Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00173, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the concern expressed by key stakeholders regarding the proposal to transfer the role of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS), the office of which is currently based in Hamilton, to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman; understands that this would leave Scotland as the only part of the United Kingdom without a free-standing and independent police complaints authority; considers that the nature of police powers, such as the power of arrest, stop and search and use of force, means that police complaints are unique and complex in their nature compared to complaints involving other public services; would welcome a review of the functions and powers of the PCCS, and considers this to be particularly important in light of the ongoing discussion on the restructuring of the Police Service in Scotland.
17:03
First, I welcome the police complaints commissioner, Professor John McNeill, and members of the PCCS staff, who are in the gallery to hear the debate.
The motion before us is vital. It highlights the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s proposal to transfer the role of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, a non-departmental public body currently based in Hamilton, to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. It also seeks
“a review of the functions and powers”
of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, including in
“the ongoing discussion on the restructuring of the Police Service in Scotland.”
Support for such a review approach is shared by diverse key stakeholders, including academics, Amnesty International and police officers both serving and retired, all of whom recognise the distinct nature of the roles and responsibilities of the police and the fact that, crucially, the powers of the police set them apart from other public servants in terms of the oversight and scrutiny of complaints.
That is not to trivialise the complaints that are dealt with by the SPSO; rather, it is to acknowledge the particular nature of police complaints.
To quote Amnesty International, the nature and extent of police powers make them
“the front line of protecting the public’s human rights on a daily basis – whether protecting the right to freedom from harm”—
or the right to life—
“defending their right to property, or prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation ... In order to uphold the Government’s duty to protect the human rights of its citizens, police have legitimate powers to limit the rights of others, most notably in depriving people of their liberty and in the state-sanctioned use of force.”
In other words, policing is about some of the most fundamental principles of how the state treats its citizens. What society needs, and everyone wants, is policing that is accountable and based on integrity. Those principles date back almost 2,000 years, to when the Roman satirist, Juvenal, posed a question:
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
That means, literally, “Who guards the guards?” The question is just as relevant today, given the recognition of the uniqueness of police complaints from legal and civil liberties perspectives. It is not surprising, therefore, that widespread concern was expressed when, on December 14 last year, the cabinet secretary wrote to the PCC to advise him of the proposal to transfer the functions of his office to the SPSO and asking him, and other stakeholders, to respond by 19 January. At the same time, the cabinet secretary stated that he was looking to initiate this transfer now because of the budget reductions that are faced by the justice portfolio. Quite simply, a consultation of little more than four weeks—held over the festive season—was hopelessly inadequate, and the subsequent extension of the deadline for responses to 31 January was not much better.
In the words of the German sociologist and political economist, Max Weber:
“three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion.”
Although no one doubts the cabinet secretary's passion for justice issues, sadly, in his handling of this consultation, he was not proportionate. That is worrying, especially with the advent of Scottish National Party majority government. It is disappointing that, to date, no SNP MSP has felt able to sign the motion.
However, tonight’s debate affords the opportunity to analyse some of the facts that are not in dispute, such as the fact that the change that was consulted on is in no way a reflection of the work of the PCCS and the dedication of its staff. On the contrary, the knowledge and experience of the staff were commended by the numerous respondents to the consultation.
The police complaints commissioner is not opposed to a wholesale review of the role and remit of his office. After the four years of the post’s existence, the time may well have been right to examine the commissioner’s powers, and that is most certainly necessary now, against the background of the Scottish Government’s consultation on the future structure of policing.
All four parts of the United Kingdom have independent police complaints departments. Elsewhere, South Africa, Canada, and the Netherlands all have a specialised oversight agency for police complaints, and that is the prevailing trend of police forces across Europe in recent years.
At present in Scotland, under the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, an investigating officer from another force may be appointed in cases of complaints against senior officers or following incidents involving the police use of firearms, road deaths involving vehicles driven by the police and deaths in custody. If Scotland were to move to a single police force, that would result in that force investigating itself, which would almost certainly breach the European Convention of Human Rights—some dubiety exists about even the present system’s compliance.
