Plenary, 24 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Official Report 359KB pdf

---

Chhokar Inquiries

I call on the Lord Advocate to give his statement.

I would like to make a statement about the reports of two inquiries into the case concerning the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar. I laid those reports before the Parliament today. The inquiries, which were announced in my statement of 29 November 2000, were led by Sir Anthony Campbell and Dr Raj Jandoo. I asked Sir Anthony Campbell to consider how prosecution decisions were made in the case, to inquire in particular into the initial decision to indict Ronnie Coulter alone and to bring out any evidence of racism—individual or institutional—that he found in the course of his investigation.

Jim Wallace and I commissioned Dr Jandoo to inquire into the liaison between the authorities—including the police, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service at Hamilton—and the bereaved relatives and partner of Mr Chhokar.

I want to make it clear that such inquiries are unprecedented in Scotland. I welcome to the Parliament the mother, father and sister of Mr Chhokar. I know that today will be another difficult day for them and that inquiries and reports will never assuage their grief, but from the two reports will follow reforms that will aim to ensure that such a case never happens again. I hope that they take some comfort from that.

The Deputy First Minister and I thank Sir Anthony Campbell and Dr Raj Jandoo for their comprehensive and robust reports into those distressing matters. Both reports express their thanks for the co-operation that they received from all who gave evidence, including members of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police, the Faculty of Advocates and the Commission for Racial Equality and Victim Support Scotland and other voluntary organisations.

I emphasise that both Sir Anthony and Dr Jandoo had unrestricted access to papers and staff at all levels in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police. Sir Anthony Campbell's report has been published with a full Punjabi translation and a full Punjabi translation of Dr Jandoo's report is in preparation. The Executive summary of Dr Jandoo's report has been translated into Punjabi and five other ethnic minority languages. Both reports have been made available in advance to Mr Chhokar's bereaved family and partner. Mr Chhokar's parents and sister travelled to Edinburgh this morning with their representative, Mr Aamer Anwar, and had access to the reports from 9.15 am.

It was always our intention to ensure that the bereaved relatives and partner of Mr Chhokar were the first to see the reports. Therefore, I was horrified to see the press reports at the weekend. The leaks that have taken place are grossly offensive to the Chhokar family and to the Parliament. I assure the Chhokar family and the Parliament that, whoever might have spoken or otherwise communicated with any journalist on the matter, it was with neither the agreement nor the authorisation of any Scottish Executive minister. To re-echo what the Deputy First Minister said, following the press reports the first steps in the leak inquiry process are under way.

The reports by Sir Anthony Campbell and Dr Jandoo are of great significance for all involved in the criminal justice system and, indeed, for all Scotland's communities. The issues raised and identified are wide-ranging. Once members have had an opportunity to consider the terms of the reports in detail, it is our intention to ensure that a debate is fixed at which all relevant matters can be focused on and addressed.

Briefly, the main findings of the reports are as follows. Dr Jandoo confirms serious failures in liaison with the bereaved relatives and partner by the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Sir Anthony identifies clear defects in the way the prosecution made decisions in the case. Both reports show that the prosecution service made mistakes in preparing the case before the first trial and in liaison with the family.

Dr Jandoo finds evidence of institutional racism in the handling of the case by the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Sir Anthony Campbell was asked to examine the way prosecution decisions were made and to consider, in particular, whether the decision to proceed initially against Ronnie Coulter was the right one. Sir Anthony was also asked to determine whether individual or institutional racism had affected how decisions were made.

As members will be aware, the police originally charged three accused with murder. The Crown decided to proceed initially against Ronnie Coulter alone with a view to reconsidering the case against the other two at the conclusion of the first trial—when it would have been possible to use Ronnie Coulter as a witness in subsequent proceedings.

Sir Anthony Campbell concludes that that was wrong and that Ronnie Coulter and Andrew Coulter should have been indicted together on a charge of murder, using David Montgomery as a witness. This is Sir Anthony's professional assessment based on his consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence available, but he makes it clear that—had that course been pursued—it would have been impossible to say what the outcome of the trial would have been because significant problems remained concerning the quality of the evidence.

