Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to address as many questions as I can in the available time; quite a few were raised.

First of all, I listened with great interest to the debate, and I am thankful to members for expressing their support. Sarah Boyack made the important point that these are kleptocrats who raised their money by fleecing the Russian people of billions of pounds, at a point in their history when they needed that money for their own public services. We should bear that in mind.

Over the past two weeks, we have been witness to the shocking actions of Putin’s regime, and I take on board Stephen Kerr’s point that it is Putin who we should keep in our sights. That regime has worked against the people, democracy and sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The chamber stands resolute against that unwarranted aggression.

The reforms to which the LCM relate are intended—I would say that they are required—to help counter the illicit financing of land and property ownership across the UK by kleptocrats and oligarchs who support Putin’s regime.

Listening to Michael Marra, I thought that we were about to break into a verse of “This Land Is Our Land” as he made his comments. In relation to his point on Scottish regulations—I think that he was referring to the duplication of regulations, to which I referred in my opening speech—that will be a matter for the responsible minister, Màiri McAllan, to look at as she takes things forward. She will be paying attention to what was said here today. That also applies to the point that Sarah Boyack made about the sea bed. Those things can be looked at, as can the issue of the grace period being reduced from 12 months to six months.

Some of the issues around prominent persons are really in the gift of the UK Government, and not the Scottish Government, to deal with.

We want to see maximum transparency. A provision is coming forward in our own bill, which was long planned and will help us in relation to that issue. That, of course, can be looked at again by this Parliament—there is no inhibition on the Parliament looking at that.

In relation to Michael Marra’s amendment, I should say, just to be clear, that the UK Government did not ask to go back beyond 2014; in fact, I think that it is unlikely that it would agree to do that. However, there is no inhibition on us agreeing to the amendment, which I am happy to do. Perhaps, given that Donald Cameron has expressed his support for it too, he can have a word with his colleagues in London about it. That would add additional weight to it.

I also listened to the points that Michelle Thomson made. My colleague Ash Regan is also in the chamber and will have heard Michelle Thomson’s comments in relation to the Law Society and SLPs.

As I have said, the reforms to which the LCM relates are intended to deal with the illicit financing of—

The tragic events in Ukraine have brought these long-standing issues to the fore.

Some members made the point that this should have happened some time ago, but it is undeniable that now is the time to lift the veil of secrecy and shine a light on who owns one of our most vital assets as a nation—our land—and to help to call out the corruption and ownership of assets that are purchased through unlawful conduct.

We want a Scotland that is, and is seen as, hostile to anybody who thinks that they can hide assets that were obtained by unlawful conduct. We support the unexplained wealth order provisions, which deliver key improvements to the effectiveness of UWOs as part of measures that will also strengthen the financial sanctions regime, which will do more to tackle corrupt regimes, businesses and individuals across the world.

On the measures included in the LCM relating to a register of overseas entities, the Scottish Government is fully supportive of measures to tackle money laundering and improve transparency of land ownership. Indeed, transparency of ownership has long been a key objective of our land reform policy and, as I mentioned, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 included provisions to establish a register of persons with a controlled interest in land.

It should be noted that UK ministers have committed to table an amendment to a sunset clause regulation-making power in schedule 4 to the bill to require consultation with the Scottish ministers before any regulations are made that impact on aspects that are devolved to Scotland.

To take up a point that Michelle Thomson made, I should say in passing that there is a lot further to go in the process, and we are taking quite a lot on trust from UK ministers. I hope that that trust is well placed and that the concerns that we have expressed are taken in the spirit in which they are intended, and are respected as we proceed.

As I said, we are entirely supportive of the sentiment behind Mr Marra’s amendment. However, I highlight that, if the bill were to be amended in the manner that he proposes, that would add little to the transparency regime in Scotland. That is due to the nature of how people had to register before 2014, and the nature of the records. People would have obligations after that was passed that they did not have then, which would create complications for taking legal action. I am happy to go into that in more detail, but it is a complex picture. Of course, our register of persons with a controlled interest in land will go live on 1 April. That will provide transparency for land and property that was acquired before 8 December 2014.

