Chamber and committees

Amendment 16 relates to the creation and publication of an advisory list. The bill, as drafted, indicates that both the advisory list and the barred list will be made public. My amendment seeks to ensure that the advisory list is not published. Although I appreciate that there is an argument for allowing the public to know who is on the barred list and on the advisory list, I do not believe that the advisory list should be made public.

I believe that it is important to take direction from England and Wales, which already have barred and advisory lists in place, and I note that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to follow the model that exists elsewhere in the UK. The procedure in England and Wales is to not publish the advisory list.

Amendment 17 concerns people and groups who should consult the barred list before employing someone, including the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Service of Scotland. Where the information shared in the barred list is more crucial to those bodies, the amendment would ensure that they consider it. The bill as introduced leaves it to Scottish ministers, through secondary legislation, to decide who must consult the lists. I believe that it would be prudent to have a short list of people and groups who must consult the information on the barred list, where that would be most relevant to them.

Amendment 18 would add a further requirement to the advisory and barred lists. It would introduce a requirement on Scottish ministers to give notice to

“a person who is to be entered in or removed from, the advisory list or the barred list.”

That would ensure that people who are placed on those lists are kept informed about that.

Amendment 19 would add further points about the advisory and barred lists. It would allow people to ask for

“a review of the decision to enter them in to the advisory list or the barred list.”

The person would also be required to engage with the disciplinary process to be able to ask for a review. It is important that people who have actively participated in disciplinary proceedings are given the right to review the conclusion.

The rest of the amendments in the group are consequential. I will mention them again, but I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated that the Government will support amendments 18, 20 and 22 to 24, and that it will support amendment 17 if amendment 21 is not moved. I will not move amendment 21 and I look forward to the cabinet secretary’s comments.

I move amendment 16.

I have no other comments to make. I press amendment 33.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendment 63 not moved.

Amendments 34 and 35 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12—Call-in of relevant complaints

Amendments 36 and 64 not moved.

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

Section 15—Review of, and recommendations about, practices and policies of the police

Some of my amendments are probing amendments, and I would be happy to work with members to tighten them up.

In lodging my amendments, I have sought to address some of the many concerns that were raised in our evidence sessions. I want to tighten up the police’s procedures to make sure that the bill addresses some of the concerns that were raised. When we asked victims and survivors whether the bill would fix the problems that they had encountered, they said that it would not. I would be more than happy to tighten up my amendments. I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I am happy to speak to anybody in order to get my amendments pushed through at stage 3.

Amendment 55 seeks to add provisions on timescales in misconduct procedures. The amendment seeks to provide for regulations to be made that would include timescales for the completion of investigations into alleged unsatisfactory behaviour and the disciplinary process. During evidence sessions, we heard from people who had experienced the impact of delays in the complaints process. For example, we heard Stephanie Bonner’s account of the delays that she faced, which were unacceptable. Amendment 55 would go to the root of the problem by ensuring that clear time limits were identified.

Amendment 15 seeks to add to the bill a section relating to a power of the chief constable to dismiss constables on conduct or behaviour grounds. It would give the chief constable the power to dismiss any constable whose conduct failed to meet certain behaviour standards or the code of ethics.

Amendment 15 seeks to address the significant concerns about delays in the process. If an officer’s behaviour fulfils the criteria, the chief constable should be able to dismiss them without going through the process, where an outcome is inevitable. I mentioned the existence of irrefutable evidence.

Secondly, the amendment seeks to address the public concern about constables who have done significant wrongs but have been kept on, on full pay, while their case has been investigated. Recently, we heard about a constable who was arrested in August 2021 and who, despite being suspended, received full pay until he quit the force earlier this year. He was sentenced to prison for his conduct.

Amendment 58 is like amendment 15 in that it would give the chief constable the power to dismiss a constable for their behaviour. The amendment would give the chief constable the power to dismiss an officer with or without notice when the chief constable considers the officer’s behaviour to be unacceptable. That relates to the officer’s compliance with behaviour standards or the code of ethics. Similarly to amendment 15, amendment 58 addresses concerns about delays in process. Under the amendment, the chief constable would have to give written reasons for the dismissal and prepare and publish guidance on the use of the power.

