Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 28 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1838 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 October 2024

Pauline McNeill

Thank you.

I am in the same position as Katy Clark, in that I think that the amendments in this group are really important, regardless of how they have been framed.

There are a couple of things on which I would like further clarification. Cabinet secretary, have you had any discussion with the Scottish Police Federation or other police organisations about the implications of the duty of candour being applied to off-duty officers? Katy Clark talked about various scenarios, and one of the difficulties with the bill lies in trying to apply its provisions to scenarios that we know very little about. One scenario that I can think of involves an off-duty officer who is out socialising and witnesses something. Does the duty of candour apply in that scenario? Are there any circumstances where it would not apply—for instance, if an officer is involved as a witness, which could compromise them in some other way—or is the duty absolute?

Secondly, in relation to the framing of the bill, I want to understand the language used in amendment 10, which says

“subject, in particular, to the reasonable assertion”.

Perhaps the officials will need to help to answer that. Why is the amendment framed in that language, with the phrase “reasonable assertion”? Does that suggest that there are circumstances where the privilege against self-incrimination would not apply?

I have a third point of clarification to raise. Cases where a police officer has been confirmed as a witness illustrate an important aspect of the duty of candour versus the issue of self-incrimination. Am I right in thinking that there is no requirement for the duty of candour to be applied until the point at which the officer concerned is confirmed as a witness and not a suspect? Would there be any scenarios in which that might change—where an officer might go from being a witness to being a suspect, but has already spoken without any privilege? I was wondering whether those things had been discussed when you framed the provisions.

Criminal Justice Committee

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 October 2024

Pauline McNeill

I want to be clear before the vote. This is not a new vetting procedure.

Criminal Justice Committee

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 October 2024

Pauline McNeill

On a point of information, I am not trying to be difficult with the Government on this. Cabinet secretary, you have said that these are the timetables that we have to work to, and that is true, but, having dealt with quite a lot of legislation over the years, I know that it is not usual for the Government to introduce a substantial procedure at this stage. I know that you said that it was not a new procedure, but it looks to me as though it is, and I am going to be asked to vote on it in five minutes. I think that it is a new procedure, and we have not consulted on it, so it is not fair to represent the process of legislation in that way.

We are probably all dissatisfied with regard to how fast the process is. However, it is unusual for the Government to lob in an entirely new process at this stage. We are not really sure about the effect that it will have on people. You said that you consulted the federation, but the committee is confused, because we have been told that you have not done that. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Government would even concede that it is not normal to lodge a three-page amendment to a procedure when we have had no discussion of that amendment.

Criminal Justice Committee

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 October 2024

Pauline McNeill

I acknowledge that. I thought that you could draft something that would allow for an extension of that. It is really about the principle of not having a completely open-ended investigation. Something should go in the bill that tries to ensure fairness. Without revision, an investigation could just run on for years and years, as some have done.

Criminal Justice Committee

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 October 2024

Pauline McNeill

To be fair, I did not expect you to answer that. It is just that we are going to vote on the matter shortly, so I want to be sure about what “reasonable assertion” means.

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Pauline McNeill

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports regarding the number of young people aged 11 to 14 who are involved in violent crime. (S6F-03394)

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Pauline McNeill

Police Scotland data indicates that almost 14,000 violent crimes were committed by children in 2023-24, but, worryingly, there is a sharp rise in the number of children in the 11 to 14 age group being involved or armed with weapons such as knives, blunt objects and bottles. Knives were the most common weapon that was used or present. Concerningly, the chief constable told the Criminal Justice Committee last week that

“the number of assaults on officers by under-18s is on the increase.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 September 2024; c 34.]

Does the First Minister acknowledge that cuts to youth services could have made the problem worse?

YouthLink Scotland and other organisations have criticised the lack of data available. Given the severity of the crimes, what exactly is the Government doing to engage with that age group? On the face of it, it does not appear that the Government is doing much at all.

Meeting of the Parliament

Creating a Modern, Diverse and Dynamic Scotland

Meeting date: 18 September 2024

Pauline McNeill

I thank Ross Greer for giving way, and I very much respect his contribution. I have always respected people who have a different perspective from my own. However, is it not fair to say that even pro-yes commentators said that the failure to present an economic plan and to be clear about the currency of an independent Scotland were the reasons why independence failed in 2014? Does the member accept that, and has that question been resolved?

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 18 September 2024

Pauline McNeill

On my last visit to HMP Stirling, I was made aware of some women offenders who have psychiatric conditions; the prison is not equipped to deal with them. That seems to be the key reason why the local people that Mark Ruskell mentioned are experiencing shouting from the prison.

I am also aware that the Government has responded to questions that I and others have raised about Carstairs hospital having no female places. In view of that, is the Scottish Government assessing the various needs of women offenders serving a sentence who require specialist psychiatric services?

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 12 September 2024

Pauline McNeill

Behind the recording of crime statistics are real victims, such as the women who had to sit through court proceedings last year and hear the rapist referred to as a woman. I do not think that the First Minister can ignore responsibility. As Rachael Hamilton said, Police Scotland has said that that is consistent with its values, but the Government needs to be clear whether it is consistent with the Government’s values. If a message is to go from the First Minister today, does it not make a mockery of the Government’s violence against women strategy if violent male offenders can present as women and that could be accepted by the police? It is that critical.