Chamber and committees

I am very sympathetic to what the Scottish Government is trying to do. It is clear that we need to strengthen the vetting processes that existed historically in the police. The Sarah Everard case is perhaps the most high-profile case, but many cases have come to light where greater vetting would have led to different outcomes. In particular, the cabinet secretary is aware of the number of domestic abuse and rape allegations against serving police officers, both south of the border and, no doubt, in Scotland.

However, given what has been said and the fact that there does not seem to have been consultation with, for example, the Scottish Police Federation, I think that it would be helpful if we could come back to this issue at stage 3.

When we took evidence on the bill, one of the pieces of evidence that I most strongly welcomed was when we heard that the Scottish Government had put greater resource into vetting and that more staff had been employed to do that work. It is clear that a great deal of attention has already been given to ensuring that we have better vetting now and going forward. However, it would be helpful if we could ensure that that is done on a cross-party basis. Rather than deal with it in this way at this stage, we could use the time between now and stage 3 to look at what the Scottish Government is proposing. That would give us the opportunity, for example, to speak with serving police officers and campaigners for better police accountability and better vetting of the police, which would ensure that the Parliament can support the detail of the amendments.

To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to NHS Ayrshire and Arran, in light of reports that the health board requires over £85 million to cover the cost of backdated repairs. (S6O-03794)

Arran war memorial hospital requires more than £1.2 million of repairs; for Ayrshire central hospital, the figure is more than £6 million; for University hospital Crosshouse, it is more than £32 million; for Ailsa hospital, it is more than £10 million; for University hospital Ayr, it is more than £16 million; and, for Townhead surgery, it is almost £700,000. The list goes on.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the deteriorating state of national health service buildings has a negative impact on quality of care?

My office is contacted almost daily about problems with the ferry service. For example, yesterday, a constituent phoned about a service that was diverted to Troon and about the conditions on board. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Government’s handling of the ferry crisis has undermined the strategic goals of its national islands plan?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is regarding whether the early release scheme for prisoners has been a success. (S6T-02115)

We have had two recent prisoner release schemes. We know that, after the Covid releases, there was, at first, a brief decrease in numbers, but prisoner numbers then increased at a faster rate. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that seems to have happened again?

In the past 24 hours, a number of constituents have been in touch with me—people concerned that they will not make hospital appointments; a farmer who will not be able to get their lambs off the island to market tomorrow and so will have to wait another month; and a visitor, whose family of six, in two cars, including a disabled person, are stranded on the island. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the ferry crisis is becoming a national emergency?

Only five victims were informed of the prisoner releases. Victim Support Scotland is calling for the victim notification scheme to be reformed. Has the cabinet secretary had the opportunity to look at my amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill that would create an opt-out scheme rather than an opt-in scheme?

I very much welcome the fact that we are having this discussion, although, as Paul O’Kane has said, it is part of a far wider one that I suspect we will have over the coming weeks.

I have a number of questions. I have already had a discussion with Jeremy Balfour, in which I indicated that I hoped that I would be able to do cross-party work with him on the issue. I am sure that other colleagues would want to do so. I know that Scottish Labour very much wants to work with the Scottish Government in this area.

It would be helpful to know whether we have any information on the cost of the proposal that is before us today on the specific benefits—the highest rate of attendance allowance and the highest rate of pension age disability allowance. I appreciate that Mr Balfour might have that information, but it is more likely that the Scottish Government might be able to provide that information either today or before stage 3.

It would also be helpful to know what the cost would be if the amendments were to be expanded to include other benefits. Mr Balfour has restricted the provisions of amendment 5 to the highest rates of attendance allowance and pension age disability allowance. I hear what he said about the amendments having been drafted before the decision of the UK Parliament. However, there is clearly a relationship between the winter fuel payment and the potential new allowance. From what Mr Balfour is saying, his intention is that the proposed assistance would be in addition to the winter fuel payment, which perhaps addresses one of the questions that I was going to ask about those who will still receive winter fuel payment because they receive pension credit. I think that Mr Balfour envisages that it would be additional to the winter fuel payment. I am clear on that, but it would be helpful to know whether any costings work has been done or could be done on other rates of attendance allowance, pension age disability allowance, housing benefit or, indeed, whether any other timescales are being envisaged.

