We move on to day 2 of stage 2 of the bill. I welcome Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I also welcome the officials who are here to support the minister, although they are not permitted to participate in the proceedings.
Members should have copies of the bill, the marshalled list and groupings of amendments for consideration. We will not go beyond part 6 and schedule 3 today.
Before section 63
Amendment 69, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 69 will insert a new section into the bill that will place an obligation on the Lord Advocate to publish what is sometimes known as the prosecutorial test.
When Lord Bonomy published his review, I undertook to consider whether any of the recommendations could be implemented during the current parliamentary session. After consulting the Lord Advocate, I am of the view that this is one such recommendation.
Amendment 69 would require the Lord Advocate to publish the prosecutorial test—the matters that prosecutors must take into account when deciding whether to commence and thereafter continue with criminal proceedings. The Crown Office already voluntarily publishes its “Prosecution Code”, which includes its current prosecutorial test. The amendment would place the voluntary arrangement on a statutory basis. Lord Bonomy was of the view that that would assist in ensuring transparency and consistency of decision making in criminal proceedings, and I agree.
The independence of the Lord Advocate is also, however, of vital importance, and I therefore want to stress that the wording of the test will remain entirely a matter for him.
I move amendment 69.
I have a question; I am not opposed to the amendment in any way. When we discussed the publication of the prosecutorial test, it was in connection with the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and whether some reassurance would be necessary under those circumstances. Given that that part of the bill has been dropped, why is publication still required?
I also have a question. I support the amendment as far as it goes. The public has a real appetite for more transparency in how the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service reaches its decisions, but the cabinet secretary has chosen not to adopt Lord Bonomy’s recommendation in full. The draft legislation set out in the post-corroboration safeguards review also included provisions on regularly reviewing the test and consulting publicly on that. Will the minister say why he has not picked up on those two points?
I support amendment 69. The key thing is to emphasise the distinction between putting the prosecutorial test in the statute and there being a requirement to publish it. I favour the latter. If the test was in the statute, it would be prescriptive. We are moving in the right direction.
I seek some clarification. As well as looking at initiating and continuing criminal proceedings, will there be an explanation of why a prosecution would not proceed?
On why we are placing the publication of the test in statute, the arrangement is voluntary at the moment but Lord Bonomy recommended that it should be put on a statutory footing. The reason behind lodging the amendment is that it will put a legal obligation on the Lord Advocate to publish the prosecutorial test.
We have not chosen to implement the recommendation about consultation for the test because we believe that the test itself should be left to the Lord Advocate to determine. There are important constitutional issues in the role and independence of the Lord Advocate when determining these matters. To provide for a consultation process would be to fetter or to seek to influence the Lord Advocate’s role to a degree. That is why we have not pursued the issue of consultation.
On Roderick Campbell’s point, the amendment will help to improve transparency and accountability in the process that is being put in place for decisions made by the Crown Office to be more open.
Margaret Mitchell will be aware that, earlier this year, new provisions in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 came into force that place a requirement on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that, when a victim of a crime wishes to understand a decision not to pursue a case for a particular reason, they have the right to be provided with that information by the Crown and the prosecution.
Amendment 69 agreed to.
Section 83—General aggravation of offence
Amendment 70, in the name of Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendments 71 and 72.
Amendments 70 to 72 seek to remove sections 83 to 85 in their entirety from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members will recall that part 6 of the bill as introduced included provisions in relation to people trafficking. Given that those provisions have now been included in the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill, I am seeking to remove the people trafficking provisions from this bill, as they are obviously no longer needed.
I move amendment 70.
Amendment 70 agreed to.
Section 84—Aggravation involving public official
Amendment 71 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 85—Expressions in sections 83 and 84
Amendment 72 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 86—Use of live television link
Amendment 73, in the name of Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendments 74 to 82 and 101.
Section 86 of the bill as introduced makes provision in respect of the use of television links for the accused in criminal court cases. An important feature of the provisions is that, even when a case is of a nature that can be dealt with in this way, the court is required to consider whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. That ensures that the rights of the accused are fully protected in each individual case.
The group of amendments is largely technical. It arises as a result of consideration of the way in which the provisions were originally drafted and of further discussion with stakeholders.
