Hansard

In my opening speech, I spoke about some of the worst things that bad policing can lead to—about people lost to violent and early deaths and about families who hold, with their loving memories, clear visions for transformational change. Those are not random tragedies; they are deadly intersections of harm by individual officers with institutional, cultural and systemic patterns of prejudice, misogyny and intimidation.

That is why, to make effective change, our response must be threefold. First, it must address the individual, making sure that serious inquiry is made of all police officers and anyone who applies to join. That means scrupulous, robust and repeated vetting. I am grateful that the issue has been well discussed this afternoon, and I have no doubt that there will be on-going scrutiny of it and related issues in the coming months and years, because nothing that the police do is more important than ensuring that they are not the cause of serious harm.

Secondly, our response must address police culture, dismantling the “wall of silence” described by Stephanie Bonner and the toxic assumptions that enabled Wayne Couzens and others to abuse their power so horrifically. That requires a code of ethics that is not only disseminated but adhered to and internalised, with robust duties of candour and co-operation that are universally understood and enacted. I am sure that Sharon Dowey’s amendment will go some way to ensuring that.

Thirdly, our response must ensure that complaints are taken seriously and investigated properly, independently, swiftly and comprehensively with respect and humanity. That means having systems that are accessible, fair, trauma informed and appropriately transparent. Policing by consent, which has been discussed by the cabinet secretary, Liam McArthur and Jamie Greene, cannot mean mere public toleration but must mean active relationships of trust, communication and responsibility. That responsibility must include acknowledgement when mistakes are made and apologies to those who are harmed. In her evidence to the committee, Stephanie Bonner said:

“The system is absolutely designed to break you.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 April 2024, col 8.]

Presiding Officer, it is now time for healing. I reiterate Scottish Greens’ support for the bill. It is an important step in making Scotland’s policing more sensitive, just and accountable, but the bill alone, as many witnesses have testified, will not be enough. We need to change cultures and attitudes both within Police Scotland and in our wider society, and that will not be easy.

Can police officers maintain their camaraderie and concern for one another’s safety and welfare without the secrecy, impunity, prejudice and misogyny that too often accompany them? Can our media, our educators and we ourselves dare to shine a critical light on police institutions and activities while still recognising the good to which the vast majority of officers aspire? Can individual police officers speak out when their consciences require it, without being intimidated or ostracised?

As I suggested back in the stage 1 debate, if we were starting from scratch, we might create something very different from today’s police forces. However, this is what we have now, and it is the system with which we must engage. Reform will be an on-going and iterative process—sometimes painful and faltering—but our vision is clear. It is a vision of a future where policing is truly for the benefit of all, not only those of privilege; where wrong can be redressed; and where justice for all in Scotland is an active reality.