Chamber and committees

I am acutely aware of how important it is to have partnership working with local authorities and local police—with lots of stakeholders—because they know the area best. Douglas Ross has highlighted some important work that is going on in his constituency.

I move on to the work that the Scottish Government and partners are doing to prevent rural crime and mitigate its impact. Disrupting organised crime and diverting individuals away from it remains a priority for the Scottish Government and partners on the serious organised crime task force. However, in a rural setting, much of the work that is aimed at preventing organised crime is done through the work of the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime, which has been mentioned several times. The Scottish Government continues to work with partners across SPARC and through the continued expansion of the local partnerships against crime across Scotland. This sort of theft is a priority for the group.

The rural crime strategy for 2022 to 2025 was launched on 24 June 2022. All members of SPARC were involved in its drafting. The strategy adopts a holistic approach. Among other things, it aims to ensure that those members are alert to and understand local and national concerns that relate to rural and environmental crime and promote and improve rural community and environmental wellbeing whereby people can flourish and feel safe. The strategy sets out seven rural crime priorities, each with its own action plan. Those include the theft of agricultural and forestry machinery, plant and quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles.

As I have suggested, only by working in partnership can we hope to tackle this menace. SPARC and the local partnerships recognise the crucial role of working together towards a common goal. To do that effectively, they share intelligence on organised crime groups that operate across borders and provide specific information to the rural and farming community on how best to secure equipment and prevent its theft, as well as addressing the other crimes that are noted in the strategy.

I thank Christine Grahame for highlighting that valid point.

Douglas Ross highlighted important issues about good partnership working, which is important. Having antisocial behaviour in my remit, I am acutely aware—

I will, if the member could give me just a moment, please.

When a case is referred to the appeal court for a fresh appeal, it will be for the appeal court to determine whether to quash or to uphold the person’s conviction or sentence.

Three appeals have been made on behalf of the late Mr Megrahi. In 2002, the Scottish appeal court, sitting at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, heard his first appeal and refused it. Thereafter, the commission referred the relevant conviction of Mr Megrahi to the appeal court twice, and each time appeal proceedings were heard.

It might be helpful to put on the record that Mr Megrahi abandoned his second appeal in 2009, shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds. As Christine Grahame said, Mr Megrahi died in Libya in 2012.

A second, and posthumous, application to the commission was made by Mr Megrahi’s family in 2017, which resulted in his conviction being referred back to the appeal court in March 2020. The appeal court fully considered the case and published in January 2021 its judgment on that appeal, which upheld Mr Megrahi’s conviction. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by that court in July 2022.

Although the appeal court has already heard and rejected two full appeals against Mr Megrahi’s conviction, it remains open to his family to submit a further application to the commission. That would probably be on the basis that there had been new evidence that the appeal court had not heard when it considered a previous appeal against conviction, to support a claim that there had been a miscarriage of justice. That is an essential element of how the Scottish justice system operates, and it is available to anyone who has unsuccessfully appealed against their conviction to the High Court. I hope that that information has reassured members that processes are in place to allow any alleged miscarriage of justice to be fully investigated and that those processes have been used in this case.

I finish by commending the people of Lockerbie, all of whom were affected by the tragedy. The town will, unfortunately, always be known for what happened more than 36 years ago. However, in their own individual ways, the people there have shown a determination to look to the future while acknowledging and reflecting on the past. That has been achieved through the connections made with families in America who were affected by the loss of life and through the work of community groups in the Lockerbie area.

Sherwood Crescent in Lockerbie was devastated by the disaster. At the time, one of the residents there said:

“They were here one minute. Then they were gone.”

The victims in the town of Lockerbie are not forgotten; they are remembered through the actions of the people in the town who lived through that horrendous act of terrorism and by those in succeeding generations. We also remember Flora, and all the other victims on board Pan Am flight 103, through the enduring human spirit of people such as Dr Swire and many others who ensure that we do not forget the horrific events of that fateful night.

I thank Christine Grahame for bringing the debate to the chamber. I know that, over many years, she has spoken with passion and dedication on issues relating to the Lockerbie disaster. I know that she will continue to pursue them, but this might be one of the final occasions on which she brings discussion of Lockerbie to the Parliament, because she intends to stand down next year. The Parliament will be poorer as a result. I also thank Emma Harper and Colin Smyth for their powerful personal contributions.

I begin by offering my continuing sympathy to everyone who lost loved ones on that awful night all those years ago, on Pan Am flight 103 and in the town of Lockerbie. We should also remember the emergency workers from around the town, and further afield, who responded in the immediate aftermath of that atrocity. Their rapid response, along with that of the people of Lockerbie, in extraordinary circumstances, demonstrated remarkable professionalism, kindness and humanity in the face of one of the worst terrorist attacks on Scottish soil.

