Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 22.
“Such shortcomings have an impact on them not just in the short term; in the case of the Wilson family, as Fergus Ewing articulated, the complaint was reviewed and reinvestigated for more than 20 months, but the situation is still unresolved because they do not know the final outcome. Therefore, I very much welcome what the justice secretary has said. I did not mention this in my opening remarks, but I could not agree more with Fergus Ewing about the inaction by Scotland’s chief constable, as he outlined. I cannot understand the thought process of the most senior police officer in Scotland—someone with significant experience at a high level both here and in forces in England.”
“However, I hope that members will understand, as I sought to explain to the justice spokespeople of each party, the reason why the amendment came in as late as it did, and, in particular, the fact that the family wanted to have their meeting with the First Minister before taking things further. 16:30 I accept what the justice secretary said about the unintended consequences of amendment 28, should it be agreed to, and I am genuinely grateful for her efforts since this morning to contact the PIRC and Police Scotland about the clear shortcomings for some complainants and victims of crime.”
“I hope that that provides Mr Ewing, Mr Ross and the chamber as a whole with an assurance of the seriousness with which I take these matters. I hope that members will accept my reassurances and that Mr Ross will not press amendment 28. Douglas Ross: I thank Fergus Ewing for his contribution and I also thank the cabinet secretary for the detail that she provided and for the positive response that she gave at the end of her contribution. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks: I accept the shortcomings in the amendment that I lodged. In time to come, it might be used as an example of why members should meet deadlines and get appropriate parliamentary committee scrutiny of their amendments.”
“Therefore, following my constructive meeting with Mr Ross this morning to discuss amendment 28, I confirm to him and to members that I have taken on board the concerns that he has raised on behalf of the Wilson family and the case study in the Victim Support Scotland briefing. Today, I have written to Police Scotland and the PIRC to set out concerns that have been shared with me and to seek their assurances that Police Scotland follows the PIRC statutory guidance at all times, in particular with respect to communicating outcomes to the complainer, and that any exceptions are wholly justified. I will also raise the issue in my next meeting with the chief constable, which will occur very shortly. Presiding Officer, thank you for your indulgence.”
“On the amendments, in summary, where a person complains about the police, the name of the officer or police staff member can be shared. It is standard practice to issue information about outcomes and communicate clearly any service failings that are identified, and members of the public are informed of the outcomes of misconduct proceedings if they have arisen from a complaint. Again, without casting any judgment or stepping into a space that I should not, I am very mindful that Mr Ross has narrated experiences of others that certainly seem to be inconsistent with the PIRC statutory guidance.”
“I also believe that the First Minister often leads by example in that regard. As we all know, he is a man who is scrupulous about things being done properly and, as a former member of the Criminal Justice Committee, he is respectful and cognisant of the independent role and functions of various individuals and agencies in our justice system. He also manages, while respecting people’s independent roles and functions, to be very open to engaging with families, particularly those who have experienced considerable distress and have undergone extremely traumatic and serious experiences that are beyond the experience of most of us. It is important for all of us to extend the hand of engagement, particularly to those whose experience is beyond our own. It is important that none of us in this chamber has any blind spots.”
“Of course, that speaks to the importance of personal contact, particularly when matters are complex and serious. In Mr Ewing’s direct questions to me, he articulated the Wilson family’s wishes to meet the chief constable. The Parliament and Mr Ewing would not expect me to abuse my position as justice secretary by making requests or orders that are not appropriate for me to make, but I will share some of my reflections. As justice secretary, I always take the view that engagement is important, irrespective of how difficult it might be, and that, on balance, it tends to be more helpful than not. Mr Ewing cited the example of the Lord Advocate. I believe that the Lord Advocate has a good track record of meeting victims and families, notwithstanding that she has very prescribed requirements around her distinct roles and her independence.”
“I can also provide the assurance that the guidance applies to details of all individuals, whether they are constables, staff or special constables, whereas amendment 28 would apply only to officers. Police Scotland, the authority and the PIRC are subject to freedom of information legislation, and individuals have the right to access and receive a copy of their personal data and other supplementary information. In appropriate cases, consideration is also given to explaining the outcome of the complaint personally to the complainer, prior to the issuing of the final response. That strikes the balance between transparency and legal data protection. The SPA complaints and conduct committee scrutinises performance on that and holds Police Scotland to account where the proper balance is not being achieved.”
