Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener.

The Scottish Government has recommended that Parliament withhold consent to the provisions in the United Kingdom Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. Our reasons for doing so focus on our concerns about the bill’s impacts on those who were affected by the troubles, as well as the effect of the bill on the Lord Advocate’s role as independent head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland.

I will deal first with those who had the misfortune to be directly affected by the troubles. We believe that the bill is incompatible with the Scottish Government’s view that those who suffered during the troubles should have the opportunity to obtain justice and that those who committed offences during that time should be appropriately held to account and/or punished. The bill will effectively mean an amnesty for those who have committed serious offences such as murder and crimes involving abuse and torture.

We are not the only ones who hold that view. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, whose very mandate is to foster the effective observance of human rights, has raised her apprehensions about the bill. In her report to the Council of Europe, she gives the opinion that the bill also runs a very significant risk of being found in court to be non-compliant with the European convention on human rights. In that same report, she points out that there is minimal support for and confidence in the bill in Northern Ireland.

Even more significant is the opinion of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has recommended that

“the entire draft of the present Bill”

requires

“immediate and thorough reassessment, which should take place through meaningful engagement.”

It also expresses its grave concerns that the present draft of the bill

“is therefore incompatible with human rights and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.”

Ensuring justice for those who suffered in the troubles is not our only concern when considering the bill. As I said at the outset, we believe that the bill makes novel and unwelcome changes to the functions and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. The Lord Advocate’s independence, of course, predates devolution and is protected by section 48(5) of the Scotland Act 1998, but some of the powers proposed for the independent commission created by this bill undermine that independence and breach a fundamental cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

For example, the commission is given powers to grant immunity from prosecution in certain circumstances, which, in practice, would prevent the Lord Advocate from investigating criminality or a fatality where she would otherwise have jurisdiction. Even where immunity is not granted, the Lord Advocate’s role could be similarly impeded by the commission refusing to refer appropriate cases to her. Although it is the Scottish Government’s view that the clauses pertaining to the Lord Advocate do not require consent, many clauses that do require consent are integral to the Lord Advocate’s ability to perform her role and, if this Parliament were to give its consent to them, the practical effect would be to undermine her independence in those areas.

It is for those reasons—that is, our concerns about the bill’s effect on those who have suffered during the troubles and the lack of regard to the role of the Lord Advocate and the protections enshrined in the 1998 act—that the Scottish Government cannot recommend consent to the bill in its present form.

I will get Helen Nisbet to give us an update on the engagement between the Lord Advocate and the Northern Ireland Office. There has been engagement, and the Lord Advocate has suggested remedies that might help deal with the situation, but I do not think that there has been a response yet.

However, any answer that is given will be to what is, as you have said, a hypothetical question. We have to deal with the bill before us. If the issues with regard to the two fundamental principles that I have mentioned—that is, the independence of the Lord Advocate and the human rights aspects—were to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government, it would at least be possible to see some way through, because those are our two main objections. Again, though, that is hypothetical, and we have to deal with the bill as currently constructed.

I do not know whether there is any update to what I have just set out.

You will know better than I do that the basis on which the Lord Advocate’s role is constructed is undermined by the bill. She might suddenly be no longer able to say, “I think that there is a crime here, and it is in our interests to prosecute”, because somebody else is allowed to say, “No. In fact, it will not even come to you until we have done our business here, and we might not let it come to you afterwards”. It is that fundamental change to the position of the Lord Advocate that is detrimental. For all the reasons that it is good in principle to have an independent prosecutor in Scotland, the role is not really beholden to anybody else, and certainly not to the Government. This would be the first time that you would see that power and independence being fettered by another body. That is our objection.

Yes. There is no way that it can be other than an approach that is taken forward by the UK Government. The powers are all reserved powers that rest there. It is just the interface with the justice system in Scotland that we are concerned about.

Any system must be based on the principles of justice, and I have outlined why we think that that is not served by the current proposal. It is for those who want to initiate this to come forward with an amended proposal, if they want to do so, to see how it can be achieved without undermining human rights and the position of the Lord Advocate. Justice is a broad concept, however. People need to feel that justice is served. To do that, you have to observe other principles, such as the independence of the judiciary and the fundamental nature of human rights.

