Procedures Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Official Report 227KB pdf

---

Security Staff (Powers)

We move to item 13, on the powers of the security staff. Bill Anderson, the Parliament's head of security, will speak to us about the issues that are outlined in his report.

My paper is about what I describe as the limited powers of security staff in the public galleries or committee rooms.

One or two incidents have taken place in the public gallery where, as a result of what we describe as their limited powers, security staff have been unable to take appropriate action. At present, security staff can only ask nicely for someone to leave the gallery. Only the Presiding Officer or his deputes can order a person's removal and, during hectic business, they concentrate on what is happening in the chamber. There might be some delay before they saw the disruption in the galleries and that could lead to suspension of proceedings, which we would want to avoid.

So far, we have been quite lucky and there have been relatively few incidents. However, I believe that security staff need the power physically to remove someone from the galleries, without the use of real force. I would want them to do that before the disruption occurred, so that there was no suspension of proceedings. If somebody in the gallery were to be violent, or physically to resist removal, we would involve the police, but security staff need the power to encourage someone to go, without using force. I would go so far as to say that they need the power to lift someone who did not want to leave away from the gallery, with the help of colleagues.

The best way of achieving that would be to give the clerk the power of removal, which he could delegate to the security staff.

In paragraph 13, where you address the specifics, you refer to

"the Clerk or as is more likely, authorised security staff".

Are you saying that all security staff would be so authorised?

No. Only those staff who work in the public galleries or in committee rooms such as this would be authorised.

There would be a specified complement of people.

Yes.

And an authorised member of staff would always be in attendance.

Yes.

Does the possibility of being involved in the manhandling of people raise concerns with your staff?

I do not think that they would describe it as manhandling. They are more than happy to have the power physically to remove someone. They have been concerned that someone who was carried out might take legal action against them. The advice that we have received from solicitors is that any legal action would be against the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body rather than the individual.

On a point of clarification, does lifting someone bodily not involve the use of force?

I do not think that that would be using undue force. Some people might sit and say that they were not moving, in which case it would be quite in order for a couple of security officers to help them on their way. I know of some cases at Westminster in which it has taken four, or even six, Serjeant at Arms department staff physically to remove someone.

I do not have any problem with people who are behaving in an unruly manner being manhandled. However, I would like clarification as to whether physically removing someone would be defined as force. Also, will staff be trained in the new procedures? I am not against giving this power to security staff, but I would like safeguards for the staff.

Are you saying that, in agreeing to the request, the committee should specify that there should be proper definitions and procedures and appropriate training?

There needs to be training.

We certainly regard training as extremely important. You will be aware that we work closely with the police unit in the Parliament. Its officers are trained in removing people in this way, and I think that they would be happy to run some courses on that for us.

My question is on who authorises removal. You are right to say that the Presiding Officer's mind and eyes are elsewhere, and I would have thought that those of the clerks are elsewhere too. Is it possible to designate senior members of the security staff who would give the instruction to remove someone?

I do not think that that would be necessary under what we hope will be agreed. If the clerk had the power of removal, under the Scotland Act 1998 he could delegate that power to any of his staff. All staff who were working in the galleries would have that power without having to defer to anyone else.

So it would be a permanent delegation.

Yes.

I had not grasped that.

We are happy to approve the recommendations subject to the points that Gil Paterson raised about training. We agree to instruct the appropriate amendments to standing orders. Those changes will be included with other changes to standing orders that are in the pipeline in a report that we will ultimately put before Parliament. As that report will come out in late November, should the committee deal with this matter more urgently?

I do not think so. We have coped reasonably well with the few incidents that we have had, so there is no immediate rush. However, it is comforting to know that something will happen.

That is fine. That constitutes agreement on that point.