Seòmar agus comataidhean

Scotland continues to be in the grip of a devastating housing emergency and, despite the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackle that national crisis, there has been a 10 per cent increase in households becoming homeless compared with last year. Every 16 minutes, a household becomes homeless and, every day, 45 children become homeless. What does the minister have to say to those thousands of people who have nowhere to call home?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of almost 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation and 110,000 households on the waiting list for affordable social housing, what progress it has made towards providing those affected with safe and affordable accommodation. (S6O-03702)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.

Scotland’s brave police officers play a hugely important role in keeping our communities safe. Those individuals work in some of the most challenging circumstances imaginable. They are often forced to put their own safety at risk in order to support others and do their job effectively. No one would question that police officers deserve our utmost gratitude and respect.

At the same time, given the important role that police officers play in keeping our country safe, it is right that they are held to the highest professional standards. Indeed, public trust in our police depends on that being the case. Public trust also depends on there being a robust and transparent complaints system, so that any perceived abuse of authority can be challenged reasonably and fairly.

I was a member of Tayside joint police board for 15 years when I was a councillor, and I had the privilege of serving on the complaints sub-committee. I saw many of the issues that are being raised here today at first hand.

We can see that the current system is far from perfect. In her report, Dame Elish spoke about the current police complaints system being “inaccessible” to the public. That is a major issue if that is to be believed and is the case.

It is important for us to understand the range and complexity of complaints. When taking evidence on the bill, the Criminal Justice Committee heard from several witnesses who felt let down by Police Scotland’s professional standards department, including one witness who said:

“the system needs to be changed completely ... It should be scrapped, reset and replaced with something completely new”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 April 2024; c 25.]

If that is the case, that sounds alarm bells as to what the public think when they are dealing with that department.

Many MSPs will have dealt with constituents who have felt let down by the process, which has failed to engage with them and address their concerns. I have been assisting a constituent who has navigated the police complaints process for more than two years. After feeling that police officers had turned a blind eye to his concerns, he proceeded with a lengthy complaint-handling review. At the end of that ordeal, he now feels exhausted and frustrated by a complaints system that he believes let him down. It is not transparent, and it should be fixed. I have no doubt that other members across the Parliament will have heard similar stories. We have heard from members about such cases already this afternoon.

The Conservatives welcome the proposed new legislation, which seeks to make improvements. There will be support for that from across the chamber if that is truly going to be achieved. That is why it is vitally important that the bill delivers genuine change, instead of just appearing to bring change. It is obvious that, in its current format, the bill will not deliver on some of the bold objectives that we want it to fulfil. We welcome changes such as the introduction of a Scottish police barred list, as well as the closing of loopholes such as those that allow officers to avoid investigations by retiring or resigning.

The Criminal Justice Committee’s report highlights that, overall, the bill is unlikely to improve the time that it takes to deal with complaints, which is one of the biggest problems with the current system.

The Scottish Police Federation has highlighted that the proposed code of ethics is likely to have no noticeable effect on overall police standards. Again, that is concerning. For my constituent, and for many others who have felt let down by the current system, the reforms in the bill are a missed opportunity.

A number of concerns have been raised around the bill’s cost implications, and some of those have been expressed during the debate. Since the financial memorandum was published, entirely new costs have been introduced for some aspects of the bill. For example, there are revised costs of more than £1.5 million for one-off Police Scotland training costs.

Given that, it is hardly surprising that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has accused the Scottish Government of providing figures that it already knew were inaccurate. Inaccurate figures should not be being provided at this stage.

I welcome the fact that the justice secretary has confirmed that an updated financial memorandum will be provided by stage 2, but that should have been provided, as far as possible, at stage 1. At the same time, it is disappointing to hear that the bill’s costs could still rise even further, which my colleague Russell Findlay spoke about in his opening remarks.

The important work that is carried out by the police across Scotland requires significant authority, but that, in turn, requires accountability. We all recognise that. It is important that the system that is in place to hold police officers to account is transparent, fair and robust, and that the public have confidence in it.

The bill makes a lot of the right noises about making improvements and tackling issues in some of the areas that I have mentioned, and it ticks some of the boxes that individuals and organisations have talked about in relation to its general principles. However, it has a long way to go to deliver the reforms that many people want.

I hope that, as the bill progresses, there will be an opportunity for genuine reform, so that we can have real change.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer, we welcome the bill and want to see it progress, but it must progress through the provision of real opportunities, not missed opportunities, by the Scottish Government.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.

Scotland’s brave police officers play a hugely important role in keeping our communities safe. Those individuals work in some of the most challenging circumstances imaginable. They are often forced to put their own safety at risk in order to support others and do their job effectively. No one would question that police officers deserve our utmost gratitude and respect.

At the same time, given the important role that police officers play in keeping our country safe, it is right that they are held to the highest professional standards. Indeed, public trust in our police depends on that being the case. Public trust also depends on there being a robust and transparent complaints system, so that any perceived abuse of authority can be challenged reasonably and fairly.