Difficulties in this case were both evidential and legal. Sir Anthony Campbell correctly distinguishes between sufficiency and quality of evidence. The case involved the application of the complex Scots law of concert to a difficult set of facts in a case with limited eye-witness evidence. I accept Sir Anthony's findings, including his point that proceeding differently would not necessarily have resulted in a conviction.

Sir Anthony Campbell concludes that internal systems failed, but found no evidence to suggest that racist behaviour or attitudes influenced decisions. Nor did he find any evidence that the fact that Mr Chhokar belonged to a different ethnic group to his attackers contributed to the systemic failure involved.

Sir Anthony also concludes that the internal systems of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service failed before the decision was made to indict Ronnie Coulter alone. He states:

"It is difficult to know what the decision would have been if there had not been defects in the decision-making process. It is sufficient to say that the possibility of reaching a correct decision would have been increased had they not been present."

I fully accept that assessment.

Sir Anthony Campbell makes nine recommendations, all of which I accept and welcome. His main recommendation is for a review of internal prosecution systems for High Court matters. A broad review of the internal systems of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the processing, preparation and prosecution of High Court cases will be undertaken as a result. It will build on work already done in our future office project and will be taken forward by our quality and practice review unit. This work will be overseen by a reference group, to be chaired by the Solicitor General for Scotland, with participation by experts independent of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

But a wider review—going beyond the internal systems of the Crown Office—is needed to ensure the efficient and effective processing of High Court business, which depends not only on the Crown, but on the efficiency of other parts of the criminal justice system. We need to consider all the factors that impinge on the management and processing of High Court business in Scotland, with a view to improving and modernising them. Jim Wallace will commission such a review.

Sir Anthony Campbell also recommends setting up, near the High Court in Glasgow, a satellite Crown Office High Court unit to service cases there. We are already proceeding with that.

More needs to be done to ensure continuity of responsibility for prosecution from the earliest stages of a case through to the trial. Complex and sensitive cases are already allocated in this way and it has proved beneficial, for example in the recent successful prosecution of William Beggs, but such arrangements need to apply to more cases in future.

Sir Anthony Campbell notes:

"If the preparation of cases by fiscals and advocate deputes is to be as careful as the interests of justice requires there must be a sufficient number of experienced staff at all levels to do the work and to supervise."

I entirely agree. As the number of High Court cases continues to grow steadily, the number of advocate deputes and legal staff must grow accordingly. While we have already increased the number of advocate deputes and legal staff, it is clear that further strengthening will be required. The reviews commissioned will help us to inform this decision-making process. I have already announced a separate review of the planning, allocation and management of resources in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Dr Jandoo was asked to review and report on the liaison arrangements between the police, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the relatives and partner of Mr Chhokar; to consider the internal report I had previously commissioned and published; to determine whether liaison arrangements were affected in any way by institutional racism; and to consider and comment on racism and the police investigation of any racist motive for the crime.

Dr Jandoo interviewed more than 50 witnesses and reviewed many documents, including media reporting and family justice campaign material detailing the family's complaints. He makes 40 recommendations, including five key recommendations that are directed at the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Others are directed at the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Executive justice department.

Dr Jandoo concludes that the police investigation was effective and efficient in tracing and arresting suspects and gathering evidence. However, it did not pursue adequately the question of racist motivation in the crime, despite a direct request from the family.

Dr Jandoo also criticises the way police released information about racial motivation both to the press and to a local councillor. He reports failure of liaison by the police with the family during the investigation. There was ignorance about Sikh funeral customs, and confusion and delays between the police and the procurator fiscal's office over the release of the body for cremation.

Dr Jandoo is also critical of police efforts at liaison between the end of the investigation and the first trial, and of police withdrawal from liaison following a meeting with the family and the newly formed justice campaign after the trial. Dr Jandoo also highlights a lack of communication between the police and the fiscal's office about family liaison.

