I have wound up, so I press amendment 5.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Scottish police advisory list and Scottish police barred list

Amendment 26 not moved.

The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill today, believing that it will improve the complaints process for members of the public and for police officers. I acknowledge that there are still some concerns about certain elements, not least from the Scottish Police Federation, and it is important that we all work with the federation in future to ensure that those can be resolved in the best way possible.

There appears to be widespread agreement that the current system fails both victims and the police. That is why we have worked hard on the bill, successfully lodging a number of amendments to ensure that it is as fair and robust as it possibly can be. There is no shortage of examples of people who have been let down by the system, and I am sure that we will hear about many of those during the debate. It is worth remembering, however, that the bill aims to protect police officers to the same extent.

Every single day, both as a regional MSP and in my work in a justice-related portfolio, I see the sheer selflessness of police officers as they go about their work of keeping us safe. When they go to work each day, they have absolutely no idea what they are going to face, or indeed any guarantee of returning home safely at the end of their shift. Often, they arrive at an incident and are forced to deal with a whole series of events over which they have little control. They have no opportunity to deal with, and no responsibility for, the minutes or hours leading up to an incident, or with the weeks, months and years of chaos in someone’s life that leave them requiring the intervention of the law.

Police officers are sometimes themselves victims of vexatious complaints, often by some of the very worst people in society. When that happens, as unions repeatedly point out, they are guilty until proven innocent. That can mean being suspended or put on restricted duties—something that can be hugely damaging to an officer’s career, confidence, self-esteem and mental health. With policing numbers being as low as they are, and with officers increasingly being called to incidents that are arguably outside their remit, society can hardly afford to have innocent, hard-working policemen and policewomen being forced off duty for no good reason.

I have huge sympathy for the Scottish Police Federation and the concerns that it has raised around vetting and the harm done to officers when they are incorrectly accused of wrongdoing. That said, as the SPF said on a number of occasions, the police rank and file are merely a reflection of our society. In a 16,000-plus workforce, which replenishes regularly over time, it would be foolish to assume that every employee is perfect. Therefore, we must make sure that when misconduct occurs, it is dealt with swiftly and to the satisfaction of the complainer. I know that police officers are as keen as anyone for that to happen.

The bill is a very important piece of legislation that has involved good co-operation between all parties involved. It has not fallen victim to party politics or to petty point-scoring exchanges, and everyone can see the good motivation behind it.

It is crucial that we ensure that we pass good law in the Scottish Parliament, and that when legislation is introduced, those who are tasked with enforcing it are sufficiently resourced to do so. I hope that the Scottish Government works with Police Scotland to ensure that the finances are right, especially during a phase in which the senior leadership of Police Scotland is regularly forced to raise concern about resources, financial planning and the long-term security of the force.

On a personal level, I was pleased to secure five amendments to the bill at stage 3, which I will briefly summarise for the record.

The first is that the PIRC will immediately notify a complainer when it decides to conduct a complaint handling review, which is a straightforward requirement that will improve their experience within the process.

The next is that the chief constable must make appropriate changes in the light of the code of ethics as soon as possible. After all, what use is it if it sits on a shelf without ever being implemented?

Another amendment ensures that disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought against an officer more than a year after they have resigned or retired. That will ensure that stale proceedings cannot be pursued after an unreasonable amount of time has passed. That amendment will not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought in relation to historical allegations.

It is also important that officers are fully aware of the situation, and they should not be allowed to resign simply because they think that doing so will get them off the hook. Another amendment provides that a police officer must be informed at the earliest opportunity, if such a situation arises, that leaving the force does not safeguard them in the event of proceedings being launched.

The final amendment provides that, when the chief constable is preparing a code of ethics, they must ensure that, among the many groups and organisations that are likely to be consulted, people who have made complaints in the past are included. Lived experience in such cases will be essential.

There are considerable concerns around the vetting amendments that came in at stage 2, not least because no evidence was taken on them. That is not a good way to make law, and the committee was split on whether the approach should proceed. The fear that vetting could be used as an excuse to dismiss officers rather than purely to address misconduct is entirely legitimate. There are many good points in the bill, but those specific concerns must be placed on the record.

I will be pleased to vote for the bill. I fully believe that it will be of benefit to the public and the hard-working police officers who sacrifice so much to keep the streets of Scotland safe.

I take this opportunity to thank the legislation team, the cabinet secretary and the Government officials for their help in working with the amendments at stage 2 to get them passed at stage 3.

I press amendment 8.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

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

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Prior to the bill’s enactment, a police officer whose behaviour was found to amount to gross misconduct would be able to avoid disciplinary proceedings simply by resigning or retiring. Fortunately, the bill seeks to close that loophole. However, when taking evidence on the bill, the Criminal Justice Committee heard concerns that officers might not be aware of that change. As such, a constable might resign, thinking that that would get them off the hook, only to realise, when it is too late to rescind their resignation, that proceedings will continue in their absence.

