Hansard

Although I am not speaking this afternoon in my capacity as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, I put on the record my thanks to my committee colleagues for their commitment to effective scrutiny of the bill and for lodging a range of constructive amendments, as well as my thanks to the cabinet secretary.

The Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill outlines a range of provisions, at the heart of which is ensuring strong and transparent processes to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct involving police officers and certain police staff. The vast majority of police officers and staff are absolutely dedicated and honest and they do an incredibly difficult job. A key objective of the bill is to ensure public trust and confidence that, when something goes wrong, a complaint will be taken seriously and dealt with in a timely manner. That came across loud and clear at stage 1, when the committee took evidence from members of the public who had made a complaint to Police Scotland or the PIRC, and from an officer who was the subject of a complaint. Much of their evidence demonstrated the profound impact that the shortfalls in complaints handling had had on them.

It is clear that, when the standard of behaviour of officers or staff falls short, there must be accountability. In that regard, I am pleased that the bill addresses the issue of enabling gross misconduct proceedings to continue or to commence when a person ceases to be a constable. I am pleased that that has developed further through stages 2 and 3.

Stage 2 saw a detailed debate on the bill’s provisions, including on the vetting code of practice, which was the subject of extensive amendments this afternoon. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s detailed rationale for the vetting code of practice. No one doubts the importance of a vetting process for officers and staff. However, the provision was a clear recommendation of the “HMICS Assurance review of vetting policy and procedures within Police Scotland.”

Concerns about today’s amendments were clearly set out by HMICS and Police Scotland in their respective correspondence to the Criminal Justice Committee on 9 January. As His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland set out in its report, vetting has historically been used to reduce corruption, with the focus being on the protection of police information and assets. For example, if intelligence is lost to serious and organised criminals, the harm to vulnerable people and the damage to public confidence and to the reputation of the police service can be considerable. It also undermines colleagues and the communities that they serve. Vetting policy is fundamental to reducing risk but, importantly, the application of a code of practice must be robust and effective.

I understand the spirit of amendment 28, which was lodged by Douglas Ross, in relation to the transparency of the process. Mr Ross set out his intention clearly, and I understand the shortcomings of the process. Should the amendment have been moved and agreed to, however, my concern would have been about the absence of consultation, which Mr Ross recognised, and the potential safety risks that are associated with the provision of personal information if it finds its way into the public domain. I am confident that that was not the intention of the amendment and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary responded to it in detail.

The bill provides a range of additional provisions that will allow greater scrutiny and transparency in the handling of complaints and allegations of misconduct. I urge members to support it at stage 3.