Amendment 73 takes account of concerns expressed by stakeholders about the practical implications of convening ad hoc hearings—as distinct from the substantive hearing of a case—for the purpose of allowing the court to determine whether the substantive hearing of a case is to be dealt with using a TV link. The amendment makes it clear that the court can take the decision about the use of TV links before or during the substantive hearing of a case without the need to convene a separate ad hoc hearing.
Amendment 74 is consequential to amendment 73 and it reaffirms that the accused person can be required to participate, by TV link, in the part of the process that determines whether the substantive hearing is to take place by TV link, whether that part of the process occurs before or during a substantive hearing.
Amendments 75 to 78 follow on from amendments 73 and 74, remove the term “ad hoc hearing” from the bill, and make it clear that the provisions of the bill in respect of TV links apply during a substantive hearing of a case “or other proceedings”, which would include the part at which a decision on the use of TV links is taken.
Amendment 79 amends a provision in the bill as introduced that provides that the leading of evidence “as to a charge” is prohibited when the accused is participating by TV link. The effect of the amendment will be to specify that the prohibition applies only when the charge is on any indictment or complaint.
As a result of the amendment, there would be no absolute prohibition against the leading of evidence in other kinds of hearing—for example, one dealing with a breach of a community payback order—at which the person concerned is appearing by TV link. However, as in every other case, the court would still have to be satisfied, on a case-by-case basis, whether it is contrary to the interests of justice for evidence to be led while the accused is appearing by TV link.
Amendments 80 to 82 and 101 deal with the possible consequences of situations in which the court decides not to proceed to deal with the case before it using a TV link. It is anticipated that applications to have the accused appear by TV link will mostly be dealt with immediately before the calling of the substantive case. However, the court could refuse the application, and it will retain a power to revoke an application that it has previously granted. That might happen if, for instance, a technical issue arises with the TV link, or when further information comes to light during the substantive hearing that, in the view of the court, makes it no longer appropriate to proceed with a TV link.
It can be seen that practical difficulties might arise when the court decides not to proceed with the appearance of the accused by TV link. The accused may well need to be brought to court, which might not be readily achievable on the same day, so the postponement of the hearing could be necessary. When the accused is appearing from custody, any difficulty has to be balanced against the accused’s right to be brought promptly before the court. Amendment 80 therefore makes a general provision that, when a court has refused an application to deal with a case by TV link, it may postpone the substantive hearing to a later day, rather than necessarily the next day. The bill as introduced could have been read as providing that the court could postpone a hearing only until the next court day when an application was refused or revoked.
Amendment 81 will remove a now redundant provision from the bill.
Amendment 82 deals with the effect of postponement. When the accused is not in police custody and the postponement is until the next day, that day and any days on which the court is not sitting will not count towards any time limits in the case. However, the provision will not apply when the accused is in police custody and awaiting a court appearance.
The effect of that approach is that, when a postponement is necessary for an accused in custody, the accused still has a right to argue that the requirements—under section 18 of the bill and the European convention on human rights—to be brought promptly to court have not been complied with. For example, if an accused has to spend an extra night in custody solely because an unsuccessful attempt was made to present him for appearance by TV link and there was no back-up plan to bring him to court, it remains open to the accused to argue that it would in fact have been practicable to have brought him before the court in time. It would then be up to the court to decide whether the circumstances provide sufficient justification for the delay.
Amendment 101 amends section 18, which gives effect to the convention right to be brought promptly before a court on arrest for suspicion of having committed an offence. The section provides that an accused who is being held in custody must, wherever practicable, be “brought before”—to use the term in the bill—a court by the end of the court’s first sitting day after the arrest. The effect of amendment 101 will be to ensure that someone who appears from custody by TV link is to be regarded as having been “brought before” the court only when the court has made a determination that the substantive hearing is to be dealt with in that way. Therefore, if the court decides that it would not be appropriate to deal with a custody case by TV link, the obligation to bring the accused promptly before the court remains in place, which will generally mean that the accused will be physically brought to court. Together with amendment 82, that ensures that the rights of the accused in custody to a prompt hearing are protected.
I move amendment 73.
Amendment 73 agreed to.
Amendments 74 to 82 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 86, as amended, agreed to.