“I will make some remarks about how matters should be dealt with in accordance with the statutory guidance, and then I will share detail on further action. The statutory guidance requires that the names of officers who are involved in a complaint are provided. Importantly, unlike amendment 28, the guidance provides an exception to that, where identification would pose a risk to the officer, in which case unique identification numbers are regarded as sufficient. Where misconduct proceedings have been taken, Police Scotland advises of the determination that is made at those proceedings and any disciplinary action ordered, if that is permitted by the relevant secondary legislation.”
“I want to point to some of the improvements that the bill will make, particularly around extending the powers and scope of the PIRC. The PIRC will be able to call in an investigation of a relevant complaint and will be able to carry out complaint handling reviews of its own volition. The PIRC will also be able to make recommendations about individual complaint handling reviews and called-in complaints, and Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority will need to respond to those, which will result in better transparency around how the PIRC’s suggestions for improvements are dealt with. There is also the transfer of certain functions from the SPA to the PIRC. I am sure that we will discuss more of those measures later this afternoon.”
“Supporting the amendment would therefore come with significant risk. As I said earlier, I can reassure the Parliament that a process is already in place around complainers being told the outcome of their complaints. Douglas Ross: I recognise what the cabinet secretary is saying. How, therefore, does she view the fact that a family—and others—are clearly telling us that, despite the process being in place, they are not getting the information that they require? They have been through the process and an officer has been found guilty of misconduct, but they are not being told that any sanctions apply to that officer. Angela Constance: I reassure Mr Ross and other members—I appreciate their patience—that I will shortly come to actions that I have taken today in response to the specific concerns and cases that Mr Ross has raised with me.”
“The Scottish Government has engaged with the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner on amendment 28, and it has serious and grave concerns about being compelled to share Police Scotland and officers’ information and about the potential legal implications of doing so. We have also sought views from Police Scotland and His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, which have said that there are a series of circumstances in which it is not safe to reveal the name of an officer, such as when dealing with organised crime groups or working within specialist units such as firearms. The amendment does not take any cognisance of that, and I have concerns that such a blunt requirement, without any safeguarding provisions, risks being contrary to the European convention on human rights.”
“As we all know, officers undertake very difficult and, in some cases, sensitive and dangerous roles, and the amendment could lead officers to be vulnerable to exploitation or, more worryingly, physical harm. The amendment would also force the disclosure of any information whatsoever that was sought by the complainer about the complaint. That could include the identity of other complainers who have complained about the same matter and might be read to include other highly sensitive information about members of the public or, indeed, victims or witnesses of a crime. The amendment provides no ability to refuse disclosure unless it is not reasonably practicable, but that test does not allow a judgment to be made about the lawfulness or appropriateness of disclosing the information that is sought.”
“Amendment 28 would mean that Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner would be compelled to provide the name of any officer who is involved in a complaint, the outcomes of that complaint and other information, no matter the possible sensitivity of that information, even if the complaint is false. That information could then fall into the public domain. It provides for no exceptions to the disclosure of the officer’s name and the outcome of a complaint. Police officers can be the subject of malicious or false complaints, and amendment 28 would provide more ammunition to people with malign intent to make complaints about unnamed officers in order to find out their identity.”
“The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 requires Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to have regard to the statutory guidance that is issued by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. Although the guidance applies to Police Scotland and the authority, it also applies to other policing bodies that operate in Scotland, whereas amendment 28 would not. The statutory guidance provides a detailed list of what a complaint response should contain and includes appropriate safeguards. The lack of such safeguards is what concerns me the most about Mr Ross’s amendment 28.”