Amendment 26 relates to the right of appeal to a police tribunal. The bill, as drafted, allows only a senior officer to do that. Amendment 26 would also allow constables to do so. Currently, the bill limits the right of appeal to senior officers. Any constable is allowed to appeal to a police tribunal against a decision to dismiss them or to demote them in rank. However, section 8 gives only senior officers the additional right to appeal against a decision to take disciplinary action short of dismissal or demotion due to their conduct. That right should be extended to all constables.

Amendment 27 has the same effect as amendment 26. Amendment 28 is consequential to amendments 26 and 27 and relates to the meaning of “a constable” in relation to the right to appeal at a tribunal. Amendment 29 has the same effect as amendment 28.

Amendment 30 concerns the circumstances in which a constable can be suspended from duty pending investigation. The amendment would mean that regulations for automatic suspension from the role of constable would apply only where the investigation relates to gross misconduct or a criminal offence or, in other words, an allegation that would lead to their dismissal. The amendment is needed to clarify in the legislation the reasons why automatic suspension can apply.

Amendment 31 deals with the notification to constables of misconduct proceedings against them. The amendment would require regulations to be made that would require constables to be notified as soon as an investigation into their standard of behaviour has commenced. The amendment would ensure that constables who are subject to misconduct proceedings are kept informed of the proceedings against them.

Amendment 32 concerns how disciplinary provisions relate to a constable during a criminal investigation. The amendment seeks to clarify that the procedures in the proposed new section apply to constables when they are subject to criminal investigations and proceedings. The amendment would ensure clarity.

Those amendments seek to address a number of concerns that were raised during evidence sessions to do with officers resigning and no further action being taken; the lack of timescales for conducting and completing misconduct complaints and investigations; the chief constable’s inability to dismiss a constable where there is irrefutable evidence of guilt; and constables being suspended without being informed of the reason why.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated that the Government will support amendments 12 to 14, 18, 20 and 22 to 24. The Government has agreed to work on amendment 53 for stage 3, so I will not move it today. The Government has also indicated that it will support amendment 17 if amendment 21 is not moved, and I will not move amendment 21. My other amendments were lodged with the best intentions of improving the bill. I agree that some could be defined more for stage 3, and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments on them.

I move amendment 12.

I am sure that that is an issue that the cabinet secretary will comment on, but we have heard that constables against whom there is irrefutable evidence that they are guilty of a criminal offence continue to get paid in the police force. That provides no justice for victims, and it represents a cost to the police. The bill says that disciplinary procedures “may” be postponed to allow the criminal case to go first, but it does not say that the criminal case must proceed first. We need the cabinet secretary to clarify that.

My proposal would result in a cost saving for the police force, because it could dismiss someone sooner. In addition, the fact that the outcome of the disciplinary process would be kept private and would not be disclosed to anyone would mean that it should not have an impact on the criminal case.

In the interest of speed, I will just say that I will reflect on the cabinet secretary’s comments and consider whether I can work on any of my amendments in order to bring them back with more clarity at stage 3. I take on board all the cabinet secretary’s points, and I do not have any further comments.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments. I am still hopeful that some of the amendments could be brought back at stage 3 if we do a bit more work on them. As I said, the amendments were lodged with the intention of trying to improve the bill.

I will not press amendment 16.

Amendment 16, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendments 19 and 59 not moved.

Amendment 20 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendments 22 to 24 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Procedures for misconduct: senior officers

Amendments 26 to 29 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

After section 8

Amendments 30 to 32 not moved.

Amendment 33 concerns how a complainer is notified of the commissioner’s decision to conduct a review. It seeks to ensure that, when the commissioner decides to conduct a review, the complainer is notified of that decision. The amendment is needed as the bill provides that the PIRC

“may carry out a complaint handling review of the Commissioner’s own volition if ... it is in the public interest to do so.”

