Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

At last, I have been called courteous. I think that the member has just walked into a bear trap: the great big promise from Anas Sarwar was that there would be no austerity under Labour. How is that for a broken promise?

Will the member give way?

I, too, congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee on its report. At this stage of the debate, much has been said, so I apologise in advance for revisiting points that have already been made.

Let me preface my speech by stating clearly, as others have done—I think that we all endorse this view—that the overwhelming majority of police officers carry out their vast range of duties professionally and ethically. Those duties range from dealing with theft, attending road traffic accidents, carrying out drug investigations, helping folk with mental health issues, dealing with disputes between neighbours, dealing with domestic abuse and social disorder to investigating murders. The circumstances can vary as much as the incidents that I have identified. Police officers might simply need to be gently helpful, they might need to deal with someone who is confused or they might have to deal with threats to their life by a mob or an individual—they have to be ready for practically anything.

That is in a society in which regard for the police is not as it was in the days—here I will show my age; everyone over 70 will understand this—of the fictional “Dixon of Dock Green” or even the more recent but still distant “Z-Cars”. These days, respect for those in any position of authority has to be earned, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Thankfully, in this democracy, police also police by consent. Therefore, trust in the police must prevail, and that is most tested when policing goes wrong.

In every organisation, there will be bad eggs, and the police force is no exception. Who suffers from bad policing? It is the public and, of course, the individual, but it is also every other police officer.

On the Police Scotland website, there are currently directions on how to complain. For example, there are headings such as “What is a complaint?” and “Investigating your complaint”. There is an explanation of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the criminal allegations against the police division, which is part of the Crown Office.

What if someone is unhappy about their complaint? What happens to it? The Police Scotland website says:

“If the reasons for your complaint are clear and we see it’s a minor, non-criminal complaint, we will record it. An officer from our Professional Standards Department will contact you to discuss the details of your complaint.

It may be that we can resolve your complaint quickly by providing information or explanation.

If we need to look at your complaint in more detail, our Professional Standards team will record it and contact you to explain the next steps. Your complaint may be allocated to an investigator to carry out further enquiry.

If you make a complaint direct to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC), they will direct you back to Police Scotland. We will then follow the same process as if you had contacted us directly.”

As Dame Elish Angiolini conceded, the system was reasonably good already, but there was room for improvement. One of the major parts of the bill that will strengthen the system is that an offending officer will not be able to escape discipline and punitive measures simply by retiring and, therefore, avoiding the outcome of a finding of gross misconduct. That practice is too often used as an escape route, and it is totally indefensible. The bill will also create barred and advisory lists to stop people who do not meet the high standards that are expected of police officers from gaining employment in policing anywhere in the UK.

I will conclude this brief contribution by referring to my experience as an MSP in my dealings with the police. In the vast majority of cases, we worked as a team, often in the interests of a vulnerable constituent, but—however rarely—I have experienced slipshod policing, as has been referenced by previous speakers. In those cases, only the use of what pressure I could bring to bear ensured that my constituents’ concerns were appropriately addressed. That should not have been necessary. However, I repeat that my contact over 25 years has been overwhelmingly positive.

I welcome the fact that the bill will weed out those who fail to meet the high standards that are rightly required of our police service, make those who are found guilty of gross misconduct pay the price for that, and strengthen the PIRC to ensure public confidence in the whole complaints procedure—by which I mean either complaints by the public against the police or complaints by police against fellow officers. However, there is one important issue. We must ensure that the balance is struck between fairness to the complainer and fairness to those who are subject to a complaint. That is crucial.

Heavens, I seem to have stirred a bit of interest. I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie.

I beg your pardon.

Does the member therefore consider it, to put it very—[Interruption.]

I, too, congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee on its report. At this stage of the debate, much has been said, so I apologise in advance for revisiting points that have already been made.