“I very much recognise the support that Mr Ross and Mr Ewing have given to the Wilson family. As Mr Ewing has intimated, we have been in correspondence at length and have also spoken this morning. As Mr Ross is aware, I cannot support amendment 28, which would be a major policy development that would require proper consultation and consideration with partners that have helped to develop and inform the bill. That does not mean that we will not have further reflections on what happens next. Before I explain the Government’s position in detail, I reassure Mr Ross, Mr Ewing and all members that much of what Mr Ross seeks to do through his amendment is already largely dealt with in existing provisions in a combination of primary and secondary legislation and statutory guidance.”
“I hope that you can reflect further on that and perhaps give members a clear indication that you will continue to look at those matters to try to improve the service for victims, especially victims of the most serious crimes in Scotland. 16:15 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. Comments should always be through the chair. Angela Constance: I have some fairly detailed remarks to make on the proposition that was put forward by Mr Ross. At the end of those remarks, I will share some of my own reflections. I thank Mr Ross for his comments and for the constructive meeting that we had this morning. The Government recognises that the Wilson family has endured an unimaginable loss and that their anguish is compounded by the knowledge that those who are responsible for their loved one’s murder have not yet been brought to justice.”
“I have always believed that the buck stops at the top, and the top person in every public body in Scotland is still a servant of the public. I hope that the cabinet secretary, in her remarks, can indicate, if possible, a wish that the chief constable should now meet the family and see that they can get answers to their questions, which have thus far eluded them. I will not repeat the arguments that Mr Ross has put today—he has put them clearly and at length. I was pleased to work with him and with you, cabinet secretary. I appreciate your letter this morning setting out technical reasons why amendment 28 might not work. I accept that they are valid reasons and am therefore not minded that the amendment should be pressed to a vote today. However, I think that Mr Ross is right that the current system is patently not working as it should.”
“At that meeting, they heard that there had been the most serious failures in the investigation, such that a reinvestigation has had to be ordered after two decades—a reinvestigation which could, the family fear, take another five years. They appreciated the meeting with the Lord Advocate, who was honest and candid, but their requests thus far to meet the chief constable have not been agreed to. I will quote Veronica Wilson herself, who said: “I cannot believe how little information I am given after a fight lasting 20 months” in respect of the complaint. We heard the same from Mr Ross. Surely the head of policing in Scotland should, as a matter of human decency, and taking account of the tragedy that has befallen the family and the grief that they have suffered, and continue to suffer, be willing to meet them.”
“For the past 20 years, the family have pursued a campaign for justice, and they have suffered unending grief such as is unimaginable, I suspect, for all—or most—of us in the chamber. As the constituency MSP, I have worked with Veronica and the family for some years now and have pursued certain concerns. Yesterday, I spoke again to the family, and they agreed that this is what they wish me to say on their behalf today. They wish me to express their extreme disappointment that the chief constable of Police Scotland—the top police officer in the land—has thus far refused to meet them. They hope that that is something that can be put right. Following my intervention with the cabinet secretary last year, the Lord Advocate met the family.”
“We need to see improvement, and I hope that people in Police Scotland, and others, who are following the debate today, will take on board the fact that the complaints are serious matters to the complainers, who want resolution and believe that they are being fobbed off and not taken seriously because the complaints have been lying on a desk, unchecked and unallocated, for well over a year. I will listen with interest to what is said before finally deciding whether to press or seek to withdraw amendment 28. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland. I move amendment 28. Fergus Ewing: It was on 28 November, in the year 2004, that my constituent Alistair Wilson was shot to death on his own doorstep at his home in Nairn, with the family inside the house.”
“The complaint was originally submitted in September 2023, and as of yesterday, he had received a response from the professional standards department that did not say that his case had not been determined, but that it had not been allocated. A professional standards officer has not even looked into his complaint yet, although it was submitted in September 2023. On nine separate occasions, the force has taken the time to write to, or email, my constituent to say that, because of workload pressures, the complaint has not yet been looked at. Nonetheless, for the complaint not to have even been allocated in well over a year is, I think, indefensible.”
“Not only will the legislation potentially not work, but the system is not working because of the number of complaints or the lack of officers looking into them. I will cite examples. I wrote to the cabinet secretary about the matter this week. In the space of a few days, two constituents contacted me who are extremely concerned that, in their view, their complaints are not being treated seriously enough by the force. One constituent complained last summer and heard nothing for months, and the complaint has still not been allocated. More worryingly, I received a response yesterday from a constituent who had received his ninth correspondence from Police Scotland about his complaint.”