There was no effective liaison between the procurator fiscal at Hamilton and the bereaved family and partner of Mr Chhokar before and during the trial of Ronnie Coulter. When Andrew Coulter and David Montgomery were to be indicted in July 1999, liaison by the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal's office was again poor. Dr Jandoo concludes that those failures did not arise from individual negligence or, primarily, from institutional racism. Rather, they reflected organisational and system failure.

Dr Jandoo found evidence of institutional racism, which is defined as occurring

"wherever the service provided by an organisation fails—whether deliberately or not—to meet equally the needs of all the people whom it serves, having regard to their racial, ethnic or cultural background".

Such institutional racism was reflected in the way the police and the procurator fiscal went about their liaison with the bereaved relatives and partner. In particular, the police failed to appreciate the impact that a major crime has on members of a vulnerable minority community, the police and the procurator fiscal were not sufficiently prepared to respond readily to the need for cremation in Sikh funeral customs, and the procurator fiscal's office failed to realise that Mr Darshan Singh Chhokar would need the help of an interpreter, and might find difficulty in coping with correspondence in English.

The Deputy First Minister and I accept these findings. We failed the Chhokar family. They did not receive adequate assurance from the police about a racist motive for the crime, religious requirements and funeral customs were not sufficiently recognised and liaison arrangements by the police and the procurator fiscal's office were wholly inadequate prior to the first trial.

However, members of the Parliament will know that both my predecessor and I have approached this issue with the assumption that institutional racism existed within our organisation. That assumption, combined with a clear need to avoid even the possibility of complacency, has led to significant progress since 1998. We have changed, and are continuing to change.

Dr Jandoo recognises and welcomes that. He notes the real progress made by the police and the prosecution service. He explicitly states that, under ministerial leadership, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has taken

"systemic action to eradicate institutional racism".

Furthermore, he concludes that there is real commitment, with leadership from ministers and senior officials, to deal with anti-racism matters.

Racism is an affront to justice and the finding of institutional racism within our justice system is clearly a matter of the gravest concern. As I have made clear, we have already made some progress in dealing with it and our commitment to its eradication should now be clear to all members. Dr Jandoo indicates that, although the Crown Office cannot be cleared of the charge of institutional racism, the same charge could probably be levelled at almost any organisation in the country. The staff in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are committed to the prosecution of racism wherever it occurs as a crime.

The Deputy First Minister and I also note that Dr Jandoo makes no finding of individual racism on the part of anyone in the police or any member of staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. He also praises the meticulous and conscientious approach taken to liaison during the Privy Council hearings and the second trial in the case. Nevertheless, it is clear that the institutional racism described by Dr Jandoo merits continuing and urgent action.

Dr Jandoo notes the key role of our departmental race strategy group, which is chaired by the Solicitor General, in driving through our anti-racist agenda and in mainstreaming racial equality throughout the policies and practices of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Significant progress has been made in relation to victim liaison and anti-racism. Many of those initiatives are referred to with approval by Dr Jandoo. They include anti-racist training for all staff; the mainstreaming of racial equality in all training programmes; working with the police in the investigation and reporting of racist crime, on which I have issued guidelines to chief constables; the issuing of cultural awareness guidance and guidance highlighting translation requirements to all staff; and the monitoring of racist crime and our policies and practices.

Our systems for instructing and engaging interpreters have been reviewed, providing a professional and structured approach. We must identify needs and not assume what is required. In all our initiatives, we are committed to consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality, racial equality councils and local community groups to ensure that. We are working towards the goal of having victim liaison offices in all regions by spring or summer 2002. I believe that is a significant step for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which will ensure that we approach victim liaison in a professional, systemic and structured way throughout Scotland.

I have already accepted all of Dr Jandoo's recommendations; now I will ensure that they are implemented as soon as possible. Several will require collaborative approaches between agencies—particularly between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police. I will ensure that that happens. We have changed and we are committed to further change. We fully recognise the need for increased accountability. Dr Jandoo's principal recommendation, that the Crown Office quality and practice review unit should be reinforced and reconstituted as a formal inspectorate, is accepted and welcomed. That will be taken forward as a priority and resources will be found. We will ensure the necessary independence within it and that its reports are made public.

