Hansard

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We will support the bill today, although we have had significant concerns about it during the scrutiny process.

We recognise that the bill comes to us as a result of the Angiolini review, and we accept that some of the changes should be made. We believe, however, that there still needs to be significant cultural change in our police service and that the bill in itself is not going to deliver that. The police service itself accepts that it is institutionally sexist and racist, and the Sheku Bayoh and Ian Packer cases, for example, highlight some of those concerns. The bill is technical and far from transformational, and we believe that it fails to address some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised by the public about policing and about the handling of complaints. We therefore agree with Maggie Chapman that the bill is unlikely to address some of the significant issues that are raised in high-profile cases.

At stage 1, there were significant concerns about the adequacy of the financial memorandum, and we are pleased that those have been addressed. We were also concerned specifically, as Pauline McNeill said, that the amendments relating to vetting procedures were lodged late and were therefore not scrutinised by the committee. The Scottish Police Federation and Unison have raised concerns about some of the potential implications for police officers and civilian staff. Scottish Labour has been concerned about both the level of engagement with the unions and some of the concerns that they are raising.

As I have said before, I warmly welcome the additional resources that have been put into vetting by the Scottish Government as a result of high-profile cases such as that of Wayne Couzens. We recognise that there is a need for vetting to be strengthened, but, given the lack of scrutiny during the bill process and what the cabinet secretary has said today, I very much hope that it will be possible to have a cross-party consensus as we proceed with the changes.

There is real concern about how the legislation will be perceived in the employment space and that it will be used as a disciplinary procedure. I understand that the Scottish Government’s position is that the duty of candour relates to institutions and does not impact on the employment rights of individuals. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could put that on the record today, given the specific concerns that have been raised by Unison and the Scottish Police Federation.

The Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses who complained about their treatment by the police and about the police complaints process. It is fair to say that some of the evidence that the committee heard was shocking and harrowing. Both Fergus Ewing and Maggie Chapman have spoken today about specific cases. However, it is far from clear that the bill that we are discussing will make any difference to the experience of such witnesses.

We recognise the very difficult job that our police service performs and the significant risks that the police take daily. However, public institutions must behave with candour. We pay tribute to all the campaigners whose activity has led to this type of legislation being lodged across the UK, although we recognise that the bill falls short of what is required to address some of those injustices and breaches of trust. We look forward to continuing to work with members across the chamber on the issues, recognising that the bill, if passed, is unlikely to make the significant differences that we believe are required if we are to meet the challenges that have been put to us.