Finally, it is far from certain that the desired economic or practical objectives that this proposal seeks to achieve will be realised. I will quote two consultees on the matter. Fife police authority says:
“the financial and logistical case has not been sufficiently robust to support this move”
and the Dumfries and Galloway police and fire and rescue authority says that the consultation
“extends to the equivalent of an A4 page containing numerous aspirational statements with no evidence to quantify potential savings to the public purse, potential benefit to members of the public in terms of outcomes arising from the changes, and indeed any indication in practical terms as to how these changes will actually be effected in practice or any indicative cost to be offset against potential savings.”
To consider transferring the powers of the PCCS to the SPSO in isolation and before the review of the structure of Scotland’s police force was deemed to be presumptuous by many consultees, and respondents such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland were firmly of the opinion that a review of the PCCS and consideration of the possibility of transferring powers to the SPSO would be better measured within the context of this wider reform of policing in Scotland. I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary will support that view this evening and I look forward to his comments.
17:10
I congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing tonight’s debate and on her use of myriad acronyms in her speech—it was quite something to follow what she was saying at times. However, the issue is important and she should be congratulated on bringing it to the chamber.
In saying that, I admit that I have not considered the issue in great detail, so I have been interested to read a little more about it in preparation for the debate. I am also interested to listen to what people have to say and perhaps learn a little bit more along the way.
It was very interesting to hear Amnesty International being quoted in the chamber by a Tory. That is not something that I hear all that often. I am probably even less used to hearing Max Weber being quoted in the chamber by anyone, so Margaret Mitchell should also be congratulated on that.
It is the hallmark of any democratic society that the police should be subject to appropriate scrutiny, and by and large, we have that right in Scotland. We have local police boards with elected members and an elected Parliament that can exercise that scrutiny function. It is especially important, however, that when any member of the public feels, for whatever reason, that they have to complain about the police, there should be a rigorous complaints procedure. I did not sign Margaret Mitchell’s motion, not because I do not acknowledge the importance of that fact, but because I am not quite sure of my position on the transfer of powers away from the complaints commissioner to the SPSO. Margaret Mitchell raised a lot of concerns, and I am sure that we will get the benefit of Graeme Pearson’s considerable experience in a minute. Much of what she said reflects what the police complaints commissioner said when the issue was raised earlier in the year:
“Any perceived scaling back of that oversight would be a regressive step that could erode trust and undermine public confidence in the police.”
That would be true, but would a transfer of powers to the SPSO in and of itself mean a scaling back of that oversight role? I am not particularly convinced that it would.
I have a sense of déjà vu in approaching this subject, because I was the deputy convener of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee during the previous parliamentary session. It might not have been the most scintillating of subject material to deal with, but concerns about the implications of mergers of various commissions or commissioners were raised at that time. I can understand those concerns but, as long as the core service of the body is retained, and as long as people can be confident that their complaint is being dealt with, there is some merit in creating a simplified landscape.
Does the member acknowledge the unique position of the police, given their powers, which differ substantially from those of other public servants? If he does, does he accept that the issue should be considered within the context of the review of policing, as it will obviously raise issues that will be germane to the review and how we consider merging the two offices, if we do?
I certainly accept that the police have a specific role in our society and specific powers that are different from the different bodies that the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee looked at. Again, that is not necessarily an argument against a merger, although I do not have a set position at this time.
Margaret Mitchell is right to raise her concerns, but I reiterate that a simplified complaints landscape for the public is worth considering, as long as we can protect the core services of each institution.
When she quoted Amnesty International, Margaret Mitchell also raised a number of civil liberties issues, but I am not at all convinced that any merger of the PCCS with the SPSO would in and of itself abrogate any individual’s civil liberties.
I must conclude, as I see that I am out of time—that always seems to happen to me in members’ business debates. We should recognise the good work that the police complaints commissioner undertakes; I certainly do. I also recognise that it must be a bit of an uncertain time for the PCC’s staff, but I think that the proposal is worth looking at and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say at the end of the debate.
17:15
I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the chance to speak in the debate, and I thank Margaret Mitchell for raising an important issue.
These are turbulent times for the police service, given the proposal for reform in the coming years. I acknowledge at the outset that I was heartened by the minister’s comments to the Justice Committee yesterday, which seemed to indicate openness on the way forward, but because this debate had been secured I felt that it was important to give some insight into my views on the matter.
Although there is a great deal of police reform in the offing and no matter how it might play out, it will be a case of business as usual for the police service in the coming years, so it is important that the public have confidence in the systems that are utilised in investigating complaints, regardless of the nature of those complaints and the outcome that is achieved. There is no doubt that the commissioner has achieved a high level of confidence in his handling of complaints over the past four years. An important part of that has been investment in the quality of service in responding to complaints and, more important, in preventing complaints in the first place.
Expertise has been built up in the 16 or so members of staff who work for the PCCS in Hamilton. It must be extremely difficult for them to continue their commitment to the important work that the PCCS does when such a cloud of uncertainty hangs over them. That expertise and commitment need to be invested in. There are worries that if we move forward with new structures, the public will think that those new structures will enable the police service to change inherently and generically, but that will not be the case.
The amount of work that the PCCS does has increased substantially in recent years as people, quite properly, have accessed its services to rehearse any misgivings or reservations about the service that they have received. I suggest to the cabinet secretary that, in any future new set-up for the police service, it will be important that a police complaints commissioner of sorts can link with Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary in assisting with the oversight and proper accountability of the police service through a national policing board.
For that reason, I ask the cabinet secretary to maintain the current situation in the meantime, so that a clearer view can be taken of the nature of the police service in the years ahead and so that we can design the police complaints management system better to attune it to the needs of the police service as regards improvement and, more important, to ensure that it can deliver on the need of the Scottish public to have the confidence of knowing that their complaints have been treated seriously and been properly responded to.
I see that I am still within my time, but I have said what I came here to say. I associate myself with all that Margaret Mitchell said in her speech.
17:19
I, too, congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing the debate and on giving the Parliament the opportunity to consider this important issue. We have heard several thoughtful speeches.
The PCCS was established in 2006 and took over powers to review the handling of complaints about the police on 1 April 2007. As members are aware, the PCCS’s main function is to review the manner in which a police force or other police authority has handled a complaint from a member of the public. It has the power to direct the relevant police authority to reconsider the complaint.
The commissioner is appointed by and accountable to the Scottish ministers. The body plays an important role as the organisation that polices the police. In that sense, it is extremely important for police accountability that it is allowed to operate as effectively and independently as possible.
As we have heard, merging the PCCS with the SPSO has been proposed. The proposals were introduced with good intentions but, as Margaret Mitchell’s motion suggests, concerns exist about the practicalities of a merger. I will discuss some of those concerns.
First, from a legal and civil liberties perspective the importance of police complaints demands dedicated and specialised oversight. That is not to say that the SPSO deals with unimportant complaints, but complaints about the police often involve complex legal arguments, so a specialist oversight body is more appropriate. If the PCCS were merged with the SPSO, that specialised oversight would, to an extent, be lost. It is interesting to note that most European countries have a specialised police oversight body. To deal effectively with police complaints requires knowledge of criminal law and procedure, the police misconduct regime and the internal policies and procedures that policing bodies apply to all aspects of policing.
The concern has been expressed that a transfer would result in the process becoming more complicated for complainers and less effective and efficient. We should remember that the police are here to keep us safe, so we need an effective and efficient organisation that corrects issues that prevent the police from fulfilling their responsibilities.
The merger’s appropriateness has also been called into question because of the timing of the proposals. Given the continuing discussions about the future structure of Scotland’s police forces, it seems unwise to press ahead with major changes to the system for dealing with police complaints when significant changes to the policing structure could be just round the corner. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary recognised that when he told the Justice Committee earlier this week that there should perhaps be a pause while further discussions take place on the future of Scotland’s police forces.
As for the PCCS’s future structure, a discussion must be had about whether to establish some sort of criminal justice complaints body that incorporates not only the police, but prisons and fire services. The Government should consider that when it returns to the proposals.
Whatever the future structure for dealing with police complaints is, a robust system needs to be in place for dealing with unfounded complaints. Of course, genuine complaints must be dealt with seriously, but unfortunately some people abuse the system in a manner that can be described only as frivolous. Complaints must always be investigated and dealt with, but we must do what we can to avoid the police being distracted from undertaking their important job by those who want to misuse the complaints system.