My amendment 5 therefore seeks to ensure that a constable is informed at the earliest possible opportunity that resignation or retirement is not a route to avoiding disciplinary proceedings. It does that by requiring notice to be given to a constable, following a determination that the allegation against them amounts to gross misconduct, that disciplinary procedures may be applied in relation to a person who resigns or retires. That means that, at the point at which the constable is informed that there are proceedings against them, they are also informed that those will continue whether or not they resign. The drafting ensures that notice is given at the most useful time, making sure that the constable has all the information that is available before they make any decision to resign.

Amendment 5 is very similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I thank the Scottish Government for working with me to bring it back at stage 3, ensuring that constables are kept fully informed of the new rules at the earliest possible opportunity.

I turn to amendment 6. The bill as originally drafted would allow for disciplinary proceedings to be conducted against police officers after they had left the force as long as they were being disciplined for gross misconduct. A caveat to that was that the bill also included a requirement that a time limit must be set out in regulations for disciplinary proceedings to be brought forward after a constable had resigned. That is sensible, in my view, as it is important to prevent stale allegations from being pursued against former constables for an indefinite or lengthy period after they have ceased to be a constable.

As such, the effect of my amendment 6 would require that those regulations set out that disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought against an officer more than a year after they have resigned or retired. That would ensure that investigations into an officer’s misconduct were current and timely, and would prevent regulations from allowing for a time limit that is of an undue length. It would also ensure that stale allegations were not routinely pursued to the extent that the investigatory body was overwhelmed by historical allegations that limited its ability to investigate current and live officer misconduct.

That comes with two caveats. First, this is a presumption only, and the Scottish Government assures me that the regulations will set out tests or special criteria to determine whether it is reasonable and proportionate to apply the disciplinary procedures to a former constable after more than one year. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary would reaffirm that when she sums up.

Secondly, although amendment 6 means that disciplinary proceedings could not be pursued against an officer for an indefinite period of time, that would not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against an ex-officer over historical allegations. That is a sensible measure to add to the bill.

I am happy to move amendment 5.

What good is a new code of ethics if it is not reflected in practice by Police Scotland? One of my biggest concerns about the new code of ethics would be that it becomes simply another piece of work that sits on a shelf and gathers dust for years, not making the change that was promised.

My amendment 7 creates a new free-standing section that places a one-off duty on the chief constable to review misconduct policies, practices and guidance. The chief constable is also required to make changes that are appropriate in light of the code of ethics, as soon as practicable. The amendment requires the review to take place within a year of the commencement of the new section, allowing time for the code of ethics to be published and the new set of conduct rules to be put in place before the review begins. That means that the review will be of the new policies, practices and procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

It is our responsibility as a Parliament to ensure that the legislation that we pass is meaningful and effective. Amendment 7 goes some way towards ensuring that

I am happy to move amendment 7.

My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I remain significantly concerned about the inclusion of vetting in the bill. Vetting was not included in the bill as initially drafted, so no evidence was taken on the vetting process at stage 1. The Scottish Police Federation has highlighted several issues with the current vetting process. When officers fail vetting, many are not given clear explanations as to why, with many not being afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision. David Kennedy has also highlighted concerns that vetting would be used as a substitute for misconduct proceedings. The federation is therefore understandably concerned about moving to a system of continuous vetting when those issues have not been rectified.

Although many of Pauline McNeill’s amendments seek to rectify the issues that I have just mentioned, the way in which sections 3A and 3B were tacked on at stage 2 without being scrutinised by the committee was wholly inappropriate. That said, it is of paramount importance that officers who do not meet the standards that are expected of them are weeded out, and a more rigorous system of vetting may help to achieve that, as would updating misconduct policies and practices. Although I still have reservations about the wording of sections 3A and 3B, enhanced vetting may, in principle, improve public trust in the police, which is the entire point of the bill.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour, and safeguard the welfare of girls, in schools. (S6O-04174)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the recent horrifying case at a Dundee secondary school, where a hidden camera was discovered in a toilet roll holder, reportedly in a unisex bathroom.

A 15-year-old boy has been charged, with reports suggesting that the camera contained hundreds of sensitive images of girls. That has left pupils and parents angry and traumatised, with at least one girl refusing to return to school.

At a recent round-table meeting, a teacher spoke of appalling and, sadly, frequent instances of boys taking advantage of unisex toilets to slip phones under cubicles and film girls using the toilets. Given those disturbing incidents, will the cabinet secretary recognise the significant safeguarding risks of unisex toilets, and will she commit to ensuring that all toilets are returned to single-sex use in order to protect young girls?

I have questions that are probably on the same lines as Katy Clark’s. We heard in the previous and really interesting evidence session about the significant work that was going on, and the assistant chief constable told us that she was heartened and encouraged by the partnership working that was taking place. However, we also heard about services that ran only Monday to Friday, and we were told about physical spaces that needed multidisciplinary staff but which health would not fund.

Obviously we are getting to a crucial point now, and I am sure that you are having regular discussions about your budget, but I feel that a lot of this particular budget should be covered by health, to ensure that your police budget is spared. What conversations have you had in that respect with the health secretary and his team in order to alleviate the pressure on the police? Can you share with us any of the conversations about the work that he and his team are doing? Are you happy that they are implementing measures that will provide the sort of 24/7 service that the police force gives?

That was another question.