Hansard

I start by thanking the Criminal Justice Committee for its work on the bill and for the thorough report that it has produced. Although the committee has backed the bill, it has expressed concerns about whether the reform that it seeks will make sufficient improvement to the police complaints system, the culture within policing and the confidence of the public about police complaints being dealt with effectively.

Concerns need to be addressed as the bill progresses, so this afternoon’s debate is an opportunity to focus on where improvements can be made.

Other members will talk more about the approach of the police or about their legal understanding of the bill, but I will focus my remarks on what it seeks to do to improve the experience of victims and the public more generally.

The bill needs to be looked at in the wider context of work to improve the police complaints and conduct systems, but that also means that we need to consider the environment in which the legislation will operate. We need to consider the system as it stands, public opinion of the service and the experiences of those who have gone through the processes that have been in place up to this point.

Before I move on to the committee’s report and recommendations, I will speak briefly about Sheku Bayoh, who died in police custody in 2015. After more than nine years since his death, the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding it is on-going, and his family and friends are still seeking answers about what happened, as they continue to cope with the impact of their loss. They were not treated well immediately after Sheku’s death, and experienced a lack of information and engagement during a time of trauma and distress, which unfortunately continued as investigations went on. Through the process, his family lost faith and confidence in the police investigation and in the ability of the PIRC. It is with their experience in mind that I have read the committee’s report and its recommendations.

It has been recognised and endorsed across the chamber that the vast majority of police officers and staff are honest and hardworking in what can be very challenging roles, but it is also true that there has been unacceptable conduct and behaviour from a minority within the service. When it comes to the oversight role of the SPA, there needs to be confidence that, when such behaviours occur, robust measures are in place to deal with them. The committee heard evidence of unacceptable practice in Police Scotland, but why such practice was not identified and addressed by the SPA, and what is changing to ensure that others will not have the same experience, are not clear.

The public need to have confidence that the culture in policing is being addressed. Since the Angiolini review, steps have been taken to improve police complaints and conduct, and the bill is one aspect of that. However, as the report states, it is hard to have a definitive view on what stage of progress things are at or on whether the provisions in the bill will sufficiently improve the experience for the police or the public.

The duty of candour needs to be more than a symbolic gesture. There is a perception, which is expressed in the report, that the police have each other’s backs, and that there is a working environment in which it is difficult to admit mistakes or to call out inappropriate behaviour. We need to think about how the duty will do more than the existing requirements to address that. That underlines why the legislation has to sit within a broader cultural shift. Without tackling that, it is difficult to see what will change.

I welcome the fact that the evidence highlights work such as Police Scotland’s policing together programme, which recognises the need to enable a more open environment that allows for early intervention. I recognise that the Angiolini review called, as part of the conduct regulations, for a duty of co-operation that would apply if officers were called as witnesses. However, the Scottish Government has said that that would not be free-standing. In line with the committee’s call, I would like further information on why that will not be introduced, particularly in the light of the evidence from the PIRC in support of it.

I will touch on some of the other aspects of the bill that could have positive impacts for the public. In allegations of misconduct where a police officer resigns or retires during investigations, a case has to be made for those processes to be concluded. We need to consider the public expectation that, in instances of gross misconduct, a conclusion has to be reached.

The committee noted broad agreement in the creation of a Scottish police advisory list and a Scottish police barred list, which would bring consistency with other forces and improve vetting. Publishing the barred list, but allowing only relevant organisations to have access to the advisory list, as is the case in England and Wales, could provide some reassurance in terms of protection and accountability for the public.

The committee was not able to agree on whether gross misconduct hearings should be held in public. It has called on the Scottish Government to set out the case for that. Lady Elish Angiolini is in favour of those hearings being held in public and pointed to the importance of transparency around any abuse of power, as well as to similarities in other professional proceedings. I accept that concerns about privacy have been raised, but there should also be safeguards in place. We should remember that we are talking about cases of gross misconduct. If we are serious about improving transparency and assuring the public, an approach of that kind could help.

Finally, on complaint handling reviews, the bill would allow the PIRC to carry out a review without a request by the complainer, Police Scotland or the SPA, if that were in the public interest, and it could make recommendations to which the SPA and the police would be required to respond.

We know that some victims’ experiences of the PIRC have not been positive. The committee heard evidence of a lack of transparency from the PIRC when it comes to reporting the outcomes of reviews, including in relation to the time that has been taken and understanding the decisions that have been reached. In considering the bill at this stage, we must ensure that there is transparency around both that process and the publication of information. Making everyone concerned aware of any relevant review, and of whether the outcome will be made public, would be welcome steps.