Chamber and committees

As the member knows, it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, although I am sorry to hear that his constituents feel that the not proven verdict left them in limbo as he describes. I have said in the chamber previously that I recognise that a strong case has been made for the abolition of the not proven verdict. Those issues are complex, however, and many stakeholders believe that the third verdict should be retained, or they highlight the interconnectedness of the system. It is therefore right that we consider the consultation responses carefully before we weigh all the evidence and reach a decision on those important matters.

I am happy to confirm that we will continue to take an open and consultative approach, just as a broad range of stakeholders including victims and survivors played an important role in last year’s engagement events on the findings of the independent jury research. As part of the wider public consultation, we will seek to capture the views of a broad range of stakeholders including legal professionals, the third sector and those with lived experience of the system.

I thank Jamie Greene for his questions.

Going back to the comments that were made during sentencing, the judge said the public reform change that was happening at the time was a “necessary” change, and he alluded to the inadequacies of the previous legacy systems. I can attest to that myself, as a member of a police board. The eight systems were not talking to one another in the way that they should have. Part of the public sector reform that was undertaken was to address that and many other systems. It was a necessary change, which is a point that his lordship made.

Jamie Greene said that such a tragedy had been warned about, but the single point of failure was human error, as the judge said in delivering his sentence. As was said elsewhere in the judgment, human error will happen in “Large and complex organisations”—that much is a given. However, we have to work to try and reduce that. The 30 recommendations that have been taken forward and the subsequent eight recommendations that have also been taken forward specifically in relation to the call-handling and management system are our way, the police’s way and the SPA’s way of responding and ensuring that the likelihood of such a thing happening again is absolutely minimised.

The comments that were made by the inspectorate, which is the body that oversees such changes, are very encouraging, saying that the police, ourselves and the SPA are getting it right. A fundamental reform happened in how such calls are handled. The service takes more than 2 million calls a year. People can drop out of calls for any number of reasons. It can be because they are directed to go elsewhere, for instance. Under the previous legacy systems, calls were often not answered at all, and no record was kept of the fact that those calls were not answered. That does not happen now.

On the point that the member makes about budgeting, I point out that we have increased police funding year on year since 2016-17, investing more than £10 billion over that time. The decade that we are talking about, from 2011 to 2021, has been a decade of austerity, and it is against that background that the police budget has increased by £75.5 million to more than £1.3 billion. During that entire time, we have had a higher number of police officers than under any previous Administration.

There is no doubt that there are budgeting pressures. I concede that, and that is set by the context in which we ourselves are funded. I point out that, as recently as last year, under the budget that we are currently working with, we allocated £60 million extra to the police. The Conservatives asked for £50 million, and we allocated £60 million. We have, on occasion, allocated further funds for specific purposes, for example for body-worn cameras.

We are, indeed, looking to learn the lessons, and we want to maximise the budget for the police. We have committed to maintain the police resource grant right through this parliamentary session, and I hope that we will have support for that. We are, of course, learning lessons, and the bulk of them have been taken forward in the 30 recommendations, which have been followed by eight subsequent recommendations, all of which have been discharged. I accept, however, that that must be a continuous process.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for her question. She knows far better than me that police recruitment is, of course, a matter for the police. However, the Scottish Government has continued reform funding for a further year in order to support police transformation, and £29.6 million of reform funding will be provided to the SPA this year to support a range of transformation projects. Recruitment will remain a question for the police but they, as members would expect, are watching these proceedings and will have heard Audrey Nicoll ask that question and I am sure that her point will be taken on board.

We will continue to support the current police numbers, which are higher than under any previous Administration. I am also pleased to report to Audrey Nicoll—she might know this anyway—that there continues to be very strong interest in joining the police, in contrast with, for example, recruitment to the armed forces, where there have been substantial recruitment crises in previous years. A number of members have written to me in recent months about aspects of recruitment, and I am assured that recruitment work will be taken forward by Police Scotland and the SPA. We will continue to support that work, in so far as it relates to the reform of the service, at the same time as providing the support that, in our public statements, we are duty bound to provide to the police, given the fantastic role that they have played, not least in the past 18 months during the pandemic.

I thank Michelle Thomson for that very important question about the victims in all this. For the family and friends left behind, no sentence can adequately address the tragedy and loss that they have experienced. However, I note that the Crown Office was in regular contact with the families during this difficult period, and that, as well as writing to the families with a full apology, the chief constable has offered to meet them, which, of course, will be a decision for the families. I have letters being compiled just now to send to the families as well. They have received support through the Crown Office and from elsewhere. Once again, our sympathies are with those families.

