Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument. I refer members to paper 1.

The SSI adds

“A United Kingdom photocard driving licence”

as a valid form of identification for the purposes of a defence to two new criminal offences under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 operating in Scotland. The two offences are, first, an offence under section 39 relating to a delivery company delivering bladed products, sold by a UK-based seller, to a person aged under 18 at residential premises; and, secondly, an offence under section 42 relating to a delivery company that has entered into an arrangement with a seller that is based outside the UK to deliver a bladed article to a person under 18.

As there are no questions, are members content not to make any recommendation to the Parliament on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I see that no one else has any other comments.

Thank you for those helpful views. Based on my professional experience, I absolutely agree that the historical rationale for cross-border placements probably made sense at the time, but we are now in 2022 and our thinking has moved on. It is definitely a real issue.

Jamie Greene referred to the children’s care and justice bill that was mentioned in the programme for government yesterday. Do members agree that we should come back to the issue, perhaps in the autumn, once we can see where the bill is going? In the meantime, we can flag our interest to the lead committee and to the Parliamentary Bureau when the bill is published. Are members happy with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next letter is correspondence from Martyn Evans, who is the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, about changes to the police pension scheme. There is also an associated letter from David Page, who is the deputy chief officer at Police Scotland. Again, I will open up the floor to comments. The letters were in relation to some correspondence from us requesting an update on progress around the impact of the pension scheme changes.

Absolutely. I agree with that, Fulton, and maybe we should think about staff members in that regard, as well as police officers. I propose that we keep the issue on our programme and come back to it down the line. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

You are correct. It works with offenders in that field.

Item 3 is consideration of a number of items of correspondence that the committee received during the summer recess. I refer members to paper 2. As you will see, the clerks have suggested some follow-up actions in the table in paragraph 3.

I propose that we take each letter in turn. I will ask the committee for any views, and then for agreement, on how we wish to proceed with each of them.

We will start with the letter that the committee received from the Minister for Community Safety in relation to legal aid. Do members wish to make any comments on the correspondence?

Thank you very much for that. Members have made valid points, not least in recognising what, at this point, the committee’s role is and is not.

I found both sets of correspondence to be comprehensive and helpful in setting out the historical context for today’s legal aid provision. It is clearly not a straightforward situation and challenges remain with regard to everyone getting to where they would like to be. I agree with Collette Stevenson about our ideally having a system that meets the needs of those who work in it and those who are in receipt of the services that are provided through legal aid.

I do not want to repeat the points that members have already covered. I am therefore happy to pick them up and link with SPICe to get further information on the context of all of this, as well as the timeline that Jamie Greene has mentioned, which would be helpful.

I note that the Scottish Government is currently in negotiations and has undertaken to update us on their progress, as well as on the review of the Public Defence Solicitors Office. I am happy for us to write the minister for an update on that progress and to refer to the Edinburgh Bar Association letter that we received yesterday. We will also cover the issue in our budget scrutiny, as it will form an important part of that forthcoming process.

I therefore propose that we link with SPICe and write to the minister on the points that we have raised. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I move to our second letter, which is from the Scottish Government and outlines its plans following the consultation on the not proven verdict and other matters. Yesterday in Parliament we heard an update in relation to the programme for government around the proposals to abolish the not proven verdict.

Do members wish to make any comments on that correspondence?

If there are no other comments from members, I am happy to write and ask for that information.

The next letter is from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans on the funding for recovery cafes in Scottish prisons. Are there comments on that correspondence? Obviously, we are aware of the statement on the national mission that will be made in Parliament—I think tomorrow—which might also incorporate an update on work to progress provisions such as recovery cafes. Are members happy to agree to the suggested recommendations in regard to that letter?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes.