Chamber and committees

In regard to having constituents who are very familiar with the work of the PIRC, that probably goes for us all.

If nobody else has any questions, I want to clarify one final point, which relates to Pauline McNeill’s question about the proposals on the presentation of cases at senior officer misconduct hearings. We did a wee check back of the Government’s response to our stage 1 report, in which the cabinet secretary said:

“Whilst this is not for the Bill itself, on balance, our intention is to consult on this when considering regulations with the Scottish Police Consultative Forum. My view is that PIRC are best placed to carry out this role. PIRC will have conducted the initial assessment, carried out the investigation and have all the documentation to present the case, though they may opt to procure the required skill set when necessary.”

I just wanted to put that on the record in response to Pauline’s question. You may not be bothered about that, Michelle, given that, as I understand it, you conclude your tenure in early 2025.

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2025 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies from members. Fulton MacGregor joins us online.

The first item of business is a decision on whether to take item 3 in private. Do we agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item of business is to hear from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner team on its work in the past year and its plans for the future. I am pleased to welcome to the committee Michelle Macleod, the commissioner; Sharon Smit, the accountable officer; and Phil Chapman, the director of operations. I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow about 60 minutes for the session.

Before we move to questions, I ask the commissioner to make a short opening statement to highlight the main points from the annual report.

I will bring in Sharon Dowey in a moment, but I want to ask about the recruitment and retention information that is helpfully set out in your annual report. Of course, none of the work that you do could happen without the quality and experience of your staff body. I note that on page 31 of your report, you make reference to the fact that the budget is set each year by the Scottish Government, that you are under the same pressures with regard to things like public sector pay rises as other bodies are, and that you had to submit a business case to

“request additional funding for staff costs on a recurring basis and temporary funding for legal fees.”

Although the report says that you have a low staff turnover, which is really good, it also says that there will be retirals in the coming year. Can you say more about your priorities with regard to retaining an experienced and skilled staff body under the constraints that you face?

We wish you well in whatever comes next for you. Thank you again for coming along today.

We move into private session.

I am sure that the benefits of body-worn video that you mentioned, and perhaps those of other digital transformation aspects, will come up in members’ questions.

That brings me on to looking forward. During our scrutiny of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, we discussed the PIRC’s capacity, and we took evidence from you on that. What capacity and resourcing factors for the PIRC need to be considered for next year and beyond?

I recognise the trauma that has been experienced by the family that Douglas Ross referenced in his comments.

I want to put on the record the extent of the scrutiny that was undertaken at stage 1 by the Criminal Justice Committee—in particular, the evidence that was heard from people with lived experience of the complaints and misconduct process. Things are not great—that is for sure—so I just want to make sure that the member is aware of that scrutiny.

Although I am not speaking this afternoon in my capacity as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, I put on the record my thanks to my committee colleagues for their commitment to effective scrutiny of the bill and for lodging a range of constructive amendments, as well as my thanks to the cabinet secretary.

The Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill outlines a range of provisions, at the heart of which is ensuring strong and transparent processes to investigate complaints and allegations of misconduct involving police officers and certain police staff. The vast majority of police officers and staff are absolutely dedicated and honest and they do an incredibly difficult job. A key objective of the bill is to ensure public trust and confidence that, when something goes wrong, a complaint will be taken seriously and dealt with in a timely manner. That came across loud and clear at stage 1, when the committee took evidence from members of the public who had made a complaint to Police Scotland or the PIRC, and from an officer who was the subject of a complaint. Much of their evidence demonstrated the profound impact that the shortfalls in complaints handling had had on them.

It is clear that, when the standard of behaviour of officers or staff falls short, there must be accountability. In that regard, I am pleased that the bill addresses the issue of enabling gross misconduct proceedings to continue or to commence when a person ceases to be a constable. I am pleased that that has developed further through stages 2 and 3.

Stage 2 saw a detailed debate on the bill’s provisions, including on the vetting code of practice, which was the subject of extensive amendments this afternoon. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s detailed rationale for the vetting code of practice. No one doubts the importance of a vetting process for officers and staff. However, the provision was a clear recommendation of the “HMICS Assurance review of vetting policy and procedures within Police Scotland.”

Concerns about today’s amendments were clearly set out by HMICS and Police Scotland in their respective correspondence to the Criminal Justice Committee on 9 January. As His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland set out in its report, vetting has historically been used to reduce corruption, with the focus being on the protection of police information and assets. For example, if intelligence is lost to serious and organised criminals, the harm to vulnerable people and the damage to public confidence and to the reputation of the police service can be considerable. It also undermines colleagues and the communities that they serve. Vetting policy is fundamental to reducing risk but, importantly, the application of a code of practice must be robust and effective.