I know that members are feeling the cold in here. Some vindictive person, instead of putting on the heating, has switched it to fridge conditions. I apologise for that, cabinet secretary, but at least you will stay awake before you freeze.
After section 86
Amendment 83, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 83 inserts a new section into the bill, which in turn inserts new subsections into section 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That section allows the High Court to regulate practice and procedure in relation to criminal procedure through acts of adjournal.
The amendment will ensure that the High Court has power to make provision for the greater use of electronic documentation and electronic signature in the criminal justice system. It will mean that the High Court—which, through the Criminal Courts Rules Council, is well placed to work with the criminal justice organisations that operate the system day to day—can regulate the pace of change as it thinks appropriate and necessary for the more efficient functioning of the criminal justice system, while making the best use of developing technology.
The associated repeals are merely to remove material from the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that deals with certain things that are now to be done by the High Court by act of adjournal. That is to make sure that the use of the new power is not fettered by express provision that is already found in that act.
I move amendment 83.
Amendment 83 agreed to.
I suspend the meeting briefly for a change of officials.
11:31 Meeting suspended.
Amendment 84, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group on its own.
Part 3 of the Police Act 1997 permits the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner to authorise property interference for the purpose of prevention or detection of serious crime. That includes entering or interfering with property or wireless telegraphy. Authorisations may be granted on the application of a staff officer of the commissioner, and the commissioner may also designate a staff officer to grant property interference authorisations in her absence in cases of urgency.
The 1997 act does not, however, contain a definition of a staff officer, and there is therefore a degree of uncertainty as to who may apply for those authorisations or grant them in the commissioner’s absence in urgent cases. The Scottish Government’s intention is that any member of the commissioner’s investigations staff should be capable of applying for property interference or surveillance authorisations and of being designated, if the commissioner considers it appropriate, to grant those authorisations, if they are urgent, in her absence.
The necessary provision was made in respect of surveillance authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, but unfortunately no such provision was made in respect of property interference authorisations.
Accordingly, amendment 84 is a clarifying amendment that inserts a definition of “staff officer” in part 3 of the Police Act 1997 for the purposes of property interference authorisations. That will ensure that members of staff who are directly employed by the commissioner and those who are seconded from police forces may apply for property interference authorisations or be designated by the commissioner to grant those authorisations in urgent cases where the commissioner is absent.
I move amendment 84.
As a tidying-up exercise, the change is welcome, as I believe the public want reassurance that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner has the full range of powers and can act impartially and thoroughly.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
I suspend the meeting again briefly for another change of officials.
11:34 Meeting suspended.
Amendment 105, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is in a group on its own.
I originally lodged amendments to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill that would have had an effect similar to that of amendment 105. It is encouraging that the policy intention of those previous amendments gained support from other committee members during stage 2 of that bill.
Amendment 105 would require that independent legal advice be provided to victims of sexual offences at the point of a request for medical information and/or other personal details. Such legal advice would provide victims with information on their rights and would explicitly make them aware that they are able to refuse such requests. I know from the expressions of support for the amendment that have come from victims that the proposal is welcomed.
In some instances, legal aid would be required to be extended to cover such legal representation, although it could also be provided on a pro bono basis. Access to independent legal advice is a routine entitlement across European jurisdictions including France, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Greece, Spain and Sweden. In Ireland, which has an adversarial legal system, sexual offence complainers have a right to independent legal representation if the defence makes an application to the judge to introduce sexual-history evidence.
It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the reference group of the Bonomy review was supportive of provision through legal aid of independent legal representation for victims of crime in relation to issues affecting their rights, including their privacy. It is stipulated that ILR would relate to legal aid funding for legal advice and representation for victims who are not usually legally represented in criminal proceedings, and about whom documentary evidence may be sought by the defence either pre-trial or during the trial process. Representation would be confined to procedural issues and would not involve representation at the trial.
The proposed changes are, therefore, a practical way in which to help rape victims to avoid unnecessary distress during the court process. Currently, they have little opportunity to challenge the legality of use of private personal information in court. Furthermore, I understand that ministers may recently have made a determination that legal aid should not be made available to sexual offence complainers in circumstances in which their private records are being sought. If that is the case, that seems to me to be a great injustice. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could address that point.