I also accept the recommendation that the inspectorate conduct a thematic review of the service's response on race matters within two to three years and thereafter a scrutiny of our response to victims' and witnesses' issues, including the operation of the victim liaison office, within four to five years. All reports from the inspectorate will be made public. All this is unprecedented. It will significantly increase the accountability of the prosecution service in Scotland and will, in time, greatly strengthen the confidence of our ethnic minority communities in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Dr Jandoo stresses throughout his report the need for a more structured system of communication and liaison between the procurator fiscal and the police. He highlights the role of the police family liaison officer and the importance of good communication and liaison from the earliest stages of any investigation right through to the trial. He calls for more systemic communication and for co-operation and an exchange of ideas between the Crown Office and the police at the most senior levels. Jim Wallace and I whole-heartedly support those recommendations and work has already begun to implement them.

We now have a joint Crown Office/Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland working group to deal specifically with the investigation and reporting of racist crime. We will ensure that such liaison and communication becomes systemic at all levels, building on the good communication and co-operation that already exist between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police at the most senior levels.

Dr Jandoo also makes three specific recommendations in respect of the police. He notes the need to close the gap between high-level policy and strategy and practical guidance for officers on the ground. He quotes the policy-practice gap that was a theme of HM inspectorate of constabulary's report on the police and race in Scotland, which was published earlier this year. Practical measures to address the problem are identified in that report and a follow-up inspection is planned for next year.

Another of Dr Jandoo's key recommendations— that of improvements in family liaison—will be included in that inspection, with a view to preliminary reporting as soon as possible and a full report by the end of 2002.

Dr Jandoo also recommends greater police use of local multi-agency partnerships, as the importance of multi-agency racial incident monitoring groups and other such schemes has been recognised in the work of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group and in the inspectorate of constabulary report.

I have apologised to the bereaved relatives, the widow and the partner of Surjit Singh Chhokar for our failure as a prosecution service to liaise appropriately with them and have no hesitation in doing so again. I am sorry, too, that, despite the fact that three people have stood trial for the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar, the family has a genuine sense of grievance that justice has not been done. Of course, no prosecution service can ever guarantee a conviction and as a society we must never expect particular results in individual cases. Such expectations would undermine not just the jury system, but justice itself. It is also true that Sir Anthony Campbell finds that it is impossible to say whether the result might have been different had different decisions been made. Nevertheless, the fact is that we did not give ourselves the best shot at the prosecution. To that extent, the family's grievance that justice was not done by the prosecution is well founded. Again I apologise for that.

In March 2000, shortly after I became Lord Advocate, I attended Fife Racial Equality Council to speak on racism. Mr Chhokar was also there and was asked to speak. He spoke in Punjabi and although I did not understand his language I certainly understood his anguish.

Mr and Mrs Chhokar have conducted themselves with dignity and passion in pursuing justice for their son. I want to pay tribute to them for the perseverance that they have shown. I also want to recognise the part played by Mr Anwar. He is criticised in Dr Jandoo's report but I appreciate that Mr and Mrs Chhokar see him as a friend and counsellor. More importantly, he has played a significant role in the campaign, which has highlighted the issues of institutional racism and the way in which we deal with bereaved relatives of whatever background and colour in the criminal justice system. I hope that they find some satisfaction in the progress that is now being made.

The reports are more than just a contribution to a debate. They mark a significant turning point in the justice system in Scotland. They will stand for many years to come not only as a signpost to the future but in memory of Surjit Singh Chhokar.

I am bound by the timetable that the chamber agreed to earlier and we have to conclude the proceedings by half-past 3. I propose to use the degree of flexibility that I used on a previous occasion and, while questions will be directed to the Lord Advocate, I will call on the Minister for Justice just before the half hour to allow him to deal with any questions that relate to his department or responsibilities.

I thank the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice for their remarks about the leaks that have taken place. I am sure that all members will agree that those leaks were appalling and that they simply added insult to injury for the Chhokar family. I hope that the matter will be met with the utmost seriousness and that there will be an internal investigation to establish what happened. Given that the leaks took place and that extensive information ended up in the public domain, does the Lord Advocate think that consideration should have been given to allowing the Chhokars to see the reports earlier than this morning?

