Meeting of the Parliament 10 September 2024
It is a pleasure to follow Ben Macpherson, and I echo his comments about the move from a voluntary code to a statutory code.
I will use the relatively short time that I have to discuss three aspects of the bill. Before doing so, I, like other members, thank the committee for its phenomenal work and for the full report that it has published, and I also thank the Scottish Government for its response to that report.
I start with a discussion about ethics. Much of the bill is about ethics, as was much of the evidence that the committee heard. The issue of ethics—what we mean by it and the fact that it underpins what normal conduct is and enables us to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour—is important.
Much of this afternoon’s debate has revolved around the effect of those ethics sinking into the police force and those who work for it. However, the reason for having those ethics is to underpin public security, and the public’s belief and confidence in the police. They complete the foundation on which our approach to policing in this country is built: policing by consent.
Even though the bill is mostly about ethics—it is about other matters, too—it is right to remember the public. It is only by the police showing a higher ethical standard than others that continued confidence in them—and, indeed, a rebuilding of confidence in the police on the part of some of the elements of our communities—will occur.
The intentions behind the bill are truly welcome. It is right that we have a robust, transparent statutory process for the investigation of misconduct and complaints, and that we uphold the very high standards that are expected of Scotland’s police officers and Scottish police staff. A significant majority of existing police officers and those who serve in the Scottish police already adhere to those standards. We should celebrate that good practice; no one should fear an ethics-based police force.
Ben Macpherson mentioned the existing code of ethics for the police. The bill seeks to put that code on a statutory footing. One question that I would like to ask the Government is about the envisaged five-year review. Will that be a five-year review of the first code—elements of which are based on a code that goes back many decades—or is the Scottish Government envisaging reviewing the code over a much shorter period, to show that it represents the policing by consent that our communities want? I would find it useful if the cabinet secretary could comment on that.
The second issue that I want to turn to is the duty of candour, which is contained in section 3. There is no definition of candour in the bill. I think that most people would define it as being open and honest and telling the truth. However, it is quite difficult to do that sometimes because of events that have happened to the individual or, indeed, to their colleagues.
One challenge that I am glad that the Government has tried to deal with through the bill is to open up the relationship between police officers at different levels in various roles and staff in the police service, to allow that duty of candour to come through, and to enable them to tell the truth in difficult circumstances.
I note—the cabinet secretary has confirmed this—that the individual duty applies to the office of constable and the organisational duty will apply to the chief constable. I intervened earlier because we already have a duty of candour defined in Scotland—the national health service duty of candour—and I want to know whether the Scottish Government has considered whether having a similar statutory definition for the police would be of assistance, particularly in relation to the chief constable element. I draw attention to Scottish statutory instrument 2018/57, the Duty of Candour Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2018, which sets that out. Would that be an appropriate vehicle that should be considered on the issue?
The final issue that I will deal with is one that a number of members across the chamber and, indeed, the committee have referred to: the financial memorandum. There seems to have been not a misunderstanding but a disagreement, perhaps, about the role that financial memorandums play, and when and how they play that role. Standing orders clearly set out that the financial memorandum that should accompany the bill must give the best estimate of the timescales over which costs, savings and changes to revenue would be expected to arise. Subsequent to that, unless there are substantial changes in the bill, a further financial memorandum would not be needed.
However, in this case, as with a number of recent bills, there was a substantial difference between the bill that was envisaged and the proposals that came forward even before the stage 1 debate. There is a heavy onus on the Scottish Government to ensure that the financial consequences of a bill are calculated more accurately. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary, when speaking to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on Tuesday 7 May, recognised that there was perhaps a shortfall in this case and that the bill being presented to the committee was substantially different from the one that was originally envisaged when the first financial memorandum was written. As a Parliament, we should look at that issue.
As members across the board have done, I very much welcome the bill, with reservations, and we will see how it develops through our discussions and arguments.