Official Report 115KB pdf
We move immediately to item 4 on the agenda, which is the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland, "Without Prejudice? A thematic inspection of police race relations in Scotland". I welcome the Solicitor General, the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate. I understand that Jim Wallace will make a short presentation, and then the committee will ask questions.
My opening statement will be very short indeed. I will just set the scene for both this item and item 5. You will be aware that two documents have been published recently: "The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: An Action Plan for Scotland", the review by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group; and the thematic report, "Without Prejudice?" which was compiled by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.
I have a couple of questions. What is the constitutional relationship between the Minister for Justice, the chief constables and police authorities?
There is a tripartite relationship. Ministers set the framework; we form policies, pass legislation and are responsible for allocating funding. The chief constables are responsible for operational matters. Of course, they are accountable locally to their police authorities. Scottish ministers strongly support those constitutional arrangements.
What measures are in place to monitor chief constables' accountability to police authorities?
HM inspectorate of constabulary has an important role to play. Following on from the Macpherson report, there have been two thematic inspections. There was a thematic inspection on police complaints, and then one on race, which led to the publication of "Without Prejudice?" In thematic inspections, the chief inspector examines a specific issue across Scotland, and measures the extent to which practices have been introduced and policies have been drafted and implemented that would take forward recommendations. In addition, there is the cycle of inspections of individual police forces, which give an opportunity to measure how individual police forces are performing.
You mentioned the gap between policy and practice, which is highlighted in the HMIC report. Do you think that there is such a gap? If so, in what key areas is there a gap? What can be done to take what you are saying at a political level and we are saying at a parliamentary level about everybody in Scotland having the same rights under the law and about stamping out prejudice right through to the police forces and the behaviour of individual policemen? If you believe that there is a gap between policy and practice, where do you think that it is most problematic at the moment?
The report identifies that there is a gap between policy and practice—we would be complacent if we did not recognise that. A fair comment is that there is a strong commitment by chief constables to develop policies, which they have been doing as guidance manuals have been produced. It is a question of implementing and delivering that and ensuring that it is pushed down to the grass-roots level. There is no formal proposal to impose sanctions, but the inspection process is an important one. The forces know that they will be regularly inspected and measured on these important issues.
Would that be training for existing officers and new recruits?
Yes.
Are you saying that the forces will be inspected in the usual way and that this issue will be specifically measured and examined, but there will be no sanctions if a force does not come up to par?
There are no sanctions; there is not a process of fining. However, there will not only be the regular force inspections. As I indicated in my opening remarks, a further thematic inspection, which will specifically consider the race issue, will be completed by the end of 2002. Performance indicators, which are currently being worked up, will give us benchmarks against which we can measure the progress that is being made.
The inspection team found evidence that some forces had, if you like, cobbled together an action plan prior to the inspection. It is good that the inspection team did not fall for that. I know from working in social work that action plans were often cobbled together before inspections, but I am concerned about it. What action has been taken to ensure that a real strategic approach is now being taken by the forces that were identified as cobbling something together for the benefit of the inspection team?
I am pleased that you acknowledge that the wool was not pulled over the eyes of the inspectorate. That indicates that we have, in the chief inspector and his team, people who are independent of the forces and who will go into a force and be robust and thorough in their investigation.
Surely it would have been better if individual forces had been identified. Why was the report not more open and frank?
That is a good question, and it is one that I asked myself. If you read the report, you will see that forces are identified as A, B, C and D. I raised that issue. It is nothing to do specifically with the thematic inspection on race; rather it is an approach that generally is used in thematic inspections to encourage openness and frankness by individual police officers—we are not talking about the top chief constables and superintendents. This approach is used so that officers feel they can speak their mind in confidence to visiting inspectors without the fear that there will be some comeback. When I asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary about this approach, he said that from experience he had found that it is one that aids frankness and candour.
But surely it would be possible to protect the anonymity of individual police officers and still name individual forces?
The chief inspector of constabulary has made a judgment. The approach is one that he has found valuable. Kay Ullrich indicated that he was doing a thorough job. As I said, I have questioned the practice of referring to police forces as A, B, C and D. I am satisfied by his judgment that that is the best approach.
I will let Cathy Peattie in on that point, because she has been waiting for a while.
You say that the glass is half full. We are going along in a positive manner, and that is helpful, but I am interested in a reality check. It is important when looking at performance indicators, and when inspections are taking place, that there is a way of checking with stakeholders that what police forces say is true, and of finding out how they feel. Sometimes reports say that everything is wonderful, but when you speak to people at a grass-roots level they tell you something quite different. Is there a system by which stakeholders can be involved and say what it is like in their areas?