I regard the Campbell report as an objective piece of work and I have great confidence in its findings. It highlights mistakes that were made in the decision-making process and the existence of serious problems in the system. It amounts to a damning indictment of the system's failure to change over decades, despite the changing pressures during those decades. I am glad that the recommendations are being accepted, but does the Lord Advocate agree that a serious question about resourcing of the Crown Office is raised? Whenever that question has been asked of the Executive it has been rebuffed as being irrelevant, because the Executive has believed that the Crown Office has had sufficient resources to do its job. The Campbell report makes it quite clear that the Crown Office does not have sufficient resources.

There is a discrepancy between the two reports in respect of institutional racism. Campbell's report does not find evidence of institutional racism in the Crown Office, whereas the Jandoo report implies that it exists. How will the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice resolve that apparent discrepancy?

I will deal in slightly more detail with the Jandoo report. I find it far less satisfactory than the Campbell report. The Jandoo report is highly subjective and I am afraid that I cannot find great satisfaction in much of what is in it, given the brief chance that I have had to see it. Why—despite guarantees to the family—are personal details, including all family addresses, contained in the report? Can anything be done about that before the report is provided to the wider public, including the press?

Why did the Jandoo report proceed on the basis of what is in effect character assassination of individuals—Surjit Chhokar, Darshan Chhokar and Aamer Anwar? Does that character assassination not effectively justify the concerns that the family had about the conduct of the inquiry in the first place?

What—given Dr Jandoo's dismissal of Macpherson's definition of institutional racism and his substitution of it with something called institutional sensitivity—is our understanding now of institutional racism? Do the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice accept that redefinition?

I am concerned that we could get into easy scapegoating of the police. Although some deficiencies in police actions have been identified in the Jandoo report, it is clear that the family had a good experience of the police and it is agreed in general that the real problems began when the case was no longer in police hands. If any institution comes out of the report well, it is the police, but certainly not the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I ask the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice to comment on that. I am concerned that, in such circumstances, the police are an easier scapegoat to have in our sights than the more entrenched establishment attitudes that exist in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I would be concerned if that were the lesson that was learnt from the reports.

I have asked a number of specific questions. Members will have other questions. The reports are highly detailed and I hope that we will have a chance to return to the issue in much more detail, but I want the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice to give some specific answers to my questions about the nature of some of what has appeared in the Jandoo report.

I reiterate my horror at what happened over the weekend. Whoever was responsible for any leaks showed, in my estimation, complete lack of sensitivity for the family and complete lack of judgment. If anybody thought that they were doing Jim Wallace or me a favour, their actions were completely contrary to any instructions that we gave, which were explicit about how the reports were to be handled. We are both horrified by what happened.

On consideration of whether to give the family the reports earlier, that was not done for three reasons. First, we were not asked to give them the reports earlier. Secondly, we were only three days away from the debate in Parliament. Thirdly, we had already given a commitment that we would make a parliamentary statement and that the reports would be published under parliamentary privilege. For those reasons, the reports were not issued to the family early.

On the Campbell inquiry and resources, I clarify that we have in the past few years steadily increased the resources for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. In 1996-97, the budget was about £47 million. It is now more than £60 million. The number of legal staff that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employs has gone up by 60 between 1998 and November 2001, an increase of about 22 per cent. We have been putting resources in, but I recognise that there might still be a problem with resources. For that reason, I announced earlier the establishment of a review of management and the allocation of resources, because I am determined that we should get best value for money.

In turning—if I may—to comments on the Raj Jandoo report, I say that Roseanna Cunningham and I will have to differ on the quality of that report. I found it as I read it to be well structured, well argued and well reasoned. Although we might all argue about the recommendations, my view is that we should now see to implementing those recommendations and moving on. I do not intend to comment on Dr Jandoo's or Sir Anthony Campbell's comments about individuals in their reports. Those reports stand as the results of investigation by respected authors and it is not for me to comment. I accept the reports as they stand and my view is that we should now concentrate on the recommendations.