Although the events of 21 December 1988 have had a lasting impact on the town, I know that, following the disaster, links were forged between Lockerbie and other affected communities. They include the establishment of a scholarship programme involving Syracuse University and Lockerbie academy.

Ms Grahame’s motion highlights the work of Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the disaster. Dr Swire’s steadfast commitment to his cause, in memory of his daughter, is a testament to the endurance of the human spirit.

I am sure that members will understand that it would be inappropriate for me, as a Scottish minister, to make any comment on the criminal cases that followed the disaster. However, the motion refers to concerns that Dr Swire and others have expressed about the criminal justice process. It is therefore important that I confirm to the Parliament the checks and balances that exist in the Scottish justice system.

The processes for investigating and determining alleged miscarriages of justice operate independently of the Scottish ministers. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent public body, which, as the motion notes, has responsibility for investigating cases when it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in relation to a conviction or a sentence. The commission has extensive powers to obtain documents from any person or organisation and to request that evidence be given under oath.

Under the statutory test set by the Parliament, the commission can refer a person’s conviction to the appeal court for a fresh appeal if, after considering the application, it thinks that

“a miscarriage of justice may have occurred”

and that

“it is in the interests of justice”

for the case to be referred back to the appeal court.

I wish to express my gratitude to Jackson Carlaw for today’s motion, and I sincerely thank everybody who has kindly taken the opportunity to commemorate Holocaust memorial day for their very powerful contributions. This is the second year in which I have responded to the debate, and I have to say that it is one of the most powerful, emotive, thought-provoking and grounding debates, because it highlights our vulnerability as humanity in what appears to be a volatile and sometimes very busy world.

Everybody’s contribution tonight has been very valuable, but I want to give a minute to Jackson Carlaw, who always makes very powerful contributions. I know about his on-going commitment to highlighting the atrocities of the Holocaust. As he mentioned at the end of his speech, its few and frail survivors are disturbed by fears for the future. Colleagues, that is why it is vital that we ensure that it never happens again.

Another powerful contribution came from Ben Bland, the young person whom Paul O’Kane heard from in his constituency. In the darkness of today’s world, as it must appear to a lot of our youngsters, he has a really positive and hopeful view, which I found very inspirational and powerful to hear about.

I echo the heartfelt words that have been offered by my fellow members in paying tribute to the 6 million Jewish people who were systematically murdered during the Holocaust, and the countless others who were killed by the Nazi regime, and the untold numbers of people whose lives were callously taken from them in the genocides that took place in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.

The horrors of the Holocaust are a stark reminder of the devastating consequences if prejudicial attitudes are not challenged and confronted, as my colleague Pauline McNeill eloquently set out. Despite all our political differences, it is deeply moving to witness members in the chamber being united in honouring peoples among whom lives were decimated by such terrible persecutions.

This year’s commemoration is a seminal moment, as we mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the 30th anniversary of the genocide in Bosnia. Following the Nazis’ ascent to power in 1933, they ramped up the antisemitic rhetoric prior to passing laws that gradually stripped Jewish citizens of their most basic human rights, including forcing them to wear yellow stars and singling them out for ever-worsening persecution. That slow but precise process of dehumanisation would later culminate in one of the most heinous acts in human history, as the regime attempted to exterminate all Jewish people in Europe.

The beginning of the Bosnian war in 1992 presented a chilling parallel, as non-Serbian citizens were first compelled to wear white armbands, setting in motion the infamous practice that would later come to be known as ethnic cleansing. The most monstrous example of such brutality was to occur in 1995, when the town of Srebrenica witnessed the genocidal massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces in one of the largest incidents of mass murder in Europe since world war two.

In reflecting on the sheer inhumanity of those atrocities, we are reminded of this year’s theme, which encourages us to strive collectively for a better future, while challenging those who attempt to deny or trivialise the Holocaust or any genocide. The Scottish Government must lead by example and remain ever vigilant, so that the grave consequences of the past can never be repeated.

In that spirit, I was proud to support the commencement of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 in April last year. Alongside our hate crime strategy, that will ensure that we take the robust measures that are the necessary response to criminality that is rooted in prejudice, and that we provide confidence that all incidents will be treated with the utmost seriousness.

Last year, we were privileged to assist with the United Kingdom’s presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in a series of engagements, including at the Kelvingrove art gallery and museum in Glasgow, where the First Minister spoke about the importance of working together to tackle the growing threat of antisemitism.

In recognition of the deep-seated nature of prejudicial attitudes, we are working in close collaboration with partners to prevent such behaviours from taking hold and undermining our commitment to community cohesiveness.