I understand the spirit of amendment 28, which was lodged by Douglas Ross, in relation to the transparency of the process. Mr Ross set out his intention clearly, and I understand the shortcomings of the process. Should the amendment have been moved and agreed to, however, my concern would have been about the absence of consultation, which Mr Ross recognised, and the potential safety risks that are associated with the provision of personal information if it finds its way into the public domain. I am confident that that was not the intention of the amendment and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary responded to it in detail.

The bill provides a range of additional provisions that will allow greater scrutiny and transparency in the handling of complaints and allegations of misconduct. I urge members to support it at stage 3.

I thank the member for giving way, and I commend her for bringing the debate to the chamber. Would she agree that it is important, in the context of the work that still needs to be done, that we remember that veterans can be women and young people, and they exist right across the social and demographic spectrum?

How to follow Mr Leonard?

Some years ago, the languages tree in my son’s primary school had 46 leaves, to represent the 46 languages that were spoken in his school and the mix of nationalities that had settled in the north-east. Children were learning about one another’s cultures, traditions and values. They lived in families who worked in the energy industry, health services, education and business, and made a significant contribution to the local economy, their communities and the social and cultural ecosystems in the north-east.

Scotland is a welcoming nation, which embraces those who come to live, study and work, and those who flee persecution and conflict. That is a far cry from the previous UK Government’s unwelcoming approach of reducing migration through its immigration and asylum systems. I sincerely hope that the current UK Government commits to shifting the dial on that harmful approach. Scotland has distinct demographic and economic needs, and I will highlight two interconnected issues that are highly relevant to the north-east.

First, I thank Universities Scotland and Robert Gordon University for their helpful briefings on higher education. In our higher education space, international students have contributed between £4 billion and £6 billion to Scotland’s economy since 2019, and attracting global talent, such as Lorna Slater, to Scottish higher education has brought huge social, cultural and soft benefits.

In 2021-22, in Aberdeen alone, the contribution of international students had a net impact of more than £350 million. However, numbers have recently fallen dramatically due to the previous UK Government’s decision to end dependant visas. In 2023-24, Robert Gordon University in my constituency saw international on-campus postgraduate student enrolment decline by 34 per cent, and applications from female students declined by a staggering 57 per cent—they were clearly disproportionately affected by that decision.

Importantly, some postgraduate courses are viable only due to the presence of international students. Those courses provide the higher-order skills that are required by our workforce in Scotland at a time of significant skills shortages across a range of sectors. The UK Government must reverse the decision that prevents international students from bringing dependants to the UK, and maintain the graduate-route visa to ensure that Scotland remains an attractive destination for our international students.

That brings me on to the energy industry—specifically offshore wind. I am grateful to Scottish Renewables for highlighting a recent white paper that was submitted by numerous energy industry bodies, which outlines the detrimental impact of amendments to the Immigration Act 1971 and changes to visa rules for offshore wind workers that mean that almost all non-UK offshore workers require a visa to work in UK territorial waters.

The offshore wind sector is dependent on specialist vessels and crew that operate around the world, and the strict UK visa requirements are presenting a significant barrier to the deployment of vital Scottish offshore wind projects, which adds complexity and costs to working in the UK amid an increasingly competitive global offshore wind market. To illustrate—I ask members to stick with me—the average construction of a 1GW offshore wind farm in the UK can require close to 100 vessels. Industry has calculated that in that scenario, the cost of obtaining visas for a full complement of crew could be in excess of £45 million. The point about such costs was also made by my colleague Ben Macpherson.

To achieve clean power by 2030 and to capture the economic benefits for Scotland of our offshore wind potential, we need a visa system that enables those specialist vessels and crews to work in UK waters. Importantly, that would then allow projects to be successfully deployed and allow the long-term, high-value jobs that they create to be secured for our workforce here in Scotland.

To put it simply, visa requirements do not align with the needs of our economy, and they are creating an untenable situation for a key industry to Scotland. Scottish Renewables and industry partners are highlighting the issue with the UK Government, but traction with the Home Office has been limited. The Scottish Government has limited powers in that space, so I hope that there is scope for some collaboration between the Governments, working with industry, to find a resolution, given the importance of our ScotWind and innovation and targeted oil and gas projects.

I commend the action taken by the Scottish Government to establish Scotland’s Migration Service, which is an excellent support for employers, investors and individuals who are navigating the UK immigration system once they have arrived here. However, given the challenges faced by Scotland’s higher education and energy industries, and others that have been referred to by colleagues this afternoon, I fully support the Scottish Government’s calls for a differentiated, more flexible migration policy that is tailored to meet Scotland’s specific needs, including a policy that derives from a geographical context.

I urge members to support the Government motion this afternoon.