I was a member of Tayside joint police board for 15 years when I was a councillor, and I had the privilege of serving on the complaints sub-committee. I saw many of the issues that are being raised here today at first hand.

We can see that the current system is far from perfect. In her report, Dame Elish spoke about the current police complaints system being “inaccessible” to the public. That is a major issue if that is to be believed and is the case.

It is important for us to understand the range and complexity of complaints. When taking evidence on the bill, the Criminal Justice Committee heard from several witnesses who felt let down by Police Scotland’s professional standards department, including one witness who said:

“the system needs to be changed completely ... It should be scrapped, reset and replaced with something completely new”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 April 2024; c 25.]

If that is the case, that sounds alarm bells as to what the public think when they are dealing with that department.

Many MSPs will have dealt with constituents who have felt let down by the process, which has failed to engage with them and address their concerns. I have been assisting a constituent who has navigated the police complaints process for more than two years. After feeling that police officers had turned a blind eye to his concerns, he proceeded with a lengthy complaint-handling review. At the end of that ordeal, he now feels exhausted and frustrated by a complaints system that he believes let him down. It is not transparent, and it should be fixed. I have no doubt that other members across the Parliament will have heard similar stories. We have heard from members about such cases already this afternoon.

The Conservatives welcome the proposed new legislation, which seeks to make improvements. There will be support for that from across the chamber if that is truly going to be achieved. That is why it is vitally important that the bill delivers genuine change, instead of just appearing to bring change. It is obvious that, in its current format, the bill will not deliver on some of the bold objectives that we want it to fulfil. We welcome changes such as the introduction of a Scottish police barred list, as well as the closing of loopholes such as those that allow officers to avoid investigations by retiring or resigning.

The Criminal Justice Committee’s report highlights that, overall, the bill is unlikely to improve the time that it takes to deal with complaints, which is one of the biggest problems with the current system.

The Scottish Police Federation has highlighted that the proposed code of ethics is likely to have no noticeable effect on overall police standards. Again, that is concerning. For my constituent, and for many others who have felt let down by the current system, the reforms in the bill are a missed opportunity.

A number of concerns have been raised around the bill’s cost implications, and some of those have been expressed during the debate. Since the financial memorandum was published, entirely new costs have been introduced for some aspects of the bill. For example, there are revised costs of more than £1.5 million for one-off Police Scotland training costs.

Given that, it is hardly surprising that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has accused the Scottish Government of providing figures that it already knew were inaccurate. Inaccurate figures should not be being provided at this stage.

I welcome the fact that the justice secretary has confirmed that an updated financial memorandum will be provided by stage 2, but that should have been provided, as far as possible, at stage 1. At the same time, it is disappointing to hear that the bill’s costs could still rise even further, which my colleague Russell Findlay spoke about in his opening remarks.

The important work that is carried out by the police across Scotland requires significant authority, but that, in turn, requires accountability. We all recognise that. It is important that the system that is in place to hold police officers to account is transparent, fair and robust, and that the public have confidence in it.

The bill makes a lot of the right noises about making improvements and tackling issues in some of the areas that I have mentioned, and it ticks some of the boxes that individuals and organisations have talked about in relation to its general principles. However, it has a long way to go to deliver the reforms that many people want.

I hope that, as the bill progresses, there will be an opportunity for genuine reform, so that we can have real change.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer, we welcome the bill and want to see it progress, but it must progress through the provision of real opportunities, not missed opportunities, by the Scottish Government.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the dualling of the A9. (S6O-03676)

The Scottish National Party’s failure to dual the A9 is a complete betrayal of the people of Scotland. Between January 2020 and December 2023, non-dualled sections of the A9 accounted for 90 per cent of fatal accidents. That travesty comes solely at the hands of the SNP. Does the cabinet secretary accept that? What guarantees are being given that the dualling of the A9 will be completed by 2035 at the latest?

Organisations such as the men’s sheds and Andy’s Man Club in my region play vital roles in eliminating the stigma surrounding mental health, and in creating judgment-free confidential spaces where men can be open about the storms in their lives. What more can be done to ensure that those important organisations can carry on the work that is desperately needed?

He has nothing to say.

It is hard to believe that, at the Scottish National Party conference only 11 months ago, the then First Minister announced a huge vote of confidence in the future of the cultural sector. Following the recent success of the Edinburgh fringe festival, the announcement of the closure of Creative Scotland’s open fund for individuals is nothing short of a betrayal of the artists and cultural workers who made that success possible. Cabinet secretary, how will you rebuild trust from a sector that has consistently been let down?

I associate myself and my party with the cabinet secretary’s comments regarding Euan MacDonald.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Writing in an open letter, more than 170 artists have warned that a culture catastrophe is in progress and that job losses are already taking place in the sector. The situation is dire, and it is clear that urgent and substantial action is required.

How do you justify abandoning a sector that sustains more than 80,000 jobs and contributes more than £5 billion to the economy? Has the cabinet secretary met Creative Scotland or other organisations in order to listen to the concerns that they have expressed?