Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Criminal Justice Committee 24 April 2024

24 Apr 2024 · S6 · Criminal Justice Committee

Item of business

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Margaret Gribbon Watch on SPTV

Ideally, we would have something that is further removed. I have heard the evidence from some of the previous committee witnesses about their perceptions of the PIRC, in that it is staffed by a lot of ex-police officers. I do not think that that in itself is a reason to bar them, because I believe that experience in the context of complaints handling, and those talents and skills, can be tapped into. That leads me quite nicely on to section 8. Section 8 will move the responsibility for determining senior officers’ misconduct proceedings from the SPA to an independent panel, so there will be no role for the PIRC there. Therefore, the process will be completely independent, and I understand that it will be introduced through secondary legislation. That is to be welcomed, and it follows on from the Angiolini review’s recommendation that the SPA should have no substantive role in senior officer misconduct proceedings. That makes sense, because those senior officers are rubbing shoulders with the senior management team at the SPA, who are the people who would be responsible for disciplining them if complaints were made against them. However, the Angiolini review also recommended that a similar independent panel should be constituted for gross misconduct hearings for non-senior ranks, but the bill does not address that. The reason why she recommended that is that she took the view that all panels must be seen to have an impartial process. The legislation falls short on that, because it does not act on the review’s recommendations in relation to independent panels for all gross misconduct hearings for all ranks. The Scottish Government’s policy memorandum for the bill says that its rationale for that decision is that the issue of proximity bias does not apply to non-senior officers. I accept that it does not apply to them to the same extent as it does to senior officers. However, the review recommendations in that respect did not stem only from concerns about proximity bias. Angiolini stated that her recommendation would have resource implications and, at paragraph 12.61 on page 192 of her report, she said: “However, those costs would relate only to a relatively small number of gross misconduct hearings in any given year and are outweighed by the benefits of increased independence, transparency and public confidence.” Let us go back to the objectives of this bill, which are “to ensure that there are robust, clear and transparent mechanisms in place” for investigating complaints and allegations of misconduct against police officers. The bill does not do that. Section 8, which would apply to a tiny number of police officers, has the exact same limitations as section 5. However, we know that the vast majority of complaints are made against those who are in the ranks of ACC and below—mainly in constable ranks.

Search Hansard contributions

Criminal Justice Committee 24 April 2024

In the same item of business