On scapegoating the police, I have a high regard and respect for the police. We work closely together. I am not aware that I, Jim Wallace or anyone else has attempted at any stage to scapegoat the police through the way in which we have conducted ourselves or instructed the reports. I hope that the police will find the recommendations constructive, as I find the recommendations about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service constructive. I give the commitment that I will work closely with the police in ensuring that the recommendations are implemented.

Will the Lord Advocate accept that we all wish to be associated with his expressions of sympathy to the family of Mr Chhokar and will he also support a full debate in the Parliament at the first available opportunity in view of the important concerns that have been raised?

Will the Lord Advocate agree with the major conclusion that two of the accused should have been tried in the first instance and that Lord McCluskey's remarks as trial judge in the first trial have now been vindicated? Is he aware that Sir Anthony Campbell states on page 87 of his report:

"I have gained the firm impression … that the prosecution system is currently under stress. One witness described it as a system in perpetual crisis."

Having been an interim fiscal, I ask the Lord Advocate please to ensure that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service receives the necessary resources from the Administration and that no part of the service is under disproportionate stress. When the Lord Advocate implements the recommendations to have a broad review and to create an inspectorate for the Crown Office, will he bear it in mind that our justice system should be as good as any in the world and that prosecutions should never be adversely affected by lack of resources or too few staff?

Is the Lord Advocate aware that Sir Anthony Campbell wrote on page 84 of his report:

"I have not found any evidence to suggest that racist behaviour or attitude influenced the decisions that were made"?

Does he endorse that view?

Does the Lord Advocate accept that the substantial shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation and prosecution do not mean that our police force as a whole is institutionally racist? Any attempt to label Scotland's police officers and prosecutors in that fashion would be a slur on dedicated men and women who do a difficult job without fear or favour and on the basis that we are all equal under the law. Will the Lord Advocate recognise that we must learn from this sorry and sad chapter in our legal history?

I confirm that the Executive will initiate a full debate on an appropriate occasion, when members have had time to study the reports.

I accept—as I have already stated—that the better judgment at the time would have been to indict both Ronnie Coulter and Andrew Coulter for murder and to use David Montgomery as a witness. I note from Sir Anthony Campbell's report the comments that relate to resources, but I pause only to observe that things have changed in relation to the amount of resources that are available, at least since November 1998. I have accepted that resources remain an issue that we must address.

The recommendations relating to the new inspectorate are important. I accept that the justice system as a whole must be adequately resourced and that it must deal with the modern pressures that arise from the serious nature of crimes that are now committed in our society.

On institutional racism and its definition, both reports' authors make it clear that they found no evidence of racist behaviour by individuals, either in the police or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and I welcome that. It is incumbent on all of us within organisations to ensure that the processes that we operate do not operate in such a way as to be discriminatory against individuals of any colour or creed. I am sure that we all agree with that.

On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I record our deep concern and disgust over the leaking of the reports to the press. I hope that the inquiry finds those who are responsible and deals with them properly.

I ask the Lord Advocate to reconfirm that the crime was not racially motivated.

On the criticisms that are contained in Dr Jandoo's report, it is clear that the police and prosecuting authorities failed time after time in their liaison and communication with the Chhokar family. Will the Lord Advocate expand on the lessons that have been learned from this sorry affair? Will he detail the actions that are being taken to tackle the criticism that is being levelled at the Crown Office? Will he detail the action that is being taken within the police force on the point that was highlighted in the Jandoo report, to the effect that there is a need to close the gap between high-level policy and strategy and the practical guidance for officers on the ground?

I ask Jim Wallace to make a comment at the end of questions about the point regarding the police.

It does not appear that there was any evidence that the murder was racially motivated. As for the lessons to be learned and the actions of the Crown Office, members will be aware that we have already set up the victim liaison office for victims and next of kin in general. It is currently being piloted only in Aberdeen and Hamilton, but it will be rolled out to all regions of Scotland by the middle of next year. That is an important initiative because it will provide a structured approach to the way in which we deal with victims of serious crime and, in particular, with bereaved relatives. It is my wish that that mainstreams racial awareness within the system.