Let me be clear that discrimination, including antisemitism, must be challenged through educating our children about all cultures, faiths and belief systems, and ensuring that they learn tolerance and respect. The Scottish Government’s aspiration is that our children and young people feel equipped to go out into the world as citizens of the tolerant and inclusive Scotland that we all want to be part of.

Tomorrow, I will have the honour of participating alongside the First Minister at the Scottish ceremony for Holocaust memorial day, which has been expertly organised by our friends at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. It is deeply saddening that the ceremony will be without Henry Wuga, who, as Jackson Carlaw said, tragically passed away last year. The loss of his devotion in support of Holocaust memorial day will be immeasurable. However, I am humbled that I will have the opportunity to share a platform with a number of truly inspiring individuals, including Holocaust survivor Alfred Garwood MBE, and Smajo Bëso, who escaped the Bosnian genocide. The remarkable courage of all survivors in the face of such dire circumstances and their unwavering sacrifice in sharing their testimonies is a display of selflessness for which all of us should be forever indebted. I sincerely hope that as many members as possible can join us tomorrow night at the commemoration.

The responsibility of building a better future is incumbent on all members and on everyone in our diverse communities. I have been particularly struck in my conversations with Jewish and Muslim communities about how antisemitism and Islamophobia continue to impact on their daily lives. To them, I say, “Scotland is, and always will be, your home.”

Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once said:

“To forget would not only be dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time”.

We must always honour those words as part of our duty to remember the Holocaust and other genocides, while also aspiring to a better future, in which nobody need live in fear simply because of who they are and the group to which they belong.

Therefore, it is paramount that we support one another while resisting any and all voices that seek to divide us, and that we instead work in harmony for a caring and inclusive world that provides opportunities for all to flourish.

The 2025-26 draft Scottish budget outlines that we will invest almost £4.2 billion across the justice system, which is a 9.5 per cent increase on this year’s budget. We are committed to ensuring fairer access to justice, whereby individuals can be supported in criminal, civil and administrative law settings.

Additional funding can be provided only if Opposition parties support the Scottish budget. It is welcome news that the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats got around the table for budget negotiations so that we can deliver for the people of Scotland. I urge the Scottish Labour Party and the Conservatives to work together with us to pass the budget and allow us to uphold the rule of law, safeguard rights and protect individuals and communities from harm, which is fundamental to the functioning state and to the people of Scotland.

The Scottish Government recognises that reform is needed in the legal aid system for legal aid to be responsive and user-centric and to work effectively in the delivery of agreed actions in the way that is expected of public services.

In the short term, we have identified priority changes that we believe will impact positively on users and providers. Officials are currently developing a legal aid action plan for reform, and we will engage with that soon. I am aware that the Scottish Legal Aid Board is currently undertaking a geographical analysis of legal aid throughout Scotland.

I am happy to meet Maggie Chapman to discuss any constituent experiences that she wants to discuss or if she would like to provide input to the reform.

I appreciate all the work of police dogs and the importance of their welfare. I will write to Douglas Ross on specific details of the insurance of police dogs.

Good morning, convener and committee members. The first set of amendments in the group relates to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and is the outcome of extensive engagement with the SLCC, with the content of the amendments having been agreed.

Amendment 312 and consequential amendments 438, 467, 499 and 523 remove the provisions in the bill that would have removed the word “Complaints” from the name of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Following engagement with stakeholders, including the SLCC, and reflecting the committee’s recommendations, we acknowledge that our original intention to refer to the “Scottish Legal Services Commission” could be misleading for members of the public seeking to make a complaint about the legal profession.

Amendments 335 and 336 seek to make improvements to the complaints process by setting out what decision-making and delegation powers will be available to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. They are also the outcome of extensive engagement with the commission, with their content having been agreed.

Amendment 335 allows the commission to delegate a decision under new section 2A(1) of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, as inserted by amendment 315, to initiate a complaint in its own name only to one of its committees or to one of the commission’s members.?

Amendment 336 allows any member of the commission to take a decision on the disclosure of information under section 41A, which is the power for the SLCC to disclose information relating to complaints, where authorised to do so by the SLCC, which—if agreed to—will be introduced by amendment 533, in the name of Stuart McMillan, in group 18.

Amendment 339 reflects discussions with the SLCC and removes the ability to review a decision that a complaint is eligible to be progressed by the SLCC. There will be other opportunities for a complaints decision to be reviewed, and complaints that are deemed ineligible will remain eligible for review following the decision. ?Amendment 339 seeks to find a balance between allowing important decisions to be reviewed while also streamlining the complaints process. Amendment 345 is consequential to that change.