I do not want to dismiss out of hand the suggestion that Dean Lockhart makes. When he started talking about a more decentralised system, I thought that his question was going to be about accountability and some kind of influence over local policing, which I concede is something that we should explore further.

However, I do not agree with Dean Lockhart on the national call-handling centre issue. Now that it has been improved to the extent that it has been, we have the best system that we could have. The situation when we had eight legacy systems that were unable to talk to each other and there were cross-boundary issues was problematic, and we now have a better system. I accept that we have to make sure that it is the best system that it can be, and I am more than happy to engage with Dean Lockhart on the issue of more local influence and control over how the policing system operates, which I know that he, or certainly his party, has raised before.

I will address Pauline McNeill’s last question first. As I know that she knows, the Government would have no control over the pace of an FAI, if that is the way that the Lord Advocate chooses to proceed.

I acknowledge her first point, about the time that it has taken to get to this stage. I acknowledge the delay, and the angst that it has caused to the people who are involved, but once again I highlight that the Government—quite rightly—has no control over the process. Nevertheless, it is welcome that the Lord Advocate has said that she has already started the process and that she will keep us updated as to how it moves forward.

Pauline McNeill also asked whether we are satisfied that resources are available to the police in sufficient quantum. I refer her to my previous answer. We have consistently increased the police budget. When there have been requests—there have not been many—from Opposition parties in budget processes to increase funding to the police, we have responded to those. Of course, that can be done only at the expense of other services—we have to make that choice. We have also responded to specific requests from Police Scotland.

In addition, we hope to ensure that our police remain in much larger numbers. One of the budget constraints is that, if we increase our police numbers—as we have done—to more than 17,000, but the United Kingdom then reduces its police numbers by 17,000, the fact that it is spending less on policing means that we get less in consequentials, so it becomes harder for us to continue to fund the numbers of police that we have. Our commitment to the Parliament to ensure that we maintain the police resource budget is very strong and should, I hope, give some reassurance. I hope that other members will support that commitment.

Beyond that, it is the Government’s responsibility to allocate funding and the Parliament’s responsibility to agree that funding, and it is then the SPA’s responsibility to deal with that funding and oversee how the police spend their budget. I have high—and rising—confidence in the SPA’s ability to do that.

We have to learn lessons. It will take a bit of time to do that, and it will be done as and when, and if, an FAI proceeds—we should, of course, learn lessons at that stage as well.

I appreciate the points that Willie Rennie makes and the fact that he has been involved in the case for a long time and has personal knowledge of the family concerned, but I have to say that I disagree with him.

I have been a supporter, by conviction, of centralisation of the police force; I believe that it leads to a better police force in Scotland, and it is already showing benefits.

Of course, I acknowledge the tragic loss of life that happened in this case, but I believe that centralisation of the police is a fundamentally important public service reform. I am not the only one who says so. In my statement, I read out a list of all the different people, including the chief constable, the chair of the SPA and the head of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, who have seen benefits from centralisation. That is an important point.

Willie Rennie asked what lessons we can learn. I have already mentioned some of them, including some practical things that have been done. Pauline McNeill mentioned increased training for staff, which has been taken forward as part of the 30 recommendations.

I have confidence that those recommendations are improving the existing service even further. Nonetheless, it may be the case that an FAI, if that is the way that the Lord Advocate proceeds, will give us a further opportunity—Willie Rennie may have a chance to contribute to the process—to go back and learn further lessons. I, for one, would commit the Scottish Government to playing a full part in an FAI, if that is what happens.

At this stage of the session, I know Maggie Chapman’s views on the issue that she has raised. I have confidence in our justice system, notwithstanding the point that Pauline McNeill raised about the time that it sometimes takes to get to a conclusion, which can be very difficult for people who are waiting for a resolution to the issues of justice that they seek. Of course, as a listening Government, we will listen to proposals for further changes that would facilitate the more efficient use of the justice system in order to achieve justice. We should always seek to do that, and I am happy to engage with Maggie Chapman, as I have done already, on the issue that she raises.

I have sought to answer that through the funding that I have announced, which we will continue to commit to Police Scotland for the reform process. I underline that we recognise that reform did not end in 2012. It takes time to go through a reform of that size, which has been described as the biggest public sector reform under devolution. We have to accept that we must continue to support it.

I have mentioned already that the chief constable has been candid about the fact that there are still challenges with some IT and other systems, not specifically in relation to call handling but across the legacy forces’ systems. Given that, and given the vital importance of policing to the wellbeing of the entire country, we are duty bound to continue supporting the police in the way that I have described and through resources, including the very recent resources that I mentioned in earlier answers.

As we set out in the programme for government earlier this week, during this year the Government will launch a public consultation on the three-verdict system.