“We know from the example of the Wilson family that I cited, and from many other examples that have been advocated for on victims’ behalf by Victim Support Scotland and others, that that element of the complaints process is not being delivered. We would not be discussing amendment 28, or my and others’ concerns, if it was being delivered. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary will say to that during the debate. Amendment 28 seeks to improve the complaints system. In normal circumstances, people do not complain against the police unless they have good reason. There is a growing frustration about the system of complaints against the police, which is partly why we have the bill that is in front of us today.”
“It says that the response to the complainer must “contain details of any action taken to avoid a recurrence of the situation which gave rise to the complaint, including any learning or improvement action”. It also goes on to state that responses must “where misconduct proceedings have been taken, advise of the determination made at those proceedings and any disciplinary action ordered, if permitted by the applicable legislation”. The phrase “if permitted by the applicable legislation” led me to lodge amendment 28, because I felt that it was an opportunity to strengthen the applicable legislation. Even though the process is in black and white in the statutory guidance from 2022, it is clear that it is not working.”
“Another issue, which I am sure that the cabinet secretary will mention, is that my amendment 28 will perhaps not be required, because there are already provisions on the matter. She mentioned that this morning in our discussion, and in correspondence with the local MSP, Fergus Ewing, who, I have to comment, has been extremely helpful to me since I lodged the amendment, and who has done—and continues to do—a lot of work for the Wilson family over many years. However, in response to both me and Mr Ewing, the cabinet secretary mentioned the PIRC’s statutory guidance from October 2022. Paragraph 150 goes over what the resolution of complaints should look like for complainers.”
“I want to put on the record the extent of the scrutiny that was undertaken at stage 1 by the Criminal Justice Committee—in particular, the evidence that was heard from people with lived experience of the complaints and misconduct process. Things are not great—that is for sure—so I just want to make sure that the member is aware of that scrutiny. Douglas Ross: I am very much aware of it, and I record my thanks, as someone with an interest in the subject, to the committee for its deliberations at stage 1, stage 2 and again today. There were representatives from Victim Support Scotland at the meeting with the First Minister that I sat in on last week, and it also gave evidence to Audrey Nicoll’s committee at stage 1. I know that that has been valuable in relation to the formulation of responses to get the bill to where it is today.”
“I also recognise—I hold my hands up regarding my haste to get my amendment 28 lodged and accepted—that there are issues with it that I do believe cannot be resolved today. It is never my intention—I am sure that the cabinet secretary will go over this—to put any officer at risk due to their name being made public if it should not be made public. However, I hope that there is also recognition that the system at the moment is not delivering for victims—it is clearly not delivering for Andrew and Veronica Wilson. As Victim Support Scotland tells us in its briefing, the system is not delivering for many of the victims whom it deals with daily. I will listen to the debate and I will hear what others say. Audrey Nicoll: I recognise the trauma that has been experienced by the family that Douglas Ross referenced in his comments.”
“At this point, Deputy Presiding Officer—I include you in this, as spokesperson for justice for your party—I am extremely grateful to representatives of all the political parties whom I contacted during the weekend about amendment 28 for the constructive way that they entered into discussion with me. I am also grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who met me at very short notice this morning to discuss amendment 28 and its implications. I have picked up from many members whom I have spoken to that there is a desire to get to the bottom of the matter and to rectify the problems that the family have articulated for many years, particularly about the complaint with Police Scotland.”
“Andrew also made in his statement the point that this is not only about Andrew and Veronica Wilson and their family: other victims have been affected in the same way. That is why I was very pleased that Victim Support Scotland wrote to all MSPs last night, urging them to support amendment 28. Victim Support Scotland said that the amendment “provides more transparency to victims of crime and families bereaved by crime who have made complaints against police officers, and it provides people with information as to the outcome of their complaint, which is vital to ensuring the safety of those who made complaints.” I welcome that from Victim Support Scotland.”
