Hansard

The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill today, believing that it will improve the complaints process for members of the public and for police officers. I acknowledge that there are still some concerns about certain elements, not least from the Scottish Police Federation, and it is important that we all work with the federation in future to ensure that those can be resolved in the best way possible.

There appears to be widespread agreement that the current system fails both victims and the police. That is why we have worked hard on the bill, successfully lodging a number of amendments to ensure that it is as fair and robust as it possibly can be. There is no shortage of examples of people who have been let down by the system, and I am sure that we will hear about many of those during the debate. It is worth remembering, however, that the bill aims to protect police officers to the same extent.

Every single day, both as a regional MSP and in my work in a justice-related portfolio, I see the sheer selflessness of police officers as they go about their work of keeping us safe. When they go to work each day, they have absolutely no idea what they are going to face, or indeed any guarantee of returning home safely at the end of their shift. Often, they arrive at an incident and are forced to deal with a whole series of events over which they have little control. They have no opportunity to deal with, and no responsibility for, the minutes or hours leading up to an incident, or with the weeks, months and years of chaos in someone’s life that leave them requiring the intervention of the law.

Police officers are sometimes themselves victims of vexatious complaints, often by some of the very worst people in society. When that happens, as unions repeatedly point out, they are guilty until proven innocent. That can mean being suspended or put on restricted duties—something that can be hugely damaging to an officer’s career, confidence, self-esteem and mental health. With policing numbers being as low as they are, and with officers increasingly being called to incidents that are arguably outside their remit, society can hardly afford to have innocent, hard-working policemen and policewomen being forced off duty for no good reason.

I have huge sympathy for the Scottish Police Federation and the concerns that it has raised around vetting and the harm done to officers when they are incorrectly accused of wrongdoing. That said, as the SPF said on a number of occasions, the police rank and file are merely a reflection of our society. In a 16,000-plus workforce, which replenishes regularly over time, it would be foolish to assume that every employee is perfect. Therefore, we must make sure that when misconduct occurs, it is dealt with swiftly and to the satisfaction of the complainer. I know that police officers are as keen as anyone for that to happen.

The bill is a very important piece of legislation that has involved good co-operation between all parties involved. It has not fallen victim to party politics or to petty point-scoring exchanges, and everyone can see the good motivation behind it.

It is crucial that we ensure that we pass good law in the Scottish Parliament, and that when legislation is introduced, those who are tasked with enforcing it are sufficiently resourced to do so. I hope that the Scottish Government works with Police Scotland to ensure that the finances are right, especially during a phase in which the senior leadership of Police Scotland is regularly forced to raise concern about resources, financial planning and the long-term security of the force.

On a personal level, I was pleased to secure five amendments to the bill at stage 3, which I will briefly summarise for the record.

The first is that the PIRC will immediately notify a complainer when it decides to conduct a complaint handling review, which is a straightforward requirement that will improve their experience within the process.

The next is that the chief constable must make appropriate changes in the light of the code of ethics as soon as possible. After all, what use is it if it sits on a shelf without ever being implemented?

Another amendment ensures that disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought against an officer more than a year after they have resigned or retired. That will ensure that stale proceedings cannot be pursued after an unreasonable amount of time has passed. That amendment will not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought in relation to historical allegations.

It is also important that officers are fully aware of the situation, and they should not be allowed to resign simply because they think that doing so will get them off the hook. Another amendment provides that a police officer must be informed at the earliest opportunity, if such a situation arises, that leaving the force does not safeguard them in the event of proceedings being launched.

The final amendment provides that, when the chief constable is preparing a code of ethics, they must ensure that, among the many groups and organisations that are likely to be consulted, people who have made complaints in the past are included. Lived experience in such cases will be essential.

There are considerable concerns around the vetting amendments that came in at stage 2, not least because no evidence was taken on them. That is not a good way to make law, and the committee was split on whether the approach should proceed. The fear that vetting could be used as an excuse to dismiss officers rather than purely to address misconduct is entirely legitimate. There are many good points in the bill, but those specific concerns must be placed on the record.

I will be pleased to vote for the bill. I fully believe that it will be of benefit to the public and the hard-working police officers who sacrifice so much to keep the streets of Scotland safe.