Yes. In the case of this report, the chief inspector of constabulary and his inspection team talked to community groups and individuals. That was an important part of the report. They were encouraged to be open and frank with the inspectors, without the concern that they might be identified. An important issue that the chief inspector identifies in the report is measuring each force's level of community involvement, and its ability to consult. That is on the agenda. We recognise that there is some way to go, but it is one of the key issues that is being addressed.
That is very welcome. Will that be one of the performance indicators?
The current position is that the chief inspector and ACPOS are considering what the performance indicators will be. It would be premature for me to say that that will definitely be one of the indicators, but it is certainly on the agenda.
Do you agree that in a stakeholder approach people need to be on board fairly early? It is too late to ask the community what it thinks if we wait until things are in place.
I agree with the general proposition that it is important that communities are involved. When the chief inspector carried out his thematic inspection on police complaints, he found it difficult to get feedback. That was better this time round. However, no one is under the illusion that there is not still considerable scope for improvement. That is one of the issues that each force must consider; how it can improve its links with the community and how there can be better liaison. I want to make it clear that we should not just sit around and talk about it. I think that we are saying the same thing.
I am always bothered by the idea of professions being self-regulated or self-policed. I know that the procurator fiscal service deals with racial complaints of a criminal nature, but what happens if a racial complaint is made against the police, yet is not deemed to be of a criminal nature?
That is one of the performance indicators that I have mentioned—levels of complaints about allegations of racist behaviour within the police. Members will be aware that once the local system has been exhausted, complaints can be considered generally by the inspectorate, which includes lay inspectors. I have also made it clear—as did the programme for government that was published at the end of January—that in the spring we will issue a consultation document on police complaints, which will include an independent element. That is work in progress. The impetus for that came from the Macpherson report, but it applies beyond questions of race.
At the moment is that largely down to the chief inspector of each force?
At the moment it is undertaken by the chief constable. Each force has procedures involving the chief constable. I am racking my brains and I think that there is a role for the police authority in overseeing the complaints system.
I am interested that you intend to consult following some of the models from overseas that have independent commissions, which are included in "Without Prejudice?"
Yes. We have been examining the experience in other countries. Indeed, I took time out of my holiday in New Zealand to go and talk to the police complaints commissioner there.
So you contributed to the report.
The consultation will be about complaints about the police and it will stand on its own. However, it cannot be divorced from other matters; there are complaints about the police that go beyond the question of race.
The report, "Without Prejudice?", makes 18 recommendations and 15 suggestions for action. I am interested in the gap between policy and practice. How can we ensure that those recommendations and suggestions are developed into action? How can we make that process politically accountable? What politically accountable and enforceable guarantees are there that those recommendations and suggestions will be implemented?
The recommendations and suggestions are directed at different levels. Some are directed at chief constables and others have an element of Scottish Executive responsibility, although they are also directed at chief constables. I could go into some that are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I am accountable for them to Parliament and, no doubt, to the Equal Opportunities Committee. The Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee might also wish to go through the recommendations and suggestions to see how we are measuring up.
You say that you will not be complacent about those issues, and it is obvious that measuring performance is important.
I believe that we are. As I indicated earlier, we have given the chief constables what they asked for for the forthcoming financial year. It is difficult to speculate about why the level is increasing. One obvious explanation would be that there are more racist incidents; another might be that reporting of such incidents has increased. We have, from the Macpherson report, a definition of a racist incident. That information is being better disseminated—the cards that I showed to the committee have that definition on them, for instance—and it might be that there is improved identification of racist incidents. Another possible explanation might be that there is a greater willingness among the victims of racial crime or harassment to report those crimes. One of the reasons why we want to have better figures in this area is that we want to benchmark and understand how trends develop.
I will allow one more question on this subject before we move on.
I wanted to pick up on the issue of under-reporting. Mr Wallace mentioned the likelihood of under-reporting of racist incidents. From talking to groups and carrying out investigations, is there any evidence about the extent of under-reporting? I know that that is difficult to answer because, if people do not report the crimes, it will be hard to know that there has been a crime.
For obvious reasons, I cannot quantify the extent of under-reporting, but the feedback that we have received indicates that it exists. People in the working group have also raised that. We must address the reasons for under-reporting and we must ensure that people are clear about what constitutes a racist crime. I remind the committee that a racist incident is an incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or by any other person. That is a useful definition that will be widely circulated.
Is that definition being adopted by all agencies?
It ought to be adopted by all agencies, not by only the police. We are trying to introduce the idea of third-party reporting. Many police forces are trying to put in place mechanisms that would allow other parties to be the recipients of reports of such crimes. The police have not been made aware of all the racist incidents that there have been and, even although the evidence of under-reporting is anecdotal, it is so widespread that we must address the matter.