It is also important that victims of crime have access to basic information about the way in which the system works and about the basic details of the case in which they have an interest. That will be an important part of the work of the victim liaison office.

The race strategy group, which has been meeting every fortnight under the chairmanship of the Solicitor General, has been addressing a wide range of issues that come under the broad heading of race. We are learning fast how to deal appropriately with people from ethnic minorities. We are ensuring that there are adequate translation and interpreting facilities, for example. That means that people must be aware of the need for those facilities. I have issued guidelines to fiscal staff about awareness of the need for interpreting and translation facilities, and about cultural awareness generally.

Those are some of the steps that are being taken in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that it is a failure of our justice system that guilty men have walked free and that there has been no conviction for the brutal murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar? Was the lack of experience that Anthony Campbell identified responsible for the failings in the preparation of the prosecution's case? Does the Lord Advocate recognise that the Justice 2 Committee has embarked on an inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service because it has believed all along that the service has been under-resourced and has suffered from lack of experience?

Can the Lord Advocate say today that he will take urgent action to address the problem of low pay and low morale in the prosecution service, so that the public can rest assured that we in Scotland have the highest quality prosecution service?

The member will appreciate that I do not want to comment on the guilt or innocence of individuals and on verdicts that have been reached by a jury. In my statement I made it clear that we did not give ourselves the best shot at securing convictions in this case because of the way in which we prosecuted it. However, juries' verdicts can appear strange to people who do not sit on them and who observe them from outside. It is important that, as Lord Advocate and as a prosecutor, I should not be drawn into commenting on verdicts and I will not do so in this case.

Pauline McNeill referred to the levels of experience of prosecutors. In this case, somebody who did not have the right level of training was assigned to undertake the precognition. There were also difficulties with supervision.

I acknowledge what the member said about the Justice 2 Committee. On several occasions I have welcomed the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, as it will provide us with a forum to consider more broadly the issues that confront us.

I am aware that pay and morale are issues in the service. A pay comparability study is being undertaken and I have already made certain public commitments in relation to that, as well as commitments to the unions. I want to ensure that the morale of the service is as high as it can be. The people at all levels who make up the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service work extremely hard, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances. They also face the challenge of the increased scrutiny that the Parliament has brought to bear on the service. The staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service work very professionally; the Parliament should recognise the debt that it owes them.

I will ask four quick questions.

Does the Lord Advocate have information on how many members of the ethnic minority community and how many organisations that represent the ethnic minority community contributed to the reports?

When the Minister for Justice speaks, will he join the Lord Advocate in condemning the press leaks? Will he also state in the strongest possible terms his support for the integrity of both the Chhokar family and their chosen representative, Aamer Anwar, given the way in which he has conducted affairs throughout this sorry episode?

Will the Lord Advocate explain whether the definition of institutional racism that was used by Dr Jandoo will replace that which was used in the Macpherson report? Alternatively, will Dr Jandoo's definition supplement that of the Macpherson report or will it be fitted into the overall system in some other way? When we discuss such a serious subject, it is important that we have proper definitions, so that our discussions do not become meaningless.

Finally, does the Minister for Justice accept that throughout Scotland there will be a lot of dissatisfaction with this sorry affair? Does he also accept that that will be based largely on the unwillingness of the Executive to accept the heartfelt pleas and wishes of the family for a proper, transparent and accountable public inquiry, which should have been held in the first place?

That must be the final question. I call the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice. There are eight members whom I cannot call but, given that there is to be a debate, I shall note their names.

I do not have the figures on how many members of the ethnic minority community or ethnic minority organisations contributed to the reports, but lists of people who contributed are contained in the report. I will pass the question on the definition of institutional racism to Jim Wallace.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Bearing in mind the interest in and importance of the subject, would it be possible to suspend standing orders for 10 minutes and to move other business and decision time back by 10 minutes to allow further questioning?