It is important to stress that the experience of victim support groups is that the Crown is not robust enough in challenging applications under sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 act—a reason that was advanced previously for not supporting such an amendment. However, the real and most vexing issue is that that type of evidence, including medical records and sensitive information, is routinely being used to discredit witnesses and to play to the prejudices and myths that are known to prevail around sexual offences. It is hoped that my amendment 105 would help, in no small measure, to address that issue and consequently to improve the chances of a successful conviction. The amendment is supported by the Law Society of Scotland.
I move amendment 105.
I oppose amendment 105 for a number of reasons. First, we did not deal with the matter in any detail at stage 1, although it is an important issue. I think that we would need to have dealt with it in some detail if we were to agree to the amendment today. Secondly, the amendment would have wide ramifications beyond sexual history. In some jurisdictions—Denmark, for example—the provision was initially restricted to sexual offences but is now applied much more widely, so there is a floodgates issue.
I have some sympathy with the general principle of amendment 105. I recognise all too keenly that many complainers are mystified by the judicial system and do not quite understand that the Crown represents the public interest and not the complainer’s personal interest. I also recognise that there are occasions on which complainers may need legal advice. However, we have moved on a bit since Margaret Mitchell lodged her amendments to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, and funding is now being made available—I think that the figure is £215,000—from the Scottish Legal Aid Board to the Scottish women’s rights centre, for provision of legal advice on gender-based violence.
There are wider ramifications. Margaret Mitchell referred to the Bonomy report. It is fair to say that the report said that, as a general principle, it favoured independent legal representation, but it also favoured more work being done on the matter. Evidence on the effectiveness of sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 act has not been looked at since about 2007. If we are concerned about the principle, it seems to me that the effectiveness of those sections needs to be reviewed before we can go down the path of supporting Margaret Mitchell’s amendment 105.
We resisted a similar amendment to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and I am not yet convinced by the proposal, although Margaret Mitchell has clarified some aspects. There had been a feeling that there might be three different lots of legal representation in court, but Margaret Mitchell has clarified the intention.
Despite also having heard from the Law Society of Scotland on the issue, I am still not convinced that legal advice is what is most important for victims of sexual offences. For example, I heard last week about additional resources being made available to Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid to help them to support witnesses throughout the legal process. My feeling is that, when it comes to expenditure from the public purse, more holistic support might be more helpful to victims than additional legal advice at a particular point in the process. I am not yet convinced that the proposal in amendment 105 is the best way of supporting victims.
I commend Margaret Mitchell for the work that she has done on amendment 105 and for how she has developed the proposal. There is currently a significant imbalance in the system in relation to rape victims. The release of medical evidence, in particular, can have huge ramifications for the future health of the witness. It should not fall only on the voluntary sector to deal with the problem. There is a real issue that needs to be addressed, and I hope that the Government can do so by either supporting Margaret Mitchell’s amendment 105 or by bringing forward its own proposals. I will support Margaret Mitchell’s amendment.
The committee will recall that similar amendments were lodged during its consideration of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. Our concerns—then and now—about such amendments have never been about lack of sympathy with the intention behind them; I have every sympathy with the attempt to support alleged victims and to protect them from unnecessary distress.
The reasons for being unable to support the proposed reform remain the same as they were two years ago. Amendment 105 would represent a major innovation in our criminal law by introducing the complainer into the process as a third party separate from the Crown. In addition, giving complainers such rights in cases of one category of offence but not in others would be inconsistent. The committee has rightly, when it has scrutinised other proposed reforms, been very careful to consider practical implications and potential unintended consequences. Although I am sure that many members are as sympathetic as I am to the intentions behind the reform, I also consider that such a substantial change to Scots law and practice requires a great deal of further thought and consideration.
I have a suggested way forward on this important issue for the committee to consider, but before I elaborate on that, it may be helpful to explain the background to the current legal position.
It remains the case—as it was two years ago—that the protection that section 274 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 gives to a complainer in a sexual offence case is comprehensive. The provisions in section 275 of the 1995 act, which allow exemptions to that protection, require the court to consider the appropriate protection of the complainer’s dignity and privacy. Furthermore, the court must have regard to rights under the European convention on human rights that are relevant to the application. They include the complainer’s right under article 8 of ECHR; a court will balance appropriately the rights of the accused with the complainer’s rights to respect for private life. To my knowledge, no evidence has been provided that that is not done properly and that, instead, complainers should submit to further procedure, questioning and delays.