“He said: “The amendment is hugely important for us, as victims of the police complaint system, but also for anyone who has put a complaint in against the force. The fact that we do not know the outcome of our complaint and that the officer remains in post suggests a lack of justice and punishment to the point that we do not know whether our upheld complaint was taken seriously or just brushed under the carpet.” That is from a family who have suffered for more than 20 years because the killer of their husband and father remains at large. Concerns that they have against our force in Scotland were originally dismissed, then they were upheld, but they still do not know the outcome.”
“The family went back to Police Scotland and their complaint was upheld: when it was reinvestigated by the force, Police Scotland said that the family was correct to put in the complaint and upheld it. However, the family does not know the outcome of their complaint against the officer about misconduct or about any sanctions that were applied to the officer. When the family explained that to the First Minister, they made it clear that not knowing whether sanctions had been applied or what the sanctions were was almost as bad as the original complaint having been dismissed. The family do not feel that they have had the resolution that they are looking for. I spoke to Andrew and Veronica last night via email. Andrew put it very well when he gave me his statement.”
“The First Minister and I mentioned the bill that is being debated today, but as I came out of that meeting, I realised that we had passed the deadline for lodging amendments. However, I was still keen to try. We therefore came up with the amendment that is in the Business Bulletin today, which was accepted by the Presiding Officer. Amendment 28 seeks to provide complainers such as the Wilson family with information on the full resolution of their complaint. I will explain what the Wilson family went through. They put in a complaint about a very senior officer in Police Scotland, which was originally dismissed by Police Scotland. The family was clearly not happy with that, so they went to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. The PIRC said that Police Scotland should look at the matter again.”
“I begin by thanking the Presiding Officer for accepting amendment 28, which is a manuscript amendment. It is unusual—particularly at stage 3—to bring into the debate a topic that has not been discussed by the committee and did not face scrutiny by the committee, but I hope that I can explain in my opening remarks the reasons for the lateness of the amendment, as well as the reasoning behind the amendment. Only one week ago, the First Minister and I met the family of murdered Nairn banker, Alistair Wilson. Veronica and Andrew Wilson came to the Parliament to meet the First Minister. John Swinney gave a commitment in the chamber to meet them, and he delivered on it. During our discussions with the First Minister, the family raised issues about the system that is used to make complaints against Police Scotland.”
“Notwithstanding that, I fully understand how much of a concern the situation is and would be happy to progress any actions that would reduce and alleviate the potential impact on the local community and businesses, and to find a solution. Grangemouth Oil Refinery 7.”
“This question is about growing the economy. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the concerns for Elgin’s economy, with the imminent closure of the St Giles shopping centre. On Monday, I attended a meeting organised by the Elgin business improvement district, which Richard Lochhead was also at, to discuss that issue. What can the Deputy First Minister do about that unprecedented and unacceptable closure, which could potentially see more than 100 jobs lost and businesses given less than two weeks’ notice to vacate? Kate Forbes: I understand and share Douglas Ross’s concern; Richard Lochhead has also raised that issue on a number of occasions with ministers. The Minister for Employment and Investment met Richard Lochhead, the member for Moray, last night to discuss those concerns and the council is keeping us informed of efforts.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what early assessment it has made following the opening of the safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. (S6T-02279)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will launch an independent review of the 2024 higher history exam, in light of reports that responses to a survey by the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History were overwhelmingly critical of the Scottish Qualifications Authority review, that it had been described as a “whitewash”, and that one respondent referred to it as “the most biased and useless investigation I have ever seen a public body attempt to pass off as legitimate.” (S6O-04169)”
“I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned at reports that the national CJD research and surveillance unit, which is based in Edinburgh, might close in March. The unit has done significant work for the past 34 years, including the identification in 1996 of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The unit is funded through the UK Government, and I have written to the UK and Scottish health secretaries about the matter. Can the First Minister comment on the potential closure of the unit and on concerns that no guarantee has been given about retention of the data, samples and evidence that have been accumulated over decades? Does he agree that it is vital that that work be retained and made available for current and future research?”