Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have dealt with cases in the past where there was sufficient evidence and a civil standard of proof of wrongdoing. I will give you an example. There was one police officer who was suspected of taking part in armed robberies with known criminals, going into the homes of elderly people, targeting them, tying them up, robbing them, and using police radios and fake police warrants. It was an extraordinary set of circumstances. That individual was charged with a criminal offence, and it went to the Crown, but nothing came of it.

The suspicion among some of the victims was that the embarrassment of what had transpired—that a serving officer could do that with police apparatus—was a factor in it not proceeding to court and in not having anyone criminally convicted.

Eventually, and ultimately, after many years of that officer being in receipt of full pay, he was finally dismissed on the basis of the evidence, under the civil standard of proof, being more than sufficient to rightly say that he could no longer be a police officer.

That is an extreme case, but, if a police officer did something in the workplace or related to their conduct at work that was black-and-white wrong, and that would result in dismissal in any other workplace, that should be allowed to happen. I do not think that it would pre-empt or prejudice any criminal proceedings, which would be wholly separate, so I think that it would still be the right thing to do.

In respect of whistleblowers, we have heard evidence from a lawyer who acts for a number of police officers, who says that, even now, with whistleblowing legislation being well established, in cases that she acts in, whistleblowers are not being treated as such and are not being given that protection. The legislation does address whistleblowers and helps to improve their rights, but there is a potential for the amendments to work against that or to change the whole dynamic.

I do not know whether the cabinet secretary does not want to press pause on a point of principle or whether there is some practical reason, but it seems entirely sensible to do so, given that we have had the amendments only for a week and we do not really know what they will do. There are genuine concerns, and there is the likelihood of cross-party consensus if we could just hold off for a short while. I again urge the cabinet secretary to reconsider.

I do not doubt that the cabinet secretary is acting in good faith—not for a minute would I suggest otherwise—and I have some sympathy with her position given that HMICS has come up with this reasonably late in the day. I have a couple of stage 2 amendments that are borne out of the representations of HMICS, but the difference is that they relate to existing procedures and structures, whereas a lot of what is proposed by these amendments on vetting will be done by way of regulation after the event, which is quite far reaching and significant.

I have genuinely seen enough cases of good police officers who have done nothing wrong and who have become whistleblowers under the legal definition of the word finding themselves subject to disciplinary proceedings that have, in some cases, destroyed their careers, health and finances. It would be irresponsible to push forward with these amendments without really knowing what their impact will be.

I have heard that the cabinet secretary does not want to press pause, but I think that it would be sensible to do so. We could look at the issue once we have had the benefit in the forthcoming weeks of the federation and others laying out in clear and articulate terms—rather than my trying to represent the position on the hoof with a week’s notice—why they believe that it is of concern. At that point, the Government could lodge stage 3 amendments, in all likelihood with the support of all parties.

Could I make a quick point?

I understand that amendment 62 may potentially seem to be out of place in the bill, but we have been told by the Scottish Government, the SPA and Police Scotland that Scotland’s police officers are finally about to start being required to wear body-worn cameras as standard. It has been a slow process, but the pilot scheme has begun. The last that we heard from the chief constable was that, although the roll-out had been delayed, it was—apparently—still going to happen.

The amendment’s purpose relates to the understanding that, when body-worn cameras do become commonly used, they will in all likelihood have a significant impact on the matters that the bill deals with—namely, police misconduct and regulation. Amendment 62 would request that

“Ministers ... prepare and publish a report on the”

value of

“body-worn cameras in ... enforcing standards of”

constables’ behaviour. For all that body-worn cameras will in the main—I imagine—be used in the pursuit of dealing with criminality by the public and as evidence in that regard, they may, in other cases, potentially be used to deal with police misbehaviour or other matters that relate to the bill.

Amendment 62 would ask the Government to publish a report within one year of the bill receiving royal assent or of the conclusion of Police Scotland’s body-worn cameras pilot—whichever of those dates was the earliest.