We all understand that savings must be made in Government spending. However, who polices the police is crucial to ensuring the safety of the people of Scotland. We all want to keep our police forces as efficient as possible. To do that, we need an organisation that is staffed by law enforcement experts who are devoted to ensuring that Scotland’s police forces are as professional as possible. I thank Margaret Mitchell again for raising this important issue and providing a timely opportunity to discuss it in Parliament.
17:24
I, too, congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing this important debate. I support her motion. The Government’s proposal to transfer the role of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman fails to recognise the specific and unique nature of handling police complaints. For our police complaints procedure to be credible and trusted by the public, it must be visible, independent and well resourced. I commend the PCCS for the way in which it does its work.
The legacy paper from the previous parliamentary session’s Justice Committee highlighted the matter as something that its successor committee should scrutinise; I hope that that will be possible.
Scottish Liberal Democrats are concerned about the proposals to transfer the role to the SPSO and question whether those proposals are necessary or desirable. As Margaret Mitchell said, police complaints require specific expertise and understanding for proper handling, and we are concerned that the generalist experience of the SPSO is not best suited to that.
It is vital that the Scottish Government consider the unique role that is played by the PCCS at the moment. I would be concerned if the merger was driven by nothing more than a desire on the Government’s part to reduce the number of public bodies to meet some arbitrary target. We know that the current commissioner, Professor John McNeill, has said that handing his role to a general body could damage public confidence and would be regressive. He has argued that continuing down that path would leave Scotland alone in the UK in not having a dedicated police complaints oversight body.
Trust in the police and the willingness of the public to engage constructively with them depend on the powers of the police being exercised reasonably and in accordance with the law. An effective system of complaints oversight is vital to the accountability and transparency of the police. There must be an effective mechanism by which the public can seek to hold the police to account.
As we have heard, the Scottish Human Rights Commission argues that the independent oversight of policing plays a vital role in protecting individual human rights, ensuring public trust and confidence in the police and promoting the efficient operation of law enforcement in Scotland. Those three different aspects operate together to bring about an effective oversight of policing.
The current PCCS argues:
“The uniqueness of complaints about the police requires that the oversight mechanism is not only independent of the police, but also dedicated and specialised.”
We agree. The distinction between complaints about the police and those about other public bodies was recognised by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in 2000 and by the previous Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in 2005. What is different now?
The Scottish National Party seems set to centralise Scotland’s police forces into a single force and Scottish Liberal Democrats are the only party that is standing up for local policing. We argue that it is bad for democracy to have a single chief constable responsible to the justice minister. Within that context, it seems even more vital to uphold an effective and independent accountability structure. A number of concerns were raised during the Government’s short consultation of stakeholders. Margaret Mitchell highlighted how inadequate that consultation process was.
HM chief inspector of constabulary raised concerns that the skills that are required to review complaints would be diluted within the much larger pool of complaints that SPSO deals with, and called for the issue to be considered in the wider context of police reform.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has also raised concerns and the Scottish Information Commissioner has expressed concern that because of differences in the way freedom of information laws apply to the two bodies, transferring functions may have the unintended consequence of reducing the public’s right to scrutinise the conduct of investigations into police complaints.
Given the number of misgivings that have been voiced this evening during the debate, I urge the Government to tread very carefully. Changes to the police complaints procedure should be made only if there is a compelling case for change; that case has not been made. It is not enough to argue that the public would benefit from a one-stop shop for public service complaints or that budget savings need to be made. The issues that have been raised by Margaret Mitchell and others tonight deserve rigorous consideration. Our citizens and our police forces deserve nothing less.
17:28
I thank Margaret Mitchell for securing this debate and I thank members for their thoughtful and helpful contributions.
It is probably remiss that the issue has not been debated in Parliament to date. That is not the fault of any individual. We have had the opportunity in Government and Opposition debates to discuss it, but other issues have taken priority.
As Margaret Mitchell and others have said, the issue is important. I join her in thanking John McNeill and his staff for all their hard work and effort. I meet John regularly—I met him last week. I have not had the opportunity to meet all of his staff, but I put on record the Government’s gratitude for the good work that they have done. They have improved matters immensely. As I stated to John McNeill last week, it is not just that they deal with the issues that come before them; their good work and efforts have resulted in improvements to how the police deal with issues internally. It is a win-win situation. It is important that we put on record the improvement in standards that has come about and the importance of the staff.
