Hansard

Scottish Labour welcomes the opportunity to discuss the main provisions in the bill and how we can ensure the highest standards of conduct in the police service, but we are clear that the Government must resolve the issues around the financial memorandum.

It is important that victims and families are given more robust accountability, but it is unclear whether the bill will change much for ordinary people and for members of the public who have been dissatisfied when they have complained about the police service. The cabinet secretary talked about “faster resolution” and more “independent scrutiny”. The bill must be able to demonstrate that that will be the case if we are to vote for it at stage 3.

The bill creates a new duty of candour. Clearly, the vast majority of police officers already adhere to the principles that are contained in a duty of candour. The Government said in its response to the stage 1 report that the aim is

“to bring about measurable change.”

It went on:

“Most tangibly, the duty is to become a standard of professional behaviour for police constables. This means that if constables fail without any good reason to evidence candour, they could be subject to disciplinary proceedings”.

I do not think that we have previously used the word “candour” in legislation, so we must be absolutely clear on what it means and what the implications are. The stage 1 report specifically noted that the duty of candour applies to

“circumstances that happen off duty.”

In its response to the stage 1 report, Police Scotland asked for care to be taken when asking officers to adhere to a duty of candour when they are off duty, because of the possible impact on their private lives. I have sympathy with that position. Police Scotland said:

“Extending a Duty of Candour into off-duty circumstances could have potential Article 8 ECHR implications in relation to officer rights and impact on their private ... lives, where they may be expected to provide candour in relation to a matter which may have significant and disproportionate implications, not only on them ... but also on the lives of a family member.”

That issue needs further discussion, as it has been raised by Police Scotland. I would like more clarity on what the measure means in practice. For example, does the Government expect more conduct hearings as a result of adopting that phrase in legislation when the new duty comes into force?

I want to talk about the proposal for accelerated disciplinary hearings that has been proposed by Police Scotland. Conduct hearings are often incredibly lengthy. Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs told the committee that Police Scotland has

“an officer who is probably three years into their suspension”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 May 2024; c 42.]

David Kennedy from the Scottish Police Federation noted that

“the timeline is supposed to be 35 days from start to finish”

but

“The vast majority are probably 365 days or more”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 May 2024; c 40.]

We can see that an incredible amount of work needs to be done on that.

The stage 1 report notes that DCC Speirs described the conduct regulations as

“not fit for purpose”

and said that there is an

“inability to fast-track a process”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 May 2024; c 42.]

It seems reasonable that there should be an amendment to expedite conduct hearings, as has been asked for. Certainly, when an officer does not accept the charge of misconduct, those proceedings should follow to allow the officer to rebut the charges. However, in instances where the charge is already accepted, there does not seem to be any reason why the process should not be expedited.

I want to talk about gross misconduct proceedings. We should be clear that, when we talk about gross misconduct, that is quite a separate matter from misconduct. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary on that point, and she interchangeably used the terms “misconduct” and “gross misconduct”. That is important, because the term “gross misconduct” usually implies a more serious matter than “misconduct”. I think that the committee members would all agree that some of the terminology in the bill has been hard to follow. We are sometimes talking about senior ranks and sometimes about all ranks, and sometimes we are talking about misconduct and sometimes about gross misconduct.

The 12-month timescale within which gross misconduct proceedings can be commenced is not in the bill. As the stage 1 report states, the cabinet secretary confirmed that that

“is not a hard and fast statutory requirement”,

and that it would be for the commissioner

“to make a judgment on public interest and fairness”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 May 2024; c 20.]

That would be based on all the facts and circumstances. I think that some of those caveats should be written into the bill, because we require certainty when we are creating something new.

The Government’s response says that, if proceedings are commenced within the time period, they can

“continue until conclusion, however long that takes.”

I do not find that satisfactory. Whether or not a month is the right time period, I think that there should be a time period for completion of proceedings.

The committee wrestled with quite a number of structural changes that would result in more independent scrutiny. For example, the PIRC has been given a greater role in misconduct proceedings for senior officers. In fact, the PIRC does not agree with all the recommendations, which is also a cause for concern, because if a body is being asked to take on more responsibility, we would hope that the body would be happy and content to do that.

Following the stage 1 report, Scottish Labour said that we would not vote for the general principles of the bill unless the question of finances were resolved. We will take in good faith the fact that, since the report was published, the Government has clarified that it is not possible to amend the financial memorandum at stage 1 but that it will take that issue on at stage 2.

As Russell Findlay has also said, we will listen carefully. It is really not satisfactory to make substantial changes to a bill if it will cost money to make those changes but the Government is not prepared to provide the money that is required. If we do not get a guarantee of that, Scottish Labour will not vote for the bill at stage 3. Let us hope that we can make progress at stage 2.

In her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary said that she would also look at recommendations from HMICS at stage 2. I hope that she will forgive me if I should know what those recommendations are but, as I said, I am struggling with all the acronyms and recommendations. It would be helpful if, in summing up, she could say exactly what those recommendations are so that we can have some advance warning of what we might be facing at stage 2.