Currently, they would do that only if asked by the public. The amendment will ensure that people who make complaints are kept up to date and informed about the progress of those complaints.

Amendment 36 concerns the information that the commissioner has access to during the investigation. It seeks to ensure that regulations will be made that will allow the commissioner to require a relevant person to provide documents that they believe will assist in the investigation of the complaint. That will ensure that the commissioner can gain access to and gather as much information as possible to allow them to progress the investigation. The main intention behind amendment 36 is to address the circumstance where the call-in complaint does not come from Police Scotland. It would allow the commissioner to gather anything that may be of use.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated her support for my amendment 33. I look forward to hearing her comments on amendment 36.

I move amendment 33.

Amendment 41 would add a new section to the bill altering the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016. It would provide for a mandatory fatal accident inquiry to be undertaken if a constable “is suspected to have” died by suicide.

In England and Wales, there are statutory inquests. Although we do not have the same requirement in Scotland, the committee found out recently, in an evidence session, that “few” officer suicides have been subject to a fatal accident inquiry despite the fact that workplace-related issues were possibly relevant. Police Scotland has acknowledged that it is out of the organisation’s control whether an FAI takes place in that context. Amendment 41 is needed to ensure that an FAI is always undertaken when a constable dies by suicide.

Amendment 42 would add a new section to the bill providing for a mandatory FAI to be undertaken if a constable has died by “suspected ... suicide”. It would add to the provisions in amendment 41 by allowing for a mandatory FAI to be undertaken if the family of the deceased requests one.

The police go out every single day not knowing what they are going to face. They can be faced with circumstances that none of us would want to be involved in, whether it is the death of a child, a murder or a road traffic accident. They face a lot of traumatic situations. Bringing in a fatal accident inquiry if there is thought to be a constable suicide would mean that an inquiry could be undertaken to find out what has happened, which could prevent any further suicides from taking place.

I ask members to support amendments 41 and 42.

I move amendment 41.

We intend to support the amendments in the group if they are pressed to a vote.

Amendment 4 seeks to add to the list of people who should be consulted on the preparation of the code of ethics; it provides that representatives of people who have made a complaint against Police Scotland should be consulted on the preparation of the code. The bill does not currently provide for people who represent individuals who have made a complaint against Police Scotland to be consulted.

When the new code of ethics is prepared, it will be important to take into account the views of people who have experience of the system. During evidence sessions, we heard directly from people with experience of the system about the difficulties that they had incurred. To get the best version of a new code, it would be beneficial for such views to be considered.

Amendment 50 seeks to add a new section to the bill relating to the consequences of a new code of ethics for the police’s policies, procedures and guidance. It would require the chief constable to undertake a review of Police Scotland’s policies, procedures and guidance and to consider what changes were needed because of the new code of ethics. Furthermore, it would require that any changes that were identified under the proposed new section should be implemented within a year of the bill receiving royal assent. I had intended the proposed timescale to be realistic, and I appreciate from what the cabinet secretary has said that a one-year period would not be realistic.

The new code of ethics must be reflected in Police Scotland’s disciplinary policies and procedures. The new section that amendment 50 seeks to insert would ensure that the chief constable revisited Police Scotland’s policies and procedures to reflect the changes. That would address the concern that has been raised that the code of ethics will be symbolic and will have no effect. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has shown support in principle for my amendments and has agreed to work with me on them ahead of stage 3. For that reason, I will not move them today.

Some of my amendments are probing amendments, and I would be happy to work with members to tighten them up.

In lodging my amendments, I have sought to address some of the many concerns that were raised in our evidence sessions. I want to tighten up the police’s procedures to make sure that the bill addresses some of the concerns that were raised. When we asked victims and survivors whether the bill would fix the problems that they had encountered, they said that it would not. I would be more than happy to tighten up my amendments. I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I am happy to speak to anybody in order to get my amendments pushed through at stage 3.

