Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice 2 Committee, 07 Mar 2006

07 Mar 2006 · S2 · Justice 2 Committee

Item of business

Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Baillie, Jackie Lab Dumbarton Watch on SPTV

I hope that members realise that I will not spend too long speaking to amendments 135 to 147 because they are consequential on amendment 134. I agree absolutely with the need for an independent body to consider police complaints. I acknowledge that there is a genuine desire in the Executive to adopt an almost rights-based, transparent approach to complaints, irrespective of the institution. However, there is a danger that we are about to create more institutional clutter, which, from the point of view of common sense, we want to avoid. I shall deal with the concerns that have prompted amendment 134. There is a general concern throughout the Parliament about the way in which the number of commissioners seems to have mushroomed and the fact that, to all intents and purposes, commissioners lack accountability. There are proposals elsewhere to examine and review the number of commissioners. However, there is a specific concern about the overlap between the proposed independent police complaints commissioner and the Scottish public services ombudsman. The committee took evidence on that at stage 1 and I returned to the subject during the stage 1 debate in the chamber. I shall highlight three specific areas for the minister. First, the police are already within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. The ombudsman can investigate a complaint of maladministration or service failure; there is therefore clear duplication. I know that it is suggested that there will be protocols between a variety of agencies and the proposed commissioner. I simply note that such protocols probably already exist between those agencies and the ombudsman. We are in danger of recreating something that we already have. The second area is the procedures that cover civilian staff who are employed by the police. They are not officers and are subject to a separate disciplinary procedure—their circumstances are more like those of staff who are already covered by the ombudsman. Thirdly, in these days of efficient government, organisations that have similar back-office and service functions have opportunities to share. We created the Scottish public services ombudsman in 2002 because—quite rightly—we wanted an open, accountable and easily understood complaints system, which, most importantly, had the trust of the Scottish public. We merged four ombudsmen to create a one-stop shop, which means that it is clear to people where they can complain—they are not faced with institutional clutter and there is no confusion. The tragedy is that we seem to have forgotten that sensible approach and are creating more commissioners to deal with complaints. Our partnership agreement commits us to having an independent police complaints commissioner. Amendment 134 does exactly that. We should not reinvent something that we already have. The clarity of having a one-stop shop for complaints—the Scottish public services ombudsman—was right in 2002 and it is right now. That approach is efficient and would deliver an independent police complaints commission in Scotland. I move amendment 134.