Let me preface my speech by stating clearly, as others have done—I think that we all endorse this view—that the overwhelming majority of police officers carry out their vast range of duties professionally and ethically. Those duties range from dealing with theft, attending road traffic accidents, carrying out drug investigations, helping folk with mental health issues, dealing with disputes between neighbours, dealing with domestic abuse and social disorder to investigating murders. The circumstances can vary as much as the incidents that I have identified. Police officers might simply need to be gently helpful, they might need to deal with someone who is confused or they might have to deal with threats to their life by a mob or an individual—they have to be ready for practically anything.

That is in a society in which regard for the police is not as it was in the days—here I will show my age; everyone over 70 will understand this—of the fictional “Dixon of Dock Green” or even the more recent but still distant “Z-Cars”. These days, respect for those in any position of authority has to be earned, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Thankfully, in this democracy, police also police by consent. Therefore, trust in the police must prevail, and that is most tested when policing goes wrong.

In every organisation, there will be bad eggs, and the police force is no exception. Who suffers from bad policing? It is the public and, of course, the individual, but it is also every other police officer.

On the Police Scotland website, there are currently directions on how to complain. For example, there are headings such as “What is a complaint?” and “Investigating your complaint”. There is an explanation of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the criminal allegations against the police division, which is part of the Crown Office.

What if someone is unhappy about their complaint? What happens to it? The Police Scotland website says:

“If the reasons for your complaint are clear and we see it’s a minor, non-criminal complaint, we will record it. An officer from our Professional Standards Department will contact you to discuss the details of your complaint.

It may be that we can resolve your complaint quickly by providing information or explanation.

If we need to look at your complaint in more detail, our Professional Standards team will record it and contact you to explain the next steps. Your complaint may be allocated to an investigator to carry out further enquiry.

If you make a complaint direct to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC), they will direct you back to Police Scotland. We will then follow the same process as if you had contacted us directly.”

As Dame Elish Angiolini conceded, the system was reasonably good already, but there was room for improvement. One of the major parts of the bill that will strengthen the system is that an offending officer will not be able to escape discipline and punitive measures simply by retiring and, therefore, avoiding the outcome of a finding of gross misconduct. That practice is too often used as an escape route, and it is totally indefensible. The bill will also create barred and advisory lists to stop people who do not meet the high standards that are expected of police officers from gaining employment in policing anywhere in the UK.

I will conclude this brief contribution by referring to my experience as an MSP in my dealings with the police. In the vast majority of cases, we worked as a team, often in the interests of a vulnerable constituent, but—however rarely—I have experienced slipshod policing, as has been referenced by previous speakers. In those cases, only the use of what pressure I could bring to bear ensured that my constituents’ concerns were appropriately addressed. That should not have been necessary. However, I repeat that my contact over 25 years has been overwhelmingly positive.

I welcome the fact that the bill will weed out those who fail to meet the high standards that are rightly required of our police service, make those who are found guilty of gross misconduct pay the price for that, and strengthen the PIRC to ensure public confidence in the whole complaints procedure—by which I mean either complaints by the public against the police or complaints by police against fellow officers. However, there is one important issue. We must ensure that the balance is struck between fairness to the complainer and fairness to those who are subject to a complaint. That is crucial.

Strangely enough, I agree, but that is for a debate on independence.

The proposed new UK legislation would massively expand the powers of the Scotland Office. It was started by the Conservatives but, of course, Labour is just following happily in their footsteps, like a puppy. Does it matter? Of course it does. Policies on domestic issues such as poverty are made here in Scotland, for Scotland, by the Scottish people. Perhaps we should all repeat the mantra that power devolved is power retained. We are watching this happen before our very eyes. There is not even an attempt by any UK Government—Tory or Labour—to hide it.

I will finish with a quote from Tony Blair, because we seem to be seeing Blair policies again.

Certainly—I am delighted to do so, although I do hope that it is worth while.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent reported dog attack in Aberdeenshire, what effect the restrictions on XL bully-type dogs have had on the incidence of dog attacks. (S6T-02090)