Have you any evidence about what prevents people from reporting the incidents?
I do not want to speculate about that. Sometimes, people might be frightened that, if they report the crime, there will be further reprisals. People might wonder whether anyone will pay any attention to them if they report such a crime.
Perhaps there is a perception that the police would not acknowledge it.
That could be the perception. There is widespread recognition of the need to increase our ethnic minority communities' confidence in the police. The police are conscious of the need to do that and are addressing the matter. It is important that the links are improved between stakeholders—the community groups—and the police.
Ethnic minorities must also be encouraged to join the police force.
Very much so. One of the recommendations that the Executive is considering is that there should be a national recruitment campaign to encourage people from ethnic minority communities to join the police. We should encourage people from ethnic minority communities to view the police as a worthwhile career.
The police forces should reflect the communities in which they work.
Indeed—that is accepted.
I am laughing because Kay Ullrich kept asking the questions that I wanted to ask. Every time, she beat me to it. I would like the minister to be a little more specific. Like him, I think that the definition of racist crime is excellent. The minister also mentioned the analysis of third party reporting and said that each individual police force was examining it. Is that analysis being carried out in a co-ordinated fashion?
That is one of the issues that the steering group has raised. The view is that there must be co-ordination. However, what might be appropriate in Northern constabulary might not be appropriate in Strathclyde and different methods will work in different parts of Strathclyde.
Have guidelines been issued about how that analysis should be carried out, so that there can be an overview throughout the country?
I am racking my brains—that issue was discussed at length at the most recent meeting of the steering group. I cannot remember whether detailed guidelines have been produced. Perhaps I can give the convener a detailed response on that issue.
Thank you, minister. Do you have any other questions, Linda?
Yes, on recruitment. The review of the action plan was quite scathing. It noted that, although 1.6 per cent of the population are from ethnic minorities, only 0.15 per cent of the police officers are. It is fine to say that there are targets to meet, but this country has failed abysmally in trying to achieve targets on representation in the police force. Is there a national plan, or are guidelines in place that individual forces can use to assist them in recruiting to represent communities, as Kay Ullrich said that they should?
There is no national target, as such. We expect each police force area to indicate its ethnic minority community in proportion—
Excuse me, minister—I did not mean a national target. I meant some kind of national guideline to assist regional police forces to meet their targets.
We are trying to ensure that each police force is aware of its target—the trouble with such words is that they might be interpreted as having implications that do not necessarily exist. We will publish and make clear what percentage of the population in each area is made up of ethnic minority communities, and we will compare that with the reflection of the ethnic minority communities in the police force's strength. I know that the chief inspector is anxious that—the more that we pursue that initiative and develop it—the process should be carried out through applications rather than recruitment. It should be based on how many people come to the starting gate, as it were. There is far more work to be done and I am not shying away from that.
That is great—I do not doubt for a minute that the intentions are honourable. However, it worries me that, although positive targets were introduced some years ago for the recruitment of women into the police force, examination of the number of women who go beyond constable level and move up into the higher ranks shows that the record is appalling. I hate to think that, again, we would be recruiting people who are representative of their communities, but that we would be keeping them at that low level in the police force. Will there be mechanisms to ensure equality of opportunity for promotion?
Yes. If Linda Fabiani noted what I said, I did not talk only about recruitment, but about recruitment, retention and progression. The three issues are important. I take Linda Fabiani's point that it is not just a matter of getting people to the starting gate.
I add a note of caution in that, despite the great intentions, the initiative has not worked for women. We must ensure that it works this time.
I do not think that anybody is pretending that the system of recruitment, retention and progression works at the moment. We all accept that more work must be done and Linda Fabiani is right to flag that up. Our success or otherwise will be measured in the years to come. I assure the committee that we are aware of the issue and that we are willing to address it.
I am so pleased.
Let us hope that the guidance is clearer than the note.
I should perhaps ask a question about literacy in our schools.
As Margaret Smith knows, equal opportunities is a foundation stone of the policies not only of the Parliament, but of the Executive; it is central to our overall activities. We have an equality unit and, on race, the working group that I have been chairing has specifically pursued the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Jackie Baillie has chaired a parallel group, which has considered racial equality issues in the wider public service domain.
I thank the witnesses for coming this morning. The committee will obviously have you along again to discuss the Chhokar case—possibly before the inquiry is published, or after it is published.
Thank you very much.
Before we go into private session, I thank the interpreter for translating the proceedings of the meeting today. I hope that we can have that done again in future—accessibility is one of the founding principles of the Parliament. I am glad that the Equal Opportunities Committee is among the first to use simultaneous translation.
Meeting continued in private until 12:15.