Hansard

I, too, thank the committee clerks for the incredible work that they do on our behalf.

Scotland’s police officers are true heroes. They serve the public with great care, professionalism and integrity. Their shift patterns are tough on work-life balance and the hours are long, and their job is often dangerous and thankless. I was pleased to attend last year’s Scottish Police Federation awards, which showcased officers’ life-saving bravery and commitment to their communities. Yesterday, we were able to remember and recognise that ethos of selfless duty on emergency services day, which is supported by His Majesty the King.

Shockingly—I make no apologies for raising this issue again today—officers in Scotland are still not protected by body-worn cameras. For years, body-worn cameras have been standard kit across the rest of the UK, and they are proven to prevent vexatious complaints against officers.

I will begin my stage 1 speech by explaining why Scotland’s police officers—and the public—expect and deserve a fair, efficient and effective system of regulation and complaints. I will end it by asking whether the bill will do the job that it is supposed to do. Will it provide remedy to those who have been wronged? With immense pressure on policing budgets, is it affordable?

Police Scotland was created 11 years ago, in 2013. The surrounding landscape of regulation and complaints is complex and confusing. Frankly, it just does not work. The Scottish Police Authority is supposed to hold Police Scotland to account on behalf of the public, but too often, it does not do so.

The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates the misconduct of officers above senior rank, not the rank and file, which means that the vast majority of allegations that are made against officers are handled by the police. Things are kept in house.

As an MSP, and before that as a journalist, I have represented those who have been wronged by way of negligence, misconduct or even criminality. Some of those people gave up their time to give evidence to our committee and I thank them for doing so. Those people are often deprived of natural justice. The complexity of the process is daunting and secretive. Too often, cases drag on for far too long.

There have been shocking cases in which Police Scotland has watered down serious allegations of criminal acts, including an alleged rape, by recording them as “incivility”. On other occasions, Police Scotland failed in its duty to report to the Crown Office criminal allegations made against officers.

If complainers get as far as the PIRC, they often discover that the police watchdog is pretty toothless. Stephanie Bonner was one of those who gave up her time to give evidence to the committee, and I again thank her personally for doing so. Following the unexplained death of her teenage son Rhys, Stephanie’s pain was compounded by her dealings with the police. She described the process as a “hellish merry-go-round”.

I do not know, but perhaps some in the policing establishment believe that a process that helps to get rid of what they see as troublesome complaints is a good thing. I disagree. The reality is that an unfair system only fuels injustice and risks harming all officers by eroding public trust and confidence. If lost, that will be hard to repair.

The broken system fails officers just as badly as it fails members of the public. As a politician and as a journalist, I have represented police whistleblowers who tried to report wrongdoing, only to then become targets. The full power of Police Scotland was weaponised against them and used to tie them up in knots, ostracise them, silence them and crush them. Many of those officers are female. They made a brave stand against sexist bullying long before two successive chief constables held up their hands and admitted to institutionalised discrimination.

In a few cases, the officers emerged with some compensation and an apology. In others, the misery has continued. It is an absolute scandal that so many good officers have had their careers, health and finances so needlessly destroyed. I know of one officer who took his own life after becoming trapped in the complaints process. His family and colleagues believe that that was a contributory factor in his suicide.

Against that backdrop, the Government finally took action, in 2018, by asking the former Lord Advocate Lady Elish Angiolini to investigate. Her final report, which was published in November 2020, is truly damning. For me, one of her many critical words that stood out is “inaccessible”. It is not a harsh word, but it helpfully encapsulates the near impossibility of the task for those seeking justice and redress. I refer back to my earlier observation about a system that deters and deflects valid complaints. The short-term gain of a difficult issue disappearing potentially yields the greater long-term harm of increased public mistrust.

Lady Elish Angiolini made 111 recommendations, some of which require legislation, which is why the bill is in front of us. It is welcome that many of her non-legislative recommendations have been enacted. Just as encouraging is the ready acceptance of them by Scotland’s policing establishment. In recent years, I have also detected a willingness to change the policing culture from within, because a changed culture might achieve more, or as much, as a code of ethics and the duty of candour in the bill.

We like parts of the bill, such as the measures to increase transparency, with some serious misconduct hearings being held in public and investigations continuing in the event of officers leaving their posts. However, it would take longer than the 10 minutes that I have for my speech to properly set out some of our concerns about the bill.

The Criminal Justice Committee detailed its concerns in our lengthy stage 1 report, to which members can refer. I am certain that many of today’s speakers will raise the most pressing issues in greater detail, but one of them relates to the cost of the bill. The initial financial memorandum stated that the cost would be just over £1.4 million. That price tag has rocketed to £5.8 million and, as we all know, that number is likely to go in only one direction. It was alarming to hear the Scottish Police Federation tell the committee that it thought that the total cost could rise by as much as tenfold.

It is also deeply concerning that the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee said that the Government had provided figures that it knew were “completely inaccurate”. Our party expects full clarity on the cost. We did not formally include that as a condition of supporting the bill at stage 1, but it can be taken as read that we will not be writing a blank cheque.

Since the Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report was published, we have received responses from various policing bodies. Those responses are, of course, welcome, and they are not without their own concerns. For example, the PIRC has provided a 20-page response that contains various points, including concerns about its role and responsibilities if the bill is passed unchanged. One of the main Angiolini recommendations was to give the PIRC greater powers and to make it answerable to the Parliament instead of ministers. The Government does not seem to be keen on that proposal, but my party intends to explore it further.

I welcome the proposed amendments that the cabinet secretary mentioned, and we will examine them fully in due course. My colleagues and I intend to lodge various amendments of our own. Those are a work in progress and will be for another day.

Although we support the bill at stage 1, this is very much unfinished business. Scotland’s brave and dedicated police officers and those who rely on them know that we have to get this right. A modern, transparent, speedy and fair system is the prize.