I also stress that time is short and that the UK bill needs to progress in an expedited manner to ensure that the register of overseas entities is up and running as soon as possible. As such, although we accept Mr Marra’s amendment, as I have said, we must recognise that there is no time for the UK Government to make the necessary changes.

The Scottish Government is content with all the ROE provisions that extend into devolved competence, and we recommend that the Parliament gives consent to the UK Parliament to legislate for those provisions. On reforms to the UWO regime in Scotland, the Scottish Government is supportive of the measures in the bill. As I have said, the measures that are included in the LCM will enable enforcement authorities to take more effective action against kleptocrats and serious and organised criminals who launder their funds in the UK, and they will enable UWOs to be sought against property that is held in trust and under other complex ownership structures such as opaque foundations.

I am sure that everyone in the chamber will agree that corruption and the purchase of assets through unlawful conduct are not welcome in Scotland, irrespective of from where the perpetrators originate. I urge members to support the LCM, the purpose of which is really to say—to go back to the song that I mentioned—that this land is our land, and it is not the land of kleptocrats and oligarchs. I ask all members to support the LCM.

That is an important point and one that I am increasingly seeing made, for example by people who understand that certain sportspeople have been caught up in sanctions and have been unable to compete in competitions that are very dear to them. These actions are necessary to undermine Putin’s regime, even if they sometimes—inevitably—catch other people. However, we should not get involved in Russophobia.

The Scottish Government fully supports the application of sanctions against Russia because of its aggression against Ukraine, and we will continue to do all that we can to support the UK Government in that regard.

I close by extending the Scottish Government’s appreciation to the parliamentary authorities for their assistance in expediting the LCM at such short notice to ensure that Parliament can vote on it today. I ask members to support the LCM.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March 2022, relating to amendments for Unexplained Wealth Orders contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and provisions relating to the Register of Overseas Interests, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Throughout this situation, we have sought to take a precautionary approach, to ensure that all potentially affected cases are reviewed and to revert temporarily to the LS/CMI paper-based system while we assess the impact of making the required changes to the IT function. The member will have picked up that we want to do that with the open cases first and then move on to previously closed cases.

I have mentioned that we are also asking the risk management authority to urgently convene the review group, which would draw in other justice partners as needed. The work of constituting that group began today. Once the immediate and on-going review of live cases is concluded, the review group will examine the overall impact of the two errors in the IT system and I will report back to Parliament at that stage—Parliament permitting, of course.

In relation to the specific issues that we face, I have mentioned the additional resources for the review group and the Government’s willingness to provide additional resources to help the professionals who are involved in that exercise.

However, I think that Maggie Chapman’s question is a wider one about resources more generally. Our recently produced vision for justice will give her a clue as to how we intend to best use the resources that we have. She mentioned victims. As I mentioned in my statement, we will contact victims organisations—I think that they will have been contacted by now—and will involve them in the process through membership of the risk review group, should they wish to take that up. We will work with victims organisations rather than directly with victims, for reasons of which Maggie Chapman is, I am sure, well aware.

Keith Brown has identified an error in his contribution and has provided the following correction.

At column 93, paragraph 8—

Original text—

I will respond directly to Mr Kerr’s question. On 24 January, a member of the Scottish Prison Service who was using the system found an issue with it. They contacted the help desk that is provided by those who are there to support the system. They had to be certain that it was not an individual user issue, and it took time to do that. They ran tests in parallel with the system. That took until 23 February.

Corrected text—

I will respond directly to Mr Kerr’s question. On 13 January, a member of the Scottish Prison Service who was using the system found an issue with the system and contacted the helpdesk. They had to be certain that it was not an individual user issue, and it took time to do that. They ran tests in parallel with the system. That took until 23 February.

The member makes reference to a centralisation process—I forget how he described it—in a derogatory way. We do not know this yet, but it may have been the centralisation, which happened in 2019, that was the means by which the technical glitch, which is what it was, was discovered. However people may like to describe it, there was a technical problem with the program. Centralisation meant that all the councils and the Scottish Prison Service were on the same system, which may well have helped us to find the issue in the first place.

