Chamber and committees

I am trying to be as helpful as I can. I hope that Mr Findlay understands the sincerity of my engagement on the issue. The calling of a fatal accident inquiry is a matter for the Lord Advocate independently. I understand that Mr Findlay is able to call for such inquiries but, as First Minister, I have to respect the independence of the Lord Advocate. For me to act otherwise would contravene my oath of office, which I will not do.

The process of investigation that was originally conceived of in Stirling Council was not acceptable—it was not good enough. That is why I asked the Crown to look at the matter again and why Mr Findlay has the report in his possession. That was at my instigation; I judged that the initial inquiries were totally unsatisfactory.

There is a matter of further consideration as to whether a fatal accident inquiry would shed any more light on the issue than the exercise on which Mr Findlay has the report. However, I will raise these issues directly with the Lord Advocate and ask her for her consideration of the matter, to ensure that Mr and Mrs Inglis have as much support as possible to come to terms with the loss that they have suffered.

The first thing that I would say, to give some context to the issue that Mr Sarwar is raising, is that Scotland is a safer place since this Government took office. Recorded crime remains below the position immediately prior to the pandemic in 2019-20 and is down 39 per cent since 2006-07, when this Government came into office.

I acknowledge that, at any moment, there will be outstanding arrest warrants. The execution of warrants is an operational matter for Police Scotland, which remains focused on the investigation of crime and on keeping communities safe. Police numbers are well supported in the country; the latest official statistics show that there were 16,427 police officers as of 30 June 2025, and there remains a healthy recruitment pipeline for police officers in Scotland.

The Government is taking action to address the size of the prison population, but there are significant constraints in relation to the proposals that the Government puts forward for which prisoners can be considered eligible for early release. Those standards will be rigorously applied in all that the Government takes forward.

We are, quite simply, not doing that, because the Government is allocating more funding to the college sector. We are investing in college infrastructure and, as I said to Roz McCall, we are just completing the investment in the new Dunfermline learning campus, with premises for Fife College.

The Government will sustain our investment in the college sector. We understand its importance. We see the significance of college funding in supporting the delivery of skills in Scotland, and that is at the heart of the Government’s budget—which, I point out, Pam Duncan-Glancy did not vote for, either.

There is a full range of different opportunities for those issues to be properly and fully considered. A huge amount of scrutiny is applied to applications of that type, and significant assessments are required, particularly for environmental reasons. Mr Eagle will be familiar with the contents of those, because they are part and parcel of statute. There are opportunities for engagement on all those questions.

The Scottish Government has been consistent in its opposition to the development of nuclear energy in Scotland. We think that Scotland has a golden opportunity to develop renewables and should concentrate on doing so.

I very much regret that Lord Bracadale felt it necessary to resign from chairing the Sheku Bayoh inquiry. I want to place on record my admiration and appreciation—and those of the Government—of the service that Lord Bracadale has given to the inquiry, which I think has been exemplary, but I respect and understand his decision to step down. The Deputy First Minister has thanked Lord Bracadale for his work and is now engaging on how to progress the inquiry. We will keep Parliament updated on the steps that are necessary to do so.

As Mr Mason will know, we have to undertake statutory consultation on the chairing of the inquiry. That will be undertaken timeously, and we will keep Parliament advised of the steps that we take.

I agree with that point. What I would provide as reassurance is that, when the remedy letters are issued, they will give a choice and, if a higher pension applies, the individuals will receive any arrears, including interest, which will be paid for by the United Kingdom Government. That issue has implications for the UK Government.

Work has been taken forward by the relevant minister, Ivan McKee. Colleagues know the assiduous way in which Mr McKee carries out his responsibilities. That has involved increasing the SPPA workforce by more than 30 per cent to ensure that experienced staff, who are necessary to calculate often complex recalculations of pension entitlement, are able to do so. I hope that that reassures Pauline McNeill that the Government has increased the SPPA’s resources quite significantly to ensure that we can make timeous progress on the issue.

In relation to council tax, the Government made and consulted on proposals for replacing the council tax when we put the prospect to the public in 2007, and we were unable to command a parliamentary majority on those questions. That is why we are trying to take steps with other parties to create a broader political consensus in favour of council tax reform, and we will endeavour to do that.

In the previous budget, for which we appreciated the support of the Green Party, we were able to deliver a much better settlement that improved the financing of local government. I pay tribute to Green and Liberal Democrat colleagues for voting for the budget, unlike everybody else in here, who was not interested in giving a better settlement to local government—at least the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were.

We will continue to engage constructively to support local services, because I share Mr Greer’s view that we rely on local services to support the population in Scotland.

If I have my numbers correct, Beatrice Wishart said that 9 per cent of the UK’s fishing allocation comes into Shetland, but Scotland is getting only 7.78 per cent of the fund, which means that Shetland’s contribution to fish landings exceeds the allocation of funding for the whole of Scotland and beautifully makes my point about the inequity of the situation.

We will engage constructively with Shetland Islands Council. I am seeing the leader of the council later this afternoon and I am sure that we will discuss the issue. I can assure Beatrice Wishart that we will work collaboratively with the industry in Shetland, but the fundamental inequity is in the UK Government’s funding allocation, and that is the issue that must be remedied.

One of the many flaws in Mr Sarwar’s argument as he has just put it to me is that the Government is currently implementing the proposal to build HMP Glasgow to a design capacity of 1,344 prisoners, which will add 357 places to the overall prison estate. That debunks the nonsense that Mr Sarwar has just put to me in his diatribe.

There is a serious issue that the Parliament has to address, which is this: because of the successful prosecution of people who have committed serious crimes—many of them historic—in our society, people are serving longer sentences. Therefore, there are more long-term prisoners in our prison estate. Of the 8,000 or so prisoners who are currently in our prison estate, 2,000 are on remand. A proportion of those prisoners will not end up in the system on a long-term basis. Therefore, there are judgments to be made by the criminal justice system, independently, about the issues in relation to whether an individual should be on remand.

The other issue is about short-term sentences. There have been umpteen reports—indeed, a report that has been welcomed warmly by Mr Sarwar’s colleagues in the United Kingdom Government was produced by David Gauke, who was a very imaginative Secretary of State for Justice in the Conservative Government. Mr Gauke’s report indicates the issues that have got to be considered about short-term prison sentences.

There is a debate that must be had here in the Parliament—which my justice secretary is undertaking with numerous statements to the Parliament and a comprehensive committee appearance yesterday—about the appropriateness of prison in all circumstances for all prisoners.

I do not want my comments to be misunderstood. People who have committed heinous crimes and have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment should serve those sentences. However, there are debates to be had about the appropriateness of prison in all circumstances, because of the pressures on the prison estate. There must be appropriate disposals for individuals. Community justice authorities, the funding for which the Government has substantially increased, have a role to play. All those factors are relevant in a rational debate about the prison population, and I hope that Mr Sarwar is able to contribute to that.