Chamber and committees

As the cabinet secretary responsible for part 5 and the schedule to the bill—the temporary justice measures—and a number of permanent justice system reform measures in part 3 of the bill, I am pleased to close the final debate for the Scottish Government. Before I turn to points that have been made, I will say a little more about the wider justice policy and legislation, and build on what the Deputy First Minister said about the other provisions in the bill.

The bill is important for the Scottish justice system and the legal professions, and I repeat the Deputy First Minister’s thanks to the organisations, victims, witnesses and other people who are affected by the justice system for their engagement specifically on the justice provisions.

As other members have done, I thank the members of parliamentary staff who have made the debate possible at this late hour.

If the bill is passed, it will extend the temporary justice measures in the schedule, initially until November 2023, giving justice partners increased certainty to aid planning and support recovery as they continue to respond to the effects of the pandemic.

During the bill’s passage, it has been apparent that some of the measures—for example, the extensions to criminal procedure time limits—should remain in place only for as long as they are essential to aid recovery. However, we have heard views from members and from stakeholders that other temporary justice measures that were introduced in response to the pandemic could have a part to play in a longer-term transformation to a modern person-centred justice system. Under the bill, none of those measures can be extended beyond November 2025. However, as our programme of justice transformation continues to develop, the Parliament will be able to consider any permanent legislation that we introduce and to determine the most appropriate approach for the longer term.

It has been a long but—sometimes—interesting debate. I will try to address one or two of the points that members made.

I come first to the Conservative Party. It is clear that, whether in relation to the justice provisions or the wider provisions that have been taken forward by the Deputy First Minister and Patrick Harvie, there have been substantial compromises and that substantial ground has been given, not least in ensuring that the Parliament is well informed. Despite that, it is clear to me, having listened to some of the summing-up speeches, that the unionist block was never going to vote for the bill, regardless of how much ground was given by the Government.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is now saying that there was a problem, so I do not know whether I lodged my vote or not. I would have voted no.

I have already stated that I support the recommendations that were made by the police and I do not see them as being as trivial as Daniel Johnson suggests. The root of the issue is in the training and the culture in Police Scotland, and the recommendation was made—not by Police Scotland but by the Police Service of Northern Ireland—to tackle that through training and a number of other measures. The report has just been published and I appreciate that there is room for further discussion. I will take advice about meeting the other people whom he mentioned, but I am certainly happy to discuss the matter further with Daniel Johnson and see what else is possible. After this question time and the statement that I am about to make, I will meet Police Scotland and the SPA and I am sure that we will discuss the issue at that time as well.

We already have before us a substantial body of work that looks at complaints against the police, and that is the way we should address the matter. Other suggestions might be taken into account at the same time, but I am aware of how complex the landscape already looks with the different players who are involved in looking at the police, such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. A lot of people are involved in doing that work. We have to ensure that the public understand what that landscape is and what the quickest, easiest and most straightforward way to make a complaint is. Also, police officers themselves have a right to expect that there is a simplified process that they can understand. That is what we are aiming for. Of course, we are willing to listen to any suggestions in addition to that.

First, in relation to whether the FAI process might result in a delay—or, vice versa, whether the new process might result in a delay in FAIs—we have involved the Crown Office in all the discussions that we have had so far to try to avoid that situation. The Crown Office is a stakeholder in the various working groups that I have mentioned. It is about trying to make those two processes complement each other rather than get in front of each other. We are committed to doing that, and we are not doing it on our own but with the Crown Office.

The member also mentioned the need for swifter FAIs. Of course, that is for the Crown Office to answer, but it is committed to that and we have seen real progress on the matter in recent years, not least because of additional resources, particularly in relation to staff, which have allowed the Crown Office to further increase the pace at which FAIs are done. We are all aware of the one or two examples that have taken a very long time—I accept that point—but, generally, the picture is improving. It is for the Crown Office to take it forward.

On meaningful recommendations at the end of FAIs, again I cannot supplant the role of the Lord Advocate in that. However, I know that she is also seized of the need to make sure that meaningful actions come out of FAIs.

The member’s final point was about the need to try to avoid prison officers and others being retraumatised. That is a good point, and I made the same point when the report first came out. We have to consider the impact on prison officers, because they can be traumatised just as much as anybody else by witnessing a death in custody. We are seized of the need to work on that. We are aware of the danger of the different processes contributing to retraumatising, but we are trying to make sure that that issue is addressed as we work through the various workstreams that I have mentioned.

Both the war pension scheme and the armed forces compensation scheme are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The Upper Tribunal administrative appeals chamber is also reserved and is administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. However, we understand that Legion Scotland offers advice and support to veterans pursuing such claims. Veterans may also be eligible for financial assistance with their appeals through legal aid. Additionally, the veterans welfare service, which is part of the Ministry of Defence’s Veterans UK, offers support to anyone claiming a war pension.

As I have said, war pensions are wholly reserved and the appeals process is independent. Any changes to associated support are a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence but, as Bob Doris is hinting, there are substantial controversies around the administration of these schemes, whether it is in terms of pensions or compensations that are currently at Westminster.

In order to target funding appropriately, legal aid applications are subject to statutory tests, which cover the merits of the case and the means that are available to the applicant. The Scottish ministers are not involved in the decision-making process, but there are resources available that may be able to assist with advice for Bob Doris’s constituent, such as the local citizens advice bureau, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland, which are also able to provide assistance in finding advice providers.

I say to Jeremy Balfour that that is factually incorrect. Unless he has the ability to foresee what the budget is going to be, we have not broken any commitment—but we will not let the facts get in the way of a headline.

The wage increase that police officers in Scotland were awarded last year was an increase of more than 2 per cent. What did police officers in England and Wales get from the Tories? Nothing—an increase of zero. That is the way the Tories treat police officers. It is also true that Jeremy Balfour should realise that the budget that we receive is 5.2 per cent down this year—there has been a 5.2 per cent cut to the budget by the Conservatives. [Interruption.] I know that members do not like to hear that, but the Tories cut the budget in Scotland by 5.2 per cent at the same time as their economic mismanagement of the economy has led to 9.1 per cent inflation. The Tories are the cause of problems for all sorts of public sector workers across the country.

We will continue to do as much as we can for the police, and we have a very good record of doing that. For example, a police officer who is starting in Scotland has a starting salary of more than £26,000, whereas one starting under Tory England and Wales will be paid £21,000. That is the way we are looking after the police.

I am sorry, but I perhaps missed the start of the question. I am trying to understand which inquiry Liam McArthur is talking about. If his question related to the work that is on-going, we expect to report back to the Parliament in November, as I said. No inquiry process is related to that—unless the member was asking how quickly the matter can be processed when someone makes an inquiry. I am sorry that I did not catch the start of what he said.

If Liam McArthur’s question related to support for families when there is a public inquiry, I can tell him that we look at such issues. For example, as the member knows, because he has written to me on this subject, assistance is provided currently in a public inquiry. We have a role in funding and facilitating public inquiries, to ensure that they have the most comprehensive possible information and witness participation. We will continue to do that. In relation to this process, we want the maximum possible access to be given to families who have suffered as a result a death in custody. That might be consistent with some of the things that I said previously.

If I misunderstood the member’s question, I will be happy to get back to him.

The Ministry of Justice negotiates prisoner transfer agreements on behalf of the United Kingdom, taking into consideration the views of the devolved Administrations. The Ministry of Justice has recently shared proposed amendments to the additional protocol to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which is intended to improve prisoner transfers between the United Kingdom and Council of Europe member states. I am currently considering those amendments.