I mentioned that the work is on-going. We were advised of the situation last Friday. The work that has been done over the weekend and right up to this point has led us to the statement that I have made and some of the facts that I have given, but there is more to be done. I have been very clear about that. There is no way around the technical information. I would have been slated had I not given the technical information behind the issue.

It is true to say, and I am perfectly willing to admit, that I would have liked to come to the chamber with all the facts in front of me, but there was also pressure to tell the Parliament as soon as possible. I have conceded that more information will come out, and I will be happy to report to the Parliament in the future.

The member asked whether anybody has been released. I have given the facts as I know them, which are that all the returns that have come back so far indicate that there is no risk of somebody having been released early. On the second point, which was to do with the alcohol factor, it may well be that the risk was overstated. However, we will, again, have to wait until more facts come forward.

Therefore, there is no evidence—as yet, as the member rightly said—of any risk to the public from anybody having been released when they should not have been. As I have said, more information will emerge. It is not the 495 cases that the member talked about but the 200-plus that I mentioned, 150 of which have come back so far. However, it is also true to say that there is a much bigger piece of work needed to go back through the history of the situation right to 2012, to make sure that we got it right in relation to the closed cases as well.

I am trying to be as open as possible, and I am happy to come back to the Parliament and answer more questions in the future, when we have more information.

I will answer as many of the questions as I was able to take in. On Pauline McNeill’s first point, she is right that it is technical information and the statement has lots of that information, including the figures that I mentioned. She asked for something like a glossary or explanation of some of the terms. There is more information in the letter that I have sent to the Criminal Justice Committee, because it is easier to put the information in a letter.

I am sure that the committee will want to discuss the issue in the future, and I am more than happy to provide further explanation and briefing on it if the member wishes. A great deal of work is being done by the social workers and the review panel that I have set up. That will involve a substantial amount of work for the people involved, which will be done as a priority.

Pauline McNeill mentioned the issue of risk, which I mentioned in relation to the alcohol aggravator. Bearing in mind that the final judgment on a case is a professional judgment by the people involved in the system, the risk scoring, which seems to have been the issue, was giving that aggravator too high a bearing. Sometimes, when alcohol was no longer deemed to be a risk factor, the risk scoring might not have been showing a reduction in risk. That is one of the things that is being investigated.

I am happy to provide more information to the member. Either she can write to me or, since both she and Mr Greene are on the committee and the convener is here too, I am happy to provide information through that route and to come back to Parliament as well with more information when we have it.

They will be helped by the review process itself. In any event, it is a good idea to have the review, and it was good that what was picked up, in the first instance, by somebody in the Prison Service was not accepted as a glitch. It could have been perceived as such, but it was not written off in that way. There were thorough checks to see whether there was a wider issue, which there was, and that led to further checks and a second issue in the system being found.

The system was introduced in 2006, I think, but it moved to being IT based in 2012 and has now been centralised. To go back to the very first point that Jamie Greene made, I am not aware that there was anything in the centralising process that caused the issues; we know that that is not the case in relation to the two technical problems that have emerged. Indeed, it might be that centralisation, which is supported by all the different justice agencies, is the means by which the problems have been found.

As Fulton MacGregor asks, we will continue to provide support to all the professionals who are involved. I recognise the points that were made by him and Katy Clark that the matter is providing additional work in a pressurised area. We will make resources available to ensure that the professionals can get through this without it affecting their other work.

On Liam McArthur’s first point, I cannot provide confirmation. We have received information on 150 cases—the number was 150 first thing this morning, but it will be higher now; that is the pace at which the situation is being worked through—and those cases have not yet thrown up any public protection issues, which, in relation to the idea of overstating or wrongly stating, does not yet concern the professionals who are involved. I might be able to say more about that as more information comes back to us and as we go through the rest of the functions.

I apologise, but I have forgotten the second part of Liam McArthur’s question.

I have mentioned the means by which we are trying to push through the review. We will have significantly more information in the next fortnight, but I do not want to commit to when the review will be finished, because we must be sure that we have had a complete check. As well as finding out about the issues and concerns, we want to ensure that the entire system is working.

I cannot give Liam McArthur the assurance that he asked for just now, but we should have much more clarity on the major issues, many of which have been raised by members today, within a fortnight.