Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.

The bill will embed ethics in the legislative framework to ensure that human rights are front and centre of policing in Scotland. It will pave the way to reforming how police conduct is dealt with and will enhance the independent scrutiny of policing.

The bill draws on evidence led by the former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini, who undertook an independent review of police complaints investigation and misconduct issues. She heard from many individuals from different organisations and members of the public, as well as numerous focus groups.

In 2022, a 12-week public consultation was held. That consultation demonstrated broad support for the legislative changes that were recommended by Dame Elish Angiolini. The measures in the bill build on the non-legislative improvements that have already been made by policing partners. It is important that the bill has been shaped by those who have lived experience of the police complaints system, many of whom felt that the whole system was against them, that they became the victim and that there was no independent body to turn to.

In seeking to raise and embed ethical standards, the bill places a statutory obligation on the chief constable to prepare, regularly review and disseminate the code of ethics, reflecting its significance. Those who hold the office of constable and the powers of that office have a higher duty than others to account for their actions and record what they did or saw in the execution of their duties. Therefore, an explicit duty of candour on individuals, constables and Police Scotland as a whole will be introduced.

To enhance independent scrutiny and remove any perception of familiarity in relation to misconduct proceedings, the bill will amend regulation-making powers to allow the transfer of certain functions from the Scottish Police Authority to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. It provides that the legislation governing disciplinary procedures can be amended to apply to former constables in particularly serious cases, and it provides for the consequences of gross misconduct by the application of barred and advisory lists to ensure that constables who do not meet the standards required of the police service are prevented from being able to work in policing.

To avoid the police investigating someone with whom they have a connection or with whom they might even have worked, the PIRC will have the ability to investigate when it is suspected that the offence was committed by a person who formerly served with the police. If officers and staff experience poor service in a personal capacity, the bill clarifies that their complaint to Police Scotland will be able to be reviewed by the PIRC. That will give constables and staff an external body to go to.

To strengthen the role of the PIRC with regard to any recommendation that it makes to Police Scotland on its handling of individual complaints, there is a requirement that the outcomes of those reviews are published and that the chief constable must respond.

The bill provides the PIRC with the power to take over the consideration of complaints that are being dealt with by the chief constable or the Scottish Police Authority. To improve the transparency of processes around how public interest matters are investigated, the PIRC will have a duty to audit the arrangements for investigating whistleblowing complaints. That will encourage people to speak up when they see wrongdoing.

The PIRC will also be given new functions to investigate serious incidents or criminal offending that occur in Scotland that involve constables from forces outside Scotland. To support Police Scotland to improve, the PIRC will have a new power to review a policy or practice of the authority or Police Scotland if the PIRC considers that that would be in the public interest.

To improve efficiency, transparency, independence and public confidence in the police complaints process, the bill paves the way for the PIRC to independently and remotely have direct access to audit and review files in Police Scotland’s complaints database. To strengthen the PIRC’s decision making, the bill puts in place a statutory advisory board to advise the PIRC on governance and administrative matters.

I want to ensure that the public have confidence in the police complaints and misconduct system, and I am committed to working with members, policing partners and, importantly, people with lived experience to ensure that the bill achieves its aims.

I do. Your point about culture is very important, and HMICS has done a significant amount of work on scrutinising and making recommendations on how to embed a good organisational structure. I would never pretend that legislation alone was the magic bullet or the entire answer. However, the Scottish Government’s response to the independent Dame Elish Angiolini review was overwhelmingly positive. The vast majority of the recommendations were accepted. About two thirds of the recommendations were non-statutory, and 58 recommendations have already been implemented.

With regard to the oversight of that work, I chair a ministerial group that is about giving ministers assurance that policing partners are implementing recommendations, particularly non-legislative ones. That work was also supported by a strategic oversight group and a practitioners group. It is important to stress—I hope that I managed to do this in my opening remarks—that we have regularly informed the Parliament through Government-initiated questions and by writing to the committee a number of times on the thematic reviews.

We can group Dame Elish’s recommendations into categories, such as training and human resources and effectiveness and efficiency. There are many well-organised themes in her work and her recommendations, which has been of assistance in respect of policing partners’ reporting and in the correspondence that we have sent to the committee over a number of years.

We now have to move forward, build on the change that has begun and deliver on the commitments that we made to introduce legislation on the minority of Dame Elish’s recommendations that required statutory provision, including those relating to the code of ethics, the duty of candour and strengthening the independence and broadening the role of the PIRC.

I am not aware of any, but I can ask officials if they know what the position is historically—I will let them contemplate that. When it comes to improvements in relation to misconduct and complaints, I have been focused on the bill.

I suppose that that is an argument for the bill.

The difficulty with that is that conduct regulations are in secondary legislation and the way to change them is via secondary legislation. There would also need to be extensive engagement and consultation on any proposed changes. Again, that is due to the obligations that are placed on us by the 2012 act. The way forward, or the vehicle for change for the practicalities that Ms Dowey has spoken about, is the primary legislation, which enables us to revisit secondary legislation. Do officials have any finer points of detail that they want to add?

The only point that I would add is that we have to avoid a piecemeal approach. The Government made a commitment to lodge primary legislation to cover the necessary legislative changes that I referenced in my opening remarks. That needs to be supported by secondary legislation where necessary. The way that matters are phased and sequenced will be important, as will how we bring together aspects of the work that specifically relate to conduct regulations, because, even though the secondary legislation that flows from the bill will be required, we need to move forward in a planned and phased manner and not in a piecemeal way. I wanted to add that to give some assurance to Ms Dowey.

Of course. I met the commissioner just last week—it was not my first engagement with her. I engage regularly with all policing partners. I note and pay attention to where there are differences of opinion among the PIRC, Police Scotland, HMICS and the Scottish Police Federation. When we get into the detail of a bill, not everybody faces the same direction all the time. The Government has to come to a view and, ultimately, the Parliament has to come to a view.

There are some aspects that we might come on to later, such as whether the commissioner should be on the prescribed persons list. There are practical arguments that the commissioner is deploying effectively, in my view. However, in a more global sense, while the bill either clarifies the role of the PIRC or extends an existing role by taking some narrow roles or duties and broadening them out, it is important that, particularly in senior officer cases, the role of the PIRC is expanded and that those functions are transferred from the Scottish Police Authority to the PIRC.

That is for pragmatic reasons. We have one police force in Scotland and a comparatively small number of senior police officers who all have a proximity to the Scottish Police Authority. The role of the PIRC is as a credible partner in policing and the cornerstone of policing in holding the police to account on behalf of the public and that is important.

Yes.

The legislation on whistleblowing is reserved. We are, of course, in discussion with the UK Government and with the PIRC. That is an example of where the commissioner makes a fair point, in my opinion, although the Parliament may have a different view.

I am committed to the transfer of functions from the SPA to the PIRC, because that is the prudent thing to do, given the perception of proximity between senior police officers and the Scottish Police Authority.

It does apply to off-duty officers.