Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am just thinking about that. If someone ends up going into prison for a substantial time but they do not get any rehabilitation while they are there and they do not attend any courses to give them skills for when they come back into the community, is there any—

Have you made any progress on that?

I will turn back to the joint submission. There are references to the Scottish Government’s national strategy for community justice and the delivery plan as well as the recently published community justice performance framework. However, throughout the submission, there are references to funding. It also refers to

“significant implications for resourcing across JSW”

and

“a depleted and tired workforce.”

The submission goes on:

“The Scottish Government’s Vision for Justice, published in February 2022, includes a visual routemap to a transformed justice system by the end of the Parliamentary term in 2026.”

The submission then draws the committee’s attention to the one of the commitments in the vision:

“We will invest in a substantial expansion of community justice services, supporting diversion from prosecution, alternatives to remand and community sentencing.”

It seems as though we have a framework that everybody has done a lot of work on in order to tell us where we need to be, but it then also says:

“It is our view that the 23/24 spending priorities are not fully in line with the above commitment.”

Is change happening quickly enough? Do you have the resources or are all these frameworks just words on pieces of paper and is it the case that the frameworks will never be achieved if we do not start focusing on this?

The criminal justice social work—

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.