Chamber and committees

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.

From January 2022 to July this year, more than 1 million 101 calls were missed because the caller was disconnected or simply hung up. In June 2023, 41 per cent of all calls went unanswered. The longest a successful caller had to hang on was an hour and 23 minutes. What is the cabinet secretary doing to address that inadequate service?

There is no doubt that there have been significant cuts to youth services in recent years. To what extent does the cabinet secretary believe that it is the impact of cuts to councils, in North Ayrshire and elsewhere, that have led to reductions in services, including in arts and culture, that are targeted at young people?

Good morning. I will ask about funding applications. How could funders work with third sector organisations, especially the smaller ones, to create more proportionate reporting and application processes?

My question is about funding applications. How could funders work with third sector organisations, particularly smaller ones, to create more proportionate application and reporting processes? Who would like to answer first?

So you think that more uniform processes would help. Do third sector interfaces—TSIs—play a role in advocating and supporting the implementation of more streamlined and uniform processes?

The previous panel said that having more uniform processes would help. Do you agree with that?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

As has been said, the bill comes before us as a result of the Angiolini review. The Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses who had complained about their treatment by the police. As the convener said, we also heard evidence from a former police officer who had had a complaint made against him.

I think all members of the committee would agree that some of the evidence that we heard was harrowing and shocking and raised serious issues about policing in Scotland. As Maggie Chapman said in her opening contribution, power has sometimes been abused. It is far from clear to me that the contents of the bill that we are discussing today, if enacted, would have made any difference to the experience of those witnesses. Police Scotland itself has accepted that it has been institutionally racist and discriminatory.

The testimony by many women police officers about the sexist and misogynist treatment that they have experienced in the police force is unacceptable. As Rona Mackay said, cultural change is essential. The appointment of the first woman chief constable is very welcome and we hope that that will be part of the acceleration of that cultural change.

Ben Macpherson and my colleague Martin Whitfield spoke about the code of ethics, which Mr Whitfield has said should be reviewed. I believe that, as we look at the bill before us, we should consider whether the changes in it will make a real difference.

The barred list included in the bill is very welcome. It is unclear whether legislation is necessary to enable that to happen, but the Sarah Everard case is probably the most high-profile recent UK case to demonstrate why a barred list, along with continuous and robust scrutiny of the suitability of police officers for their role, is required. I welcome the fact that additional resources have already been put into that work.

Claire Baker spoke about the Sheku Bayoh inquiry and Jackie Dunbar spoke about her experience of the policing committee. We must also look carefully at the wider structures for police accountability. The cabinet secretary is correct in stating very clearly that trust in the police force is of paramount importance. The ethics, conduct and governance of the police require an appropriate framework and any legislation that we pass must drive greater public confidence.

The duty of candour already exists. It is unclear whether a higher standard of behaviour is required, should the legislation be enacted. For example, the duty of candour that exists in the health service is wide ranging. As Pauline McNeill said, we should clarify what the duty of candour will mean in a police setting. On that, and on many other technical aspects of the legislation, it is Scottish Labour’s view that the detail should be written into the bill. We look forward to seeing the cabinet secretary’s amendments regarding the duty of candour for operational staff and hope that there will be clarity about the implications that that will have for individuals. We also hope that she will address the concerns raised about that duty by the police civilian trade union, Unison.

Many of the issues that were raised in the committee relate to the individual employment rights of police officers, and their rights must be respected. However, the overriding concern of the bill must be to ensure greater transparency and a more speedy and just resolution of complaints that are made by the public and, indeed, by other police officers.

Alexander Stewart said that improved standards were essential. The PIRC has indicated that it does not wish to have some of the powers that are being suggested should be transferred to it under the bill. I agree with Jamie Greene that that is concerning, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will specifically address that and give an explanation for it.

Scottish Labour has made clear our concerns about the financial memorandum. As Pauline McNeill said, we will support the bill today in good faith, on the basis that those concerns will be addressed at a later stage of the bill. We will support the bill today, even though we are not convinced that it will make the significant cultural shift that is essential if we are to address some of the significant concerns raised by witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. I therefore believe that much more needs to be done, some of which might not require legislation, to ensure that we deal adequately with complaints about the police, drive the cultural change that is clearly essential and ensure that the people of Scotland can have the highest trust and public confidence in their police force.

So you will be able to give us an update on that in due course.