We have ensured that not just Edinburgh but the entire nation has received the appropriate level of resourcing from Police Scotland—indeed, above the levels that the Conservative Party has demanded in the past.

It is worth noting—because a cross-border comparison was drawn last week by Miles Briggs’s colleague Jamie Greene—that we have far more police officers per capita than there are elsewhere and that police officers are better paid here than they are elsewhere, with a starting constable earning £5,000 per year more. We have a record low number of homicides, and we have some record low levels of crime.

To me, all of that is a mark of success. It would be good if, for once, instead of constantly denigrating Police Scotland, members acknowledged Police Scotland’s achievements in driving down crime and acknowledged the higher levels of policing and police pay that we have in Scotland.

I am not sure what the hilarity is about. The Scottish Government has serious concerns about the appalling human rights situation in China, particularly in Xinjiang, and we will continue to raise those concerns directly with the Chinese Government. We are clear eyed about all its international engagement and keep all our policies under review.

We welcome and support co-ordinated international action to address the serious issue of human rights violations, such as the action taken by the UK Government to help to ensure that UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang province and in China more generally.

Neil Bibby will have heard me say in my original answer that that is a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which is independent of Government. If jurors do not normally employ a childminder or other child carer for the period of their jury duty, they may submit a claim to SCTS to recover those costs. If they normally employ a childminder or carer, SCTS will pay the allowance if court attendance means that jurors have to employ them for longer than usual. [Interruption.] If Neil Bibby wants to listen to the answer, I am happy to continue to try to provide more information.

I am sure that his question has been heard by, or will be passed on to, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, and I am happy to ask it to provide a further response. The issue that the member raises is a matter for the SCTS. I am happy to involve myself in any correspondence on any issue that the member wants to ask further questions on, but he might be best to take the matter up directly with the SCTS.

I do, of course, recall the opening; it was a tremendous event, and it was much valued by the veterans in that area.

Veterans First Point is an NHS body that is staffed by an alliance of NHS clinicians and veterans. Veterans also have access to NHS services that are available to the broader population. Health and social care ministers and I are committed to continuing and enhancing mental health and other support for veterans across Scotland, and we are working closely together at ministerial and official levels across a range of issues.

In her first progress report since taking up office, the Scottish veterans commissioner, Susanna Hamilton, recognised the importance of, and the progress made to date in implementing, the veterans mental health and wellbeing action plan. Although it is for local NHS boards to determine clinical priorities and resources, I am happy to ask Dr Winstanley what discussions the implementation board is having about access to clinical provision as part of wider proposals for a new national service to support veterans’ mental health and wellbeing. That will also include third sector provision from organisations such as Combat Stress.

I assume that Mr Lumsden was not listening to my previous answer, which pointed out that we have far more police officers in Scotland, who are far better paid and have been more successful in reducing crime, and that we have record low numbers of homicides. The member has raised a question about what more can be done, which I accept. If the United Kingdom Government had not cut its police force to the extent that it has and we had therefore received consequential funding, we would have had more money to further increase the advantage that we have in terms of the number of police officers and their pay. I remind the member that a starting constable in Scotland is paid £5,000 more than one in the rest of the UK.

A superb job is being done by our police. I do not deny the pressures that Covid, the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—or the royal funeral have brought to bear on them. However, they do a tremendous job and are properly compensated and remunerated in Scotland, which is more than the member can say happens in Tory England.

It is obvious to anyone who is willing to look that, if we pay police officers more and we have more of them, we attach a higher priority to policing them some of our counterparts do. [Interruption.] I know that some members do not like to hear that policing is much more underfunded in the rest of the UK than it is in Scotland.

I have mentioned some numbers, but we have higher levels of remuneration right up to the rank of assistant chief constable. We have also increased police funding, year on year, since 2016-17, and we have invested more than £10 billion in policing since the creation of Police Scotland, in 2013. We greatly value the vital role that our police officers play. In recognition of that, as I have said, we have ensured that they are the best paid in the UK, with starting salaries of around £5,000 more per year for a constable than elsewhere in the UK. The latest data shows that we have 30 officers per 10,000 in population in comparison to 24 officers in England and Wales. That shows the priority that the Government attaches to policing in Scotland.