I recognise the difficulties that have been caused by the uncertainty, and I am sorry about that. What I can say about Margaret Mitchell’s motion is that not only do I welcome her bringing it here, but it has merit. It is undeniably the case that policing is unique as regards the ability to take away people’s liberty and the knock-on effect that that can have on people’s employability, as well as on other factors. The behaviour of the police and the ability to scrutinise them are fundamental in the democracy in which we live, so I fully accept that aspect.
We have to recognise that things are changing because of restructuring, and that offers challenges as well as opportunities. We have been chastised briefly about costs—I will not bandy about the cost of elected police commissioners or anything else—but costs have to be taken into account. I recognise where we are. There has to be a review of the public sector landscape, and a review of the policing landscape is under way. It is important that we take our time to get it right.
I want to pick up the cabinet secretary’s point about costs. As I understand the issue, a merger as proposed for the PCCS and the SPSO might save a few hundred thousand pounds in administrative costs. Equally, the driver for reducing the number of police forces—whether to three forces or a single force—is to save tens of millions of pounds. Would it not be a reasonable, proportionate response to say that a tiny fraction of the single police force savings might be applied to ensure that we still have a free-standing complaints service?
That is certainly one idea, and I support many of Mr McLetchie’s comments. I have not yet formed a view on police reform, as he well knows. However, I recognise the imperative of making savings. The savings that can be made from any change within the PCCS are vastly different from the savings that can be made from police restructuring. In response to Ms McInnes, I say that savings need to be considered. Even small savings are important in these times, and indeed there are other costs to consider, too.
We remain genuinely open-minded on the issue. We will not rush to a decision. No decision has been made about police reform, and we will take time to pause and reflect. We recognise that arguments in favour of a standalone body to handle police complaints are stronger under a single model. As Mr McLetchie well knows, I have argued that the case for a single model has strengthened, although it has not yet been made. I can give an assurance that we are genuinely open-minded.
In response to Graeme Pearson’s valid point, I say that we have to keep the show on the road and maintain good services. I give the commitment that it is our intention, as I mentioned to John McNeill when I met him, to ask the PCCS to continue to do the excellent job that it does as we consider where to go with police reform and possible transfers of PCCS functions to the SPSO.
The 2007 Crerar review proposed improvements to the complaints-handling system, including that the SPSO should oversee all public service complaints-handling processes. In 2008, the Sinclair review made similar recommendations about reducing the number of standalone complaints-handling bodies. That was three years ago. I have always been sympathetic to the principle, as set out in the Sinclair review, of simplifying public service complaints handling. The current work on the future of policing in Scotland provides the ideal opportunity to review how best that should be done.
Given the important nature of the issue, at the end of last year I sought stakeholders’ views on the proposal to move the functions of the PCCS to the SPSO. A variety of opinions were gathered, and organisations took different views. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is open-minded about the proposals and recognises that they are based on current financial pressures. It emphasises the significant corporate knowledge and experience of the PCCS. It is important that those are not lost. We take those matters and others on board.
The short-life working group has representatives from the PCCS, the SPSO, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—because of the significance of the issue—and the Scottish Government. I am grateful to all members of the group for their professional and positive contributions. I am also grateful to the commissioner for his on-going work, and indeed his fortitude in continuing with the matters under consideration.
It is important that we acknowledge that circumstances have changed because of the requirement to change the public sector landscape. Circumstances have also changed because of the likelihood of police reform. Although I have not indicated a final outcome, I think that we all acknowledge that the landscape will not stay the same. It is appropriate that we take the time to get things right.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that no decision on the future of the PCCS will be taken until we know clearly the future structure of policing and its implications for the PCCS?
That follows from the logic of what I have said. I cannot give any guarantees on timescales, because I have obligations to the staff—as Margaret Mitchell and others have said.
We are driving on as fast as we can with police reform, and the issue will be coming back at the end of the summer. We will have to consider the issue carefully—bearing in mind the fundamentally important points that Margaret Mitchell and others have made. The matter is not yet decided, but I put on record that some matters will have to change. We have to get things right. We will use the summer to hear people’s views.
I am grateful to Margaret Mitchell for bringing this matter to Parliament, and I am grateful to John McNeill and his staff for the good work that they do. Long may it continue.
Meeting closed at 17:36.