharon Dowey in advance of stage 3. On the concerns about the phrase “lesser obligation”, ...
The Convener
SNP
As no other member wants to come in, do you want to add anything else in winding up?
Angela Constance
SNP
No, thank you. I think that I have done my winding up. Amendment 1 agreed to. Amendment 48 not moved. Amendment 2 moved—Angela Constance—and agreed to. ...
The Convener
SNP
We move to group 2, on duty on candour. Amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 6 to 11.
Angela Constance
SNP
Amendments 5, 8 and 11 relate to the individual duty of candour inserted into the standards of professional behaviour and the organisational duty added to th...
Sharon Dowey
Con
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...
Katy Clark
Lab
I support the Scottish Government’s intention to attempt to strengthen and codify the duty of candour. The duty of candour for public officials is a live iss...
The Convener
SNP
There was quite a lot in there. I will bring in Pauline McNeill, before the cabinet secretary responds. 09:30
Pauline McNeill
Lab
Thank you. I am in the same position as Katy Clark, in that I think that the amendments in this group are really important, regardless of how they have been...
The Convener
SNP
If no other members wish to come in, I will bring in the cabinet secretary to wind up.
Angela Constance
SNP
On the types of offences related to misusing public office, there is a live discussion across the UK right now, for various reasons that cut across the Hills...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
There were quite a few points that you did not cover there. The one that I am keen to understand relates to the language around “reasonable assertion”.
Angela Constance
SNP
There are complicated questions in relation to application and scope, so I will probably require a bit of consultation with legal officials and will come bac...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
To be fair, I did not expect you to answer that. It is just that we are going to vote on the matter shortly, so I want to be sure about what “reasonable asse...
Angela Constance
SNP
I do not have anything to add to or subtract from what I have said. Amendment 5 agreed to. Amendment 6 not moved. Amendments 7 and 8 moved—Angela Constanc...
The Convener
SNP
The next group is on the vetting of constables and police staff. Amendment 43, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 44 to 47.
Angela Constance
SNP
The amendments in group 3 respond directly to the recommendation that was made by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland to ensure that there...
Russell Findlay (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
I am extremely concerned about these amendments. The bill was published on 6 June, and here we are, 12 weeks later, considering a load of amendments from the...
Pauline McNeill
Lab
Like Russell Findlay, I have heard similar concerns. Cabinet secretary, you opened by saying that the committee had asked for these changes, but that is not...
Katy Clark
Lab
I am very sympathetic to what the Scottish Government is trying to do. It is clear that we need to strengthen the vetting processes that existed historically...
Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
SNP
It is clear that vetting procedures need to be strengthened, and that is what the amendments are trying to do. Going back to Russell Findlay’s comments, I a...