Although I am sympathetic to that request, I honestly do not think that I could do that. Fiona Hyslop will recall that we held a short debate on the business motion in the Parliamentary Bureau. We should revisit this issue in the bureau and I intend to do so next week. However, I am afraid that I am bound by the business motion that the Parliament agreed to.

I will try to pick up on some of the points that have been made.

I emphasise that the leaks that happened were not authorised by Scottish ministers. Both Roseanna Cunningham and James Douglas-Hamilton sought reassurances that the inquiry into the leaks will be thorough. I can assure them that I want that inquiry to be thorough and that it will be.

It was unfortunate that Roseanna Cunningham seemed to dismiss so lightly the definition of institutional racism that Raj Jandoo uses in his report—I think that she referred to "institutional sensitivity". In fact, if one examines paragraph 24 and paragraph 32 onwards, it becomes quite clear that Raj Jandoo builds on and clarifies the definition that was used in the Macpherson report. I chair the working group that is implementing the recommendations of Sir William Macpherson's report, and I found his definition of institutional racism helpful. However, Raj Jandoo's report reflects the concerns that have been expressed to him by the Commission for Racial Equality that the Macpherson definition focuses too much on unwitting actions. When people read Raj Jandoo's recommendation, they will find that it is a useful tool for assessing whether institutional racism exists within their own organisations. That applies not only to the public sector, but to all organisations. People ought to be very alert to the existence of institutional racism. It is important to remind the Parliament that no finding was made to the effect that any individual in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or in the police was guilty of a racist approach or attitude. Nevertheless, Raj Jandoo found examples of institutional racism.

There is no intention on my part, or on the parts of the Lord Advocate or anybody else in the Executive, to scapegoat the police—far from it. However, it is important that we are not complacent. As the chair of the working group that is implementing the Macpherson inquiry report's recommendations, I have been impressed by what I have learned about the commitment of the police to taking tackling racism seriously. The police's racial diversity strategy is an example of that commitment.

George Lyon mentioned the policy-practice gap, which was identified in the HM inspectorate of constabulary report "Without Prejudice?", which was published earlier this year. Through training and through a general commitment, that policy-practice gap is being addressed. For example, Lothian and Borders police have issued officers with a small card that is—although it was derided in some sections of the press when it was issued—an ever-present reminder to the police always to be vigilant, because any incident could be a racial incident. Next year, the inspectorate will make a follow-up inspection of Scotland's police forces to view how far they have come in trying to minimise that policy-practice gap. I will be profoundly disappointed if that inspection does not show that the gap has closed considerably.

As the Lord Advocate said, Raj Jandoo's recommendation on family liaison will also be taken forward. I and officials in my department will discuss with the chief police officers how to take forward the recommendations that are addressed specifically to the police.

I assure Tommy Sheridan that I wish to associate myself with the remarks that the Lord Advocate made about the Chhokar family and their representative. The Chhokar family have been badly let down as a result of the failures in the Scottish justice system. The two exhaustive reports make clear the failings in the prosecution of the murder and how liaison with the family could have been much better. As Scotland's justice minister, I consider that those failures added considerably to the family's suffering following the death of their son. The failures are utterly unacceptable. I want to associate myself with the profound apology that the Lord Advocate has already made.

There will, of course, be an opportunity for a full debate in Executive time, when I am sure that we will want to address the issues with the seriousness that they clearly merit.

That concludes business on the statement.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It would appear that some members who are not members of the Executive had access to the reports before the Parliament met this afternoon, whereas the rest of us had to wait until the appropriate motion was approved at half-past 2. Can you try to ensure that we are all treated equally, so that there is equal opportunity to put informed questions to the Lord Advocate or the responsible minister?

I speak only for myself when I say that I had no access to the reports before the meeting. The question of how and when the Executive pre-issues copies of documents to other members is a matter for informal arrangement between the parties; it does not involve the chair at all.

The report says that it is

"Laid before the Scottish Parliament".

Surely, as equal members of the Parliament, we are entitled to see it at the same time?

The answer is that it was published when the motion was agreed to.

People had access to it before the motion was passed.

I hear what you say, Mr Canavan, but I have no knowledge of that. The matter is not for the chair but for agreement between the parties.