11:45What has changed in the past two years—I place great emphasis on this—is the level of support that the Government has given to victims of sexual offences and complainers in such trials. The committee will recall that, as a result of debate during the passage of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and subsequently, grant funding was made available through the Scottish Legal Aid Board to support the establishment of the Scottish women’s rights centre to provide legal assistance to women who are affected by gender-based violence. That centre was established earlier this year. It provides a legal helpline that is staffed by volunteers from the University of Strathclyde law centre, and which gives information and signposts people to support services and other sources of advice. It has a full-time solicitor who supervises and undertakes the casework and representation of clients. It is also developing advice surgeries, which will eventually be held around Scotland and staffed by the project solicitor or local solicitors.
In a further clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to making improvements for victims and to providing direct and sensitive support for access to justice for them, on 10 September I announced record funding for Rape Crisis Scotland. That was part of the unprecedented additional £20 million support package that was announced in March to tackle domestic abuse and sexual violence and to provide better support for victims. Some £1.85 million of additional resource is now being provided over three years to support victims of sex crimes across Scotland. The funding will open the first ever rape crisis services in Orkney and Shetland, in partnership with Scottish Women’s Aid.
The Government will also provide 80 per cent extra funding to each rape crisis centre until 2018. That will ensure consistency of provision across the country for victims. It will support those who have made the decision to report the crime to police as well as those who may be considering reporting. The additional funding will provide vital support for victims at the time when they most need it, and recognises that that support might be needed well beyond their experience of court.
That unprecedented package was announced after Margaret Mitchell had lodged amendment 105. The difficulties with independent legal representation have been debated before. The new package and the provision that is already in place for access to legal advice and other support give in a concrete fashion the kind of support that amendment 105 seeks to provide.
I have mentioned that there is a lack of evidence for such a major reform. However, I want to ensure that existing arrangements are operating as effectively as possible. I therefore propose a review of whether there is any cause for concern about the way that the courts deal with recovery and disclosure of confidential information relating to complainers. It would be timely to undertake that work alongside consideration of the effects in practice of the package of reforms that I mentioned earlier.
During a previous stage 2 meeting I referred to our plans to develop a holistic and balanced package of future reforms. That would cover consideration of Lord Bonomy’s recommendations, the requirement for corroboration reform and any other relevant issues. I consider the proposed review of disclosure of confidential information to be one of the relevant issues that should be included.
In the interests of clarity, it is important to recognise that Lord Bonomy’s review group did not make a recommendation on independent legal representation in this particular area.
I also reassure members that we intend to work closely with stakeholders when we undertake the work, in order to achieve consensus on future reforms. As I have mentioned, that work will begin later this year. I will, of course, keep this committee informed about its progress.
In the new circumstances that I have described, and with the possibility of gathering real evidence, I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance that amendment 105 is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time. I therefore ask Margaret Mitchell not to press it.
I will address a few of the points that have been made. The cabinet secretary, along with other members, referred to the £1.85 million for support for sexual offence victims which, he pointed out, will be used partly to fund dedicated advocacy workers. However, Rape Crisis Scotland has confirmed that advocacy workers will not be lawyers and will not provide legal assistance. That is a totally separate issue, which amendment 105 would address.
On whether Lord Bonomy has addressed the specific issue that amendment 105 concerns, he has spoken about legal representation in relation to issues that affect a complainer’s privacy, which covers the point that I have raised.
In response to the concern about setting a rule or giving complainants in this area rights that would not be available to others, I note that that is surely how the law develops. We look at case law, and at where it is falling down and not working as fairly as it should do for victims of rape and sexual assault, who still routinely experience information being used to discredit them and to play to the prejudices of a jury. It is clear—as victim support groups will tell the committee clearly—that the Crown is not robust enough in challenging the so-called protections that are currently in place under sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 act.
Rather than defer the issue again, we could do something now to help those victims. If the Government is sincere in asserting that it wants to improve the conviction rates for rape and sexual assault, there can be no excuse for its not supporting amendment 105 today.
I will press amendment 105.
The question is, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 105 disagreed to.