Amendment 55 seeks to add provisions on timescales in misconduct procedures. The amendment seeks to provide for regulations to be made that would include timescales for the completion of investigations into alleged unsatisfactory behaviour and for the disciplinary process. During evidence sessions, we heard from people who had experienced the impact of delays in the complaints process. For example, we heard Stephanie Bonner’s account of the delays that she faced, which were unacceptable. Amendment 55 would go to the root of the problem by ensuring that clear time limits were identified.

Amendment 15 seeks to add to the bill a section relating to a power of the chief constable to dismiss constables on conduct or behaviour grounds. It would give the chief constable the power to dismiss any constable whose conduct failed to meet certain behaviour standards or the code of ethics.

Amendment 15 seeks to address the significant concerns about delays in the process. If an officer’s behaviour fulfils the criteria, the chief constable should be able to dismiss them without going through the process, where an outcome is inevitable. I mentioned the existence of irrefutable evidence.

Secondly, the amendment seeks to address the public concern about constables who have done significant wrongs but have been kept on, on full pay, while their case has been investigated. Recently, we heard about a constable who was arrested in August 2021 and who, despite being suspended, received full pay until he quit the force earlier this year. He was sentenced to prison for his conduct.

Amendment 58 is like amendment 15 in that it would give the chief constable the power to dismiss a constable for their behaviour. The amendment would give the chief constable the power to dismiss an officer with or without notice when the chief constable considered the officer’s behaviour to be unacceptable. That relates to the officer’s compliance with behaviour standards or the code of ethics. Similarly to amendment 15, amendment 58 addresses concerns about delays in process. Under the amendment, the chief constable would have to give written reasons for the dismissal and prepare and publish guidance on the use of the power.

Amendment 26 relates to the right of appeal to a police tribunal. The bill, as drafted, allows only a senior officer to do that. Amendment 26 would also allow constables to do so. Currently, the bill limits the right of appeal to senior officers. Any constable is allowed to appeal to a police tribunal against a decision to dismiss them or to demote them in rank. However, section 8 gives only senior officers the additional right to appeal against a decision to take disciplinary action short of dismissal or demotion due to their conduct. That right should be extended to all constables.

Amendment 27 has the same effect as amendment 26. Amendment 28 is consequential to amendments 26 and 27 and relates to the meaning of “a constable” in relation to the right to appeal at a tribunal. Amendment 29 has the same effect as amendment 28.

Amendment 30 concerns the circumstances in which a constable can be suspended from duty pending investigation. The amendment would mean that regulations for automatic suspension from the role of constable would apply only where the investigation relates to gross misconduct or a criminal offence or, in other words, an allegation that would lead to their dismissal. The amendment is needed to clarify in the legislation the reasons why automatic suspension can apply.

Amendment 31 deals with the notification to constables of misconduct proceedings against them. The amendment would require regulations to be made that would require constables to be notified as soon as an investigation into their standard of behaviour has commenced. The amendment would ensure that constables who are subject to misconduct proceedings are kept informed of the proceedings against them.

Amendment 32 concerns how disciplinary provisions relate to a constable during a criminal investigation. The amendment seeks to clarify that the procedures in the proposed new section apply to constables when they are subject to criminal investigations and proceedings. The amendment would ensure clarity.

Those amendments seek to address a number of concerns that were raised during evidence sessions to do with officers resigning and no further action being taken; the lack of timescales for conducting and completing misconduct complaints and investigations; the chief constable’s inability to dismiss a constable where there is irrefutable evidence of guilt; and constables being suspended without being informed of the reason why.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated that the Government will support amendments 12 to 14, 18, 20 and 22 to 24. The Government has agreed to work on amendment 53 for stage 3, so I will not move it today. The Government has also indicated that it will support amendment 17 if amendment 21 is not moved, and I will not move amendment 21. My other amendments were lodged with the best intentions of improving the bill. I agree that some could be defined more for stage 3, and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments on them.

I move amendment 12.