There is some indication from the Scottish Government of timescales for when the benefit might realistically be implemented. However, given that we know that there often seem to be considerable administration issues, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could provide that information today.

I suspect that, before stage 3, we might have more information on consequentials, which would be useful to know. I know that the First Minister made a statement this week that mentioned a figure, but there will be further consequentials. A number of councils in England are considering taking similar steps. As I say, this is something that this Parliament will want to look at on a cross-party basis and I hope that, as the debate continues, a similar amendment, or maybe one that includes other benefits, could be lodged at stage 3.

Scottish Labour supports the bill, which we regard as non-controversial. We note that the Law Society of Scotland agrees that the law relating to judicial factors is in need of modernisation and that it is supportive of the bill and an up-to-date codification of this area of law. As Ben Macpherson said, it is a consolidating bill.

As the minister indicated, missing people was one of the areas that the committee focused on. I welcome the minister’s commitment to continue to work with those involved in this issue, including the charity Missing People. We thank the committee for all the work that it has done on the bill and for its stage 1 report, which clearly outlines the issues. We agree that the role of judicial factor is a necessary one that needs to continue. As the convener said, it is important that we get the law right in relation to a judicial factor for a missing person.

I was pleased that the convener, who has been heavily involved in the McClure Solicitors issue as the constituency MSP, raised the question whether a judicial factor should have been appointed in that situation. Like him, I have been consulted by a number of constituents who have lost huge amounts of money as a result of the actions of McClure Solicitors, and it will be interesting to hear whether the minister believes that the bill might have made a difference, if it had been enacted previously.

As many speakers said, there have been very few judicial factors, but we need to ensure that the law is updated to deal with situations such as when solicitors firms get into financial difficulties.

Martin Whitfield raised more than once the issue of missing people and the failure to make specific provision on that in the bill. Oliver Mundell also spoke to that point, and the convener confirmed that it was a significant point that the committee considered. I hope that the minister will clarify whether an amendment will be forthcoming from the Scottish Government to put specific provisions on that in the bill.

Rona Mackay said that the bill was dry and technical. However, like Maggie Chapman, she spoke about how important it could be to individuals. She pointed out that since the Scottish Law Commission made its recommendations, it has taken 11 years for us to get the bill. Perhaps that was because of how few cases there are. She also said how important it is that there is engagement prior to stage 2.

I looked carefully at what the Law Society of Scotland said about the bill. It is clear that it supports the committee’s conclusion that a complaints process for judicial factors does not need to be included in the bill. We accept its view on that issue. However, it is supportive of steps to improve the accessibility of and signposting to existing complaints mechanisms and it welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to take forward that recommendation.

The Law Society took the view that the bill preserved the jurisdiction of the Court of Session for hearing applications to appoint a judicial factor, and that that was the correct approach. However, it sought clarification on the proposed interaction between the bill and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, and suggested that a power to appoint a substitute judicial factor should be added to the bill. It would be helpful if the minister could respond to those points, either today or as the bill process continues.

The Law Society also took the view that the exclusion of certain UK bodies from the duty to comply with the notice issued by a judicial factor or by the Accountant of Court would adversely impact the ability to obtain relevant information. We therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s intention to explore extending that duty. We also welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to clarify or remove references to data protection legislation in those sections of the bill.

I was going to ask the minister to respond to a couple of points. The committee highlighted that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s evidence indicated that there could be a cost of £380,000 if the bill did not get royal assent; it would be useful if the minister could respond to that. In addition, the minister said in committee that the Government was looking at how the bill could be amended at stage 2 to capture the way in which complaints against a professional body could be made in the context of solicitors and regulated professions. Again, it would be useful if the minister could respond to that point.

It is extremely positive to take part in a debate in which there is so much consensus among members in the chamber. We look forward to having a positive debate as we go forward to make sure that we get the best possible law in this area.