It has been said that body-worn cameras

“will transform policing in Scotland”.

My amendment seeks to future proof matters slightly in anticipation of body-worn cameras coming into use by legislating at least for assessing, in some way, how significant they may or may not be in respect of police misconduct cases.

I move amendment 62.

Although I have withdrawn or not moved most of my amendments today, I am minded to put amendment 66 to a vote, if necessary. Angiolini made a large number of recommendations, most of which were non-legislative and, on the face of it, relatively minor, but her recommendation that the PIRC should be accountable to Parliament is fundamental to the job that she was tasked with—that of looking at the entire picture. She saw the current arrangement as a weakness.

It is worth putting on the record the fact that the PIRC would still be accountable to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on criminal matters. My proposal relates entirely to operational matters relating to non-criminal issues. It simply seems like a bit of sensible housekeeping. I have not been persuaded by the arguments against what I propose. There are some practical issues, but they could readily be overcome if the Government was so minded. I will therefore put the matter to a vote.

I have a funny feeling that the cabinet secretary is going to agree with you.

Thank you very much. There is no cake, I see, but that is fine. [Laughter.]

I have learned a lot in this committee over the past three and a half years, and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to work with you all. It just shows that we can forget party allegiances sometimes and work for the common good.

I cannot thank the committee without thanking the clerks, who, as we all know, run the show. Thank you very much.

I apologise for that procedural hiccup.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the lack of discretion in respect of the Crown Office. However, there have been approximately 350 deaths in prisons in Scotland over the past decade and in none of those cases were the families’ views a factor in whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry, because it is a statutory requirement.

Furthermore, in respect of the line of argument that the cabinet secretary put forward about the airing of sensitive information, my understanding is that a sheriff who presides over a fatal accident inquiry has mechanisms to put in place reporting restrictions in respect of any information that is deemed to be sensitive, so that it is not put in the public domain.

I understand the problem with amendment 41, because it does not differentiate between a tragic officer suicide, when misconduct has absolutely not been a factor, and cases in which misconduct might well have been a factor. It is a bit of a blunt instrument.

I wonder whether there might be a way of working with the Government to lodge an amendment whereby, if the Crown’s initial investigation of the circumstances found that there was the possibility of police misconduct, or if regulation issues were perhaps a factor in the death, that would trigger the requirement for a fatal accident inquiry. There has been a failure of the SPA and Police Scotland to look properly at the circumstances of deaths that we know about. That would be a way of plugging that gap and righting that wrong.

I understand the problem with amendment 65, because it talks about a mandatory FAI for all deaths and does not differentiate deaths in which misconduct issues might have been a contributing factor. I would be happy not to move my amendment if my concerns could be addressed through a change to either amendment 65 or amendment 41 and an acceptable version of what I have proposed could be found that would seek to respectfully and sensitively address what I believe is a big gap in the current system. I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s position.

My colleague Sharon Dowey has asked me to point out that the Government supports three of her amendments in this group. In the earlier part of her speaking notes, she identified eight. I do not want to spoil any future revelations, but five of them are in the next group. I say that for the record, so that there is no confusion. Her three amendments in this group that are being supported by the Government are amendments 12, 13 and 14, and I am speaking to amendment 57, in my name.

Amendment 57 would give the power to the chief constable to dismiss an officer whose conduct is considered to amount to gross misconduct, even when there are on-going criminal proceedings against that officer. It is important that the chief constable is able to do so where it is irrefutable that the officer should be sacked—if they have acted in a way that is inarguably incompatible with continued employment.

As we all know, especially on this committee, criminal proceedings can move very slowly, and there is no reason why an individual should not be dismissed, as in most workplaces, while there are separate and parallel criminal proceedings that will play out in due course. It seems sensible to introduce such a provision, which would prevent the very low number of guilty police officers from exploiting the system by remaining on full pay for prolonged periods when the evidence against them would result in instant dismissal in any other circumstances.