Section 87—Establishment and functions
Amendment 85, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 86 to 89, 91 to 100 and 90.
The amendments in this group relate to the establishment of a police negotiating board for Scotland. The body will negotiate pay and conditions of service for police officers in the Police Service of Scotland.
Unlike the Westminster Government, which abolished the Police Negotiating Board covering the United Kingdom in favour of a pay review body, I believe that police officers in Scotland should have the opportunity to negotiate their terms and conditions directly with those who manage and fund the service. The aim in establishing the PNBS is to create a modern negotiating body in which consensus on matters under its remit is the norm. Arbitration should be used only where all other options are exhausted and when both sides agree to it.
Following consultation with stakeholders, I propose Government amendments to the bill that relate to the functions and procedures of the PNBS in order to ensure that it can operate effectively. Amendments 87, 89, 96, 97 and 99 represent the most significant changes. They will deliver a commitment that was made by my predecessor to make arbitration on police pay legally binding on ministers. Together, those amendments provide a framework to ensure that, when the PNBS makes representations to ministers based on an arbitration award, ministers will be bound to take all reasonable steps to give effect to those representations.
However, I propose that binding arbitration should apply to pay and all pay-related matters under the remit of the PNBS. The detail of that will be set out in regulations subject to affirmative procedure. Essentially, there will be a maximum of two referrals to binding arbitration within a reporting year, one of which must automatically include the main annual pay award. My officials have discussed and agreed that approach with the official and staff sides of the PNBS.
Amendments 91 to 93, 95 and 100 remove the post of deputy chair, but amendment 94 allows for a temporary chair to be appointed if that is ever necessary.
Amendment 88 allows the constitution to define the PNBS’s reporting year in a way that suits its purposes, and amendment 98 ensures that regulations are required to bring the constitution into effect. I am sure that the committee will welcome the parliamentary scrutiny that amendment 98 provides for.
Amendment 85 will allow greater flexibility when ministers have required the PNBS to make representations, and amendment 86 removes police clothing and accoutrements from the remit of the PNBS in line with stakeholders’ wishes.
Finally, amendment 90 sets out the consequential and transitional provisions for the PNBS. The PNBS will come under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, and its chairperson will be regulated under the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. To allow the seamless transition from a UK body to a Scotland-only body, we are making provision for the recently appointed independent chair of the PNB to be chair of the PNBS and to ensure that all previous agreements made by the PNB UK are regarded as agreements within or involving the PNBS.
I move amendment 85.
John Finnie, Margaret Mitchell and Roderick Campbell wish to comment on the amendment.
I will be brief, convener. Members will not be surprised to hear that I strongly welcome this development.
I, too, strongly welcome it, and I think that it strikes an appropriate balance. I should, however, emphasise that arbitration should be the last resort, and that it is hoped that negotiation and conciliation will prevent any need for it from arising.
I seek some information from the cabinet secretary, who referred to the abolition of the Police Negotiating Board in England and Wales. That was a result of the Winsor report, and it happened because it was found that, when police pay moved from being index linked to another system, there was a failure to reach agreement. Is police pay at the moment index linked or is there another method of remuneration in place?
Secondly—picking up on what Rod Campbell said—I believe that arbitration was supposed to be the last resort, but the failure to reach agreement led to its becoming the norm. The Police Negotiating Board was therefore viewed as time consuming, costly and not in the best interests of either the police or the public. Can the cabinet secretary reassure me that he has looked at the issue and that he is quite confident that the same thing will not happen here in Scotland?
I think that the issue went further than just the negotiating board, but do you wish to respond, cabinet secretary?
On the latter question, it would be fair to say that, from our discussions with the police, it is clear that they are very keen on having this type of provision facilitated in Scotland, and I detect no concern from them about the system being unduly bureaucratic or not being an effective way of dealing with these issues. I cannot speak for police officers in England and Wales, but I recall that significant concerns were expressed when the UK Government indicated that it wanted to move to a pay review system.
As for your first question, police pay is not index linked but negotiated with officials.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Amendments 86 to 89 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 87, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3—Police Negotiating Board for Scotland
Amendments 91 to 100 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
After section 87
Amendment 90 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Members will be delighted to hear that that ends consideration of amendments for today. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance and I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to allow them to clear the room.
11:59 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Petitions