Justice Committee
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Official Report
556KB pdf
Subordinate Legislation
Police Service of Scotland (Police Cadets) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/42)
Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/60)
Police Service of Scotland (Senior Officers) (Conduct) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/62)
Item 3 is consideration of three instruments that are subject to the negative procedure and which arise from the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.
As you will see from your papers, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn Parliament’s attention to the Police Service of Scotland (Police Cadets) Regulations 2013. The SLC has concerns regarding the accessibility of the original regulations that the Scottish statutory instrument that is before us will amend, and it is also concerned that the instrument contains incorrect references. The Scottish Government has undertaken to ask the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that all 19 remaining cadets receive a consolidated version of the original regulations and to correct the inaccurate references by way of an amending instrument.
Members have no comments to make on the regulations. Are members content to make no recommendation on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Members are content.
The SLC has not drawn our attention to the Police Service (Senior Officers) (Conduct) Regulations 2013. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland wrote to this committee expressing concerns that the proposed arrangements for misconduct hearings for senior officers lack independence. The Scottish Government responded to ACPOS’s concerns in a letter to the committee, and the two pieces of correspondence are in annexes F and G of paper 2. Do members have any comments? I am expecting some.
I read the letter from ACPOS with interest, and I have some sympathy with what the association is saying. There is a sense that the disciplinary panel and the appeals panel are being pooled together from a very small group of people who all work closely together. I would like to explore further the idea of an independent panel chair being appointed.
It was ever the case that ACPOS sought different terms and conditions and representation for its members from those that it sought to enforce on the federated and superintending ranks. I am completely reassured that having access to a police appeals tribunal, to which an independent chair is appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, will provide impartiality.
The same could be said—indeed, it was said—in relation to the pool of individuals who would have to adjudicate on matters concerning federated ranks in some of the smaller forces. I think that the independent element is covered by the police appeals tribunals, and I am content with the arrangements that are in place.
I declare an interest as a former member of ACPOS.
I am not wholly content, but I am assured that the arrangements that are in place are, when properly overseen and with an eye kept on how they operate, sufficient for the purposes that are set out in the regulations.
There is one element on which I wish to record comments. We have had reassurances from the cabinet secretary and civil servants that on-going competent complaints across the eight forces in respect of senior officers’ conduct will be processed and resolved by the new Scottish Police Authority. Subject to that confirmation, I have no objection to the implications arising from the regulations, and I think that we should allow them to proceed.
Are members content for the committee not to make any recommendation on the instrument, those comments having been put on the record?
Members indicated agreement.
I have skipped one of the instruments, which I know members noticed: the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2013, which applies to lower ranks. The SLC made no comments on those regulations. Are members content to make no recommendation on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.