???Amendment 341 allows for a decision by the SLCC not to initiate the investigation of a services complaint or to close a case following a reasonable settlement offer from the practitioner to be a decision that is capable of being reviewed under new section 20A of the 2007 act. Amendment 346 is a consequential change.

Amendments 337, 340 and 342 to 344 are minor technical amendments.

Amendments 439 to 441 introduce flexibility into the membership of the SLCC board by allowing a minimum number of both lay and legal members, following concerns from the SLCC that it would be difficult for the board to maintain the non-lawyer majority if equal numbers of lay and legal members were required and the absence of a single non-lawyer member could make the board inquorate.??These amendments set out the minimum number of lay and legal members rather than requiring a set number for each.

Amendment 439 sets out that the membership of the SLCC’s board must be made up of at least eight but no more than 20 members in addition to the chair. Amendment 440 requires that the chair and at least four other members must be lay members. Amendment 441 provides that there must be at least three lawyer members.

Amendment 538 removes the requirement that the lawyer members of the SLCC’s board must have at least 10 years’ experience in any of the specified legal categories. Following discussions with the SLCC, that requirement was considered to be overly restrictive, preventing good candidates from being appointed. Therefore, amendment 538 provides additional flexibility regarding board appointments. Members are appointed only after consultation with the Lord President, in accordance with paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the 2007 act. ?In addition, amendment 538 provides that there must be more non-lawyer members than lawyer members, but that difference must be no more than three.

Amendments 443 and 444 set out that each member of the SLCC board can be appointed for a period of not less than five years and not exceeding eight years, in keeping with the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland”, which allows for a maximum period of appointment, including reappointment, of eight years.

Amendment 446 adds the consumer panel to the list of mandatory consultees where the Scottish ministers propose to make regulations to amend the powers or duties of the commission. Amendment 448 will expand the functions of the panel to include making recommendations to the Lord President regarding any of the Lord President’s functions under the bill. Amendments 445 and 447 are consequential.

I am happy to have worked with Maggie Chapman on amendments 539 and 540, which require the consumer panel to be adequately funded and resourced in order to effectively discharge its functions. The Scottish Government’s expectation is for the SLCC to have the capacity to fund the consumer panel’s extended remit as it deems appropriate, including the possibility of implementing an additional levy on the regulated profession. I therefore ask members to support all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 312.

The amendments in this group seek to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to bring clarity to the Law Society’s role in the investigation of conduct and regulatory complaints.

Amendment 468, which relates to conduct complaints, will do a number of things. It makes the necessary consequential and procedural changes following the bill’s introduction of a new power to allow the Law Society to initiate conduct complaints and investigate them without being required to first remit them to the SLCC. It will provide the Law Society with powers when investigating and determining conduct complaints, such as the ability to propose or accept a settlement in respect of a complaint and the ability to discontinue an investigation or reinstate a discontinued investigation. The amendment will provide avenues of appeal to the SSDT and, subsequently, to the court on those decisions.

The amendment will provide measures that may be taken by the Law Society if it makes a determination upholding a conduct complaint. Those measures include censure and the imposition of a fine or of conditions on a solicitor’s practising certificate.

The amendment will also make the system for conduct complaints more efficient, saving time and resources. The Law Society currently investigates complaints about “unsatisfactory professional conduct”, while the most serious complaints of?“professional misconduct” are prosecuted before the SSDT. In cases?where the SSDT?is satisfied that the solicitor is not guilty of misconduct, it can decide that the solicitor is, however, guilty of the lesser matter of unsatisfactory professional conduct. In such cases, it is required to refer the complaint about UPC to the Law Society.? Amendment 468 will give the SSDT a new power to deal with complaints about unsatisfactory professional conduct that arise from an initial complaint of?professional misconduct.

Amendment 469 makes provision in respect of regulatory complaints and mirrors the conduct complaints provisions in amendment 468. It will introduce the ability for an authorised legal business or a licensed provider to appeal to the tribunal against a decision by the Law Society to uphold a regulatory complaint. The decision of the SSDT will also be appealable to the court.

It is important that the Law Society, in its role as a category 1 regulator, can consider and determine regulatory complaints without being overly prescriptive about how such complaints will be processed, and that should be provided for in the practice rules. Amendment 470 will therefore require the?Law Society to make rules about the procedures for making decisions in relation to complaints. Those rules must have the approval of the Law Society and they will not have effect unless they are approved by the Lord President.

Amendment 472 will make related modifications to the 1980 act, including requiring the Law Society to consult the commission before making any rule relating to the society’s functions under the 2007 act.

Amendment 478 will make consequential changes relating to conduct complaints to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Those changes mirror the changes that will be made to the 1980 act by amendment 468, in so far as they relate to conveyancing and executry practitioners.

I ask members to support the amendments in the group. I move amendment 468.