Meeting of the Parliament 10 September 2024
As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, which is considering the bill, I have been involved in scrutinising it for some time. I take the opportunity to thank all the clerks, the other staff and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their help in the process. I also make special mention of Seán Wixted, who I am sure is at home watching us live on screen as we are speaking. Let me also declare at the outset that my husband is a former police officer.
The bill aims to improve the police complaints system, which is failing not only victims but ordinary officers who just want to get on with their job and serve the public. We all agree on the need for reform, but it must be the right kind of reform, as many MSPs have said so eloquently. Today’s debate has been productive and useful and MSPs from across the chamber have made many strong points that are worthy of consideration.
The debate has highlighted some areas of the bill that must be improved, and it has thrown up particular problems that the Government must address. Although we all agree on the need for reform, we also need to ensure that the bill is accurately costed and that it achieves its intended aims.
The PIRC has produced a substantial response to the committee’s stage 1 report. The bill seeks to enhance the PIRC’s powers, but the PIRC has raised significant concerns about its ability to take on some of those functions and their appropriateness. It might be prudent of the Scottish Government to consider those concerns in greater detail going forward.
Before I come to the specific points that have been raised by various MSPs, I want first to outline the main issue that must be looked at in the aftermath of today’s debate. The cost of the bill appears to be the most significant issue. Taxpayers must get good value for money, and they must be made fully aware of the cost of the legislation before it is passed, as must MSPs across the chamber.
As many have noted, the cost of the bill appears to have been significantly underestimated by the SNP Government. The initial financial prediction was £1.4 million. It is now £5.8 million. That is an increase of £4.4 million, and we might still not have the final figure. A significant portion of the increased cost is for ensuring that all constables and police staff have read and understood the statutory code of ethics.
As Dr Genevieve Lennon stated during an evidence session of the committee,
“Putting the code of ethics on a statutory footing is symbolically important. Without making it a disciplinary code, I am not sure how much difference it will make day to day.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 May 2024; c 10.]
We need to make sure that the bill that we pass will make a difference.
I will jump on a comment that Russell Findlay made in his opening remarks about body-worn cameras, because I want to talk about the use of body-worn cameras with regard to value for money. The cameras offer significant advantages to both police officers and victims. They would reduce the need for extensive follow-up with individuals, alleviating the burden on not only victims but officers. The cost effectiveness of implementing body-worn cameras is substantial, as it would solve many current issues in the criminal justice process.
Unfortunately, and disappointingly, it looks as though the body-worn camera roll-out could be delayed until 2025, despite its clear benefits. However, the technology needs to be prioritised and rolled out swiftly. As Michelle Macleod—the PIRC—noted during an evidence session,
“I add that the roll-out of body-worn cameras will be a game changer for us and for police officers against whom allegations are made. In many cases, we will be able to look at the body-worn camera footage and make a much more rapid decision than we can currently if no such footage exists.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 15 May 2024; c 35.]
Body-worn cameras have the potential to significantly change behaviours and improve outcomes across various areas, including mental health and victim protection. If we are looking for value for money, I urge that they are rolled out much more quickly.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee accused the Scottish Government of providing figures that it knew were completely inaccurate. It is possible that the financial provisions could be revised further upwards. I would have liked to have received a guarantee today from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs that that will not happen, but I do not believe that such a guarantee would be possible.
I await the revised financial memorandum, which has been promised, with great interest, because it seems entirely likely that the costs are still not close to reality. Since the Government’s initial financial predictions, predicted total one-off costs have nearly tripled and predicted total recurring costs have nearly quintupled. If that is not enough to set alarm bells ringing, I do not know what is.
Given the SNP’s record of financial mismanagement and the current situation that it finds itself in after 17 years of being in charge of the country’s finances, it is vital that the true costs of the bill are established quickly. The Government cannot wait until the last minute to produce full and detailed costings that accurately reflect how much the bill will cost taxpayers. The fiscally responsible and accountable thing to do would be to provide all available information as soon as possible. I hope that that happens, but we need to make sure that we have transparency.
I turn to the excellent contributions from MSPs across the chamber. Jamie Greene spoke about the scale of complaints against the police that go unsolved. Although I believe that the overwhelming majority of police officers do their jobs with the utmost professionalism and dedication, a very small minority do not, yet they do not appear to be facing the consequences.
Russell Findlay spoke about specific examples of misconduct and the struggle for victims to have those incidents investigated. The disturbing examples that he raised are exactly why reform of the system is so essential.
Fulton MacGregor rightly outlined the fact that not only is the complaints process broken for the public but it is failing officers themselves. The bill is not about criticising good police officers. It is about helping them, supporting them and freeing them to go about their work without suffering misconduct, abuse or harassment. The Scottish Police Federation has mentioned “error terror”; we need to ensure that the police feel confident that, if something has happened and it has been a mistake, they can go and admit that to their superiors without fear.
Rona Mackay and Martin Whitfield made well-considered points about the code of ethics. Given the importance of getting this right, it is vital that the code is of the highest standard. I do not believe that the Government has yet set out clearly enough the detail around the development of the code. The statutory obligation would be on Police Scotland to prepare the code, but there are still many questions that the Government needs to answer about its scope.
Pauline McNeill also raised the issue of the proposed duty of candour and the lack of clarity around that.
Claire Baker raised the issue of misconduct proceedings and their reaching a conclusion. Part 6 of the bill allows for gross misconduct proceedings to continue or commence in respect of persons who have ceased to be constables. The committee asked the Scottish Government to clarify the timeframe for the continuation of misconduct proceedings and raised concerns about those taking longer than is necessary. Alexander Stewart was also right to raise those issues and highlight the need for more work on that element of the bill. Major concerns about timescales came up on quite a few occasions during the committee’s evidence taking.
Another point that the committee raised that has been discussed at length today is the need for the Scottish Government to consider the strong objections of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner with regard to how the bill would enhance that role. There appears to be a need to give further consideration to objections that relate to whether the PIRC could assume the role of the presentation of cases at senior officer misconduct hearings, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will provide further clarification of that in due course.
Although we agree with the need for such a bill, we are concerned about some aspects of the legislation before us. The need for reform is clear, and we can all fully get behind that, but it should not mean taxpayers writing a blank cheque to the SNP Government. The costs of the bill must be properly established to allow us to scrutinise it properly, and transparency should not be treated as an inconvenience by the Government.
The Scottish Conservatives want to see reform that improves the police complaints system and ensures that it is fair, effective and delivered in a cost-efficient manner. Although we welcome the intent behind the bill, we need further clarity and confirmation of its true cost, to ensure that we create a fair, efficient and transparent complaints system.