Justice 2 Committee, 31 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Official Report 98KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Police Complaints Commission (PE890)

The third item on the agenda concerns petition PE890, by James A Mackie, on an independent police complaints commission. It relates to an issue that the committee considered in connection with its stage 1 scrutiny of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. The committee has concluded its stage 1 deliberations and has signed off the report, which will be debated in Parliament this coming Thursday. It therefore falls to the committee to determine how it now wishes to deal with the petition, which was forwarded to us by the Public Petitions Committee on behalf of Mr Mackie.

Members will be aware that Mr Mackie's petition calls for the creation of an independent police complaints commission

"to ensure that complaints against the police by members of the public are properly investigated and acted upon and that any investigative powers should be retrospective."

On Thursday, we will debate the stage 1 report, which contains substantially what Mr Mackie calls for.

We should simply note the petition, conclude our consideration of it and inform Mr Mackie that his interest in the matter is included in the stage 1 report.

I note that the additional information accompanying the petition says:

"If the police … refuse to take a complaint from the public … there is no mechanism for that complaint to be investigated."

The points that Bill Butler just made about what is proposed in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will answer that point, because the proposed ombudsman will be able to take up such issues and will have the ability to appoint non-police officers to that role if he so decides.

The only thing that has not been covered in the report is that Mr Mackie wants the powers to be retrospective. That would not be a good idea because we do not want to reopen old cases on which decisions have been reached, which I presume is what he wishes.

I should note as a point of procedure that Mr Mackie is known to me, purely on a personal rather than on a professional, remunerated basis.

As a regular attendee of the Public Petitions Committee, I know Mr Mackie too, but only as a petitioner.

I note in annex B to the committee papers on the petition that Mr Mackie rejects the contents of the "draft bill". Although we might be content with the bill after scrutinising the details, I suspect that he will remain discontented. We should simply note the petition, close our consideration of it and advise the Public Petitions Committee accordingly, because our conclusions are contained in the stage 1 report.

Given members' contributions, is it the committee's view that, having considered Mr Mackie's petition and the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, we should note the petition, conclude our consideration of it and write to the petitioner accordingly?

Members indicated agreement.