Hansard

I am pleased that Jackie Baillie has recognised the need to deliver an independent police complaints commissioner. A commissioner would be able to satisfy the public that complaints against the police were being investigated not just thoroughly, but independently. It is important that that is done, but we may have a difference of opinion about how best to do it. I acknowledge some of Jackie Baillie's arguments, and I cannot disagree with her about some of the historical work that has been done, such as the creation of the one-stop shop—the Scottish public services ombudsman—and the attempts to avoid confusion that have been made. We have seen the benefits of having a focused ombudsman's function and office. Jackie Baillie raised the issue of opportunities to share common functions and resources, where appropriate, and I give her my assurance that we will look to see whether those opportunities can be taken up.I suppose that the difference of emphasis between our approach and Jackie Baillie's is to do not so much with the sharing of some of the general work, which could easily be done, but with who is publicly seen to be the person who is best placed to take complaints forward. Jackie Baillie makes a valid point about the need to avoid having too many organisations and too much clutter. Whatever we do, there is a need in relation to police complaints on which we must focus, as the issue is a bit different from that of some of the run-of-the-mill complaints. Jackie Baillie is right to draw a distinction between police officers and civilians. Police officers, individually and collectively, have to exercise a wide range of significant powers. We have discussed some of the situations that police officers can become involved in, and members can imagine some of the grounds for complaint that could be used by aggrieved individuals. We also need to reflect on the fact that, in any walk of life, there are a huge number of complaints and grievances that are sometimes overlooked and dismissed too casually when there is a need to address and redress a fundamental wrong that has occurred. Equally, we need to reflect on the fact that, from time to time, there are those who use complaints as a malicious way of getting their own back and do not care about the consequences of making such complaints. There is a question of balance in everything that we do. Police go into sensitive situations—sometimes confrontational ones involving drugs, alcohol, people with specific illnesses and so on—in which objectivity and rational discourse are not necessarily the order of the day, and we know the problems that can flow from those situations. Therefore, in the course of their work, the police are probably more often in situations in which complaints can be generated than most people are. While it is right that we address some of the legitimate complaints that are often made about police officers, we do not want to create victims in the police service simply because we have not given due thought to how the complaints procedure would work.The other difference between the police and other agencies is that most of the investigations that are undertaken by police officers are criminal in nature, and they need to be investigated meticulously and sensitively. A wide range of complaints are made against the police. Some involve criminality, some involve malpractice and some relate to manner, demeanour and things that are said. I am sure that we could all recite complaints that have been made, from the relatively trivial to the extremely serious. They can range from someone not answering their telephone quickly enough to allegations of corruption or physical abuse. Between the trivial and the extremely serious lie lots of issues relating to incivility, rudeness, insensitive handling of victims and so on.The Scottish public services ombudsman's role relates to maladministration, which is significantly different from the types of complaint that I have suggested could be made about the police. If we were to follow through with what Jackie Baillie proposes, we would have to address technical issues. Agreeing to amendment 134 would have significant implications for the bill, which would have to be fundamentally changed.We would all need to get our heads round the change in the ombudsman's role from investigating maladministration to considering specific complaints. We would have to consider the organisation and culture of the ombudsman's office and ensure protection within that body that would enable maladministration to be examined without crossing into the area of specific complaints. That is why we have gone for a separate complaints procedure. We are not talking about maladministration, because complaints about maladministration can still be made about the organisation's performance; we are talking about complaints about police officers. Our view is that establishing an independent police complaints commissioner is the right thing to do. As Jackie Baillie indicated, there is now an expectation that there will be a body that can independently investigate police complaints.I suppose the other difference is that the proposed independent police complaints commissioner will report to ministers, whereas the ombudsman reports to Parliament—that is a fundamental difference in accounting procedures. That does not mean that one approach is right and the other is wrong; it simply means that there is a difference in approach.These issues were not specifically raised when we consulted on the bill last year, although I appreciate that Jackie Baillie is introducing a new dimension. It would have been interesting to see the response, had her proposal been consulted on more widely. Her amendments, as constructed, would require significant work to be done to bring police complaints fully within the ombudsman's remit because, unintentionally or otherwise, not adopting the bill's definition of a "relevant complaint" would have the effect of limiting the ombudsman's role to complaints related to service failure or maladministration. I do not think that that is what Jackie Baillie is proposing. Further issues would arise because the amendments would not give the ombudsman the jurisdiction to consider all non-criminal police complaints.We could have a situation in which no one would consider complaints that were not related to service failure or maladministration. I acknowledge that some of those matters might need to be dealt with by way of consequential tidying up. Jackie Baillie's amendments would significantly change the bill and it would be naive to believe that we could fundamentally change a bill with a couple of amendments without thinking everything through, which is what we would need to do.We also worry that amendment 134 does not appear to give the ombudsman a role in ensuring that police organisations have appropriate procedures in place for handling complaints, which is an important part of the proposed commissioner's intended functions. Finally, Jackie Baillie's amendments do not provide for the ombudsman to report to ministers and for ministers to require the ombudsman to investigate in certain circumstances, which we regard as a strength of the current provisions.I hope that the Executive's amendment 131 ensures that the roles and responsibilities are clear and effective. We are attempting to do two things. First, we want to add the proposed police complaints commissioner to the list of bodies over which the ombudsman will have jurisdiction, which would enable the ombudsman to consider complaints against the new body of maladministration or service failure. That will enhance consistency with broader public policy and, I hope, go some way towards establishing a one-stop approach in which people will know where to go to have maladministration investigated. Secondly, the amendment amends the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to ensure that it is clear that the proposed commissioner is the only body with responsibility for non-criminal complaints that are made against the police. We are introducing a degree of clarity. This relatively small but important amendment to the 2002 act removes the relevant references to joint police boards.We think that we are taking the right approach. Further changes to the 2002 act would probably be needed if we adopted Jackie Baillie's approach. I know exactly what she is saying and why she is saying it, but I am not sure that changes to the 2002 act are all that is required—other changes would also be required. Whatever we do, the Parliament should deliver what we have promised to the public. If someone wishes to make a complaint against a serving member of a Scottish police force, they should know where to go and be assured that their complaint will be dealt with professionally and independently. What we have suggested would achieve that by having one body that does that work, separating out complaints from maladministration. That is the best way forward. There is huge agreement between Jackie Baillie and me on what we want to achieve, although we disagree on how best to achieve it. In terms of simplicity and process, what we propose can achieve that. Nevertheless, I recognise the will of the committee and the Parliament and, if further changes are made, we will need to do further consequential work.