Chamber and committees

Our second petition is PE1458, which was lodged by Peter?Cherbi. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill or to amend existing legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests.

The previous committee saw merit in the case that was made for such a register, and a call for such was part of the recent programme for government.

My suggestion for the committee is likely to be that we continue to keep the petition open and that we ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans for clear information on when he plans to take forward the commitment to the register and what form it will take. I invite members to raise any comments or points that they would like to make.

Our next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill. I refer members to paper 2.

The bill deals mostly with reserved matters, but it proposes a couple of changes to devolved competences. For example, the amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 that is explained in the LCM relates to judicial pension schemes and the ability to add additional devolved offices to the new judicial pension scheme. If the bill is passed, the Scottish Government will propose that the mandatory retirement age for judges and sheriffs be increased from 70 to 75. The bill will also enable devolved judicial offices to be added to a judicial pension scheme, which will be done though legislation that is considered in the United Kingdom Parliament.

I note that the Scottish Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wrote to the cabinet secretary to seek an explanation as to why the changes are not being made by Scottish statutory instrument. As members will be aware, we have received a copy of the reply from the cabinet secretary to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee clarifying that point.

I invite members to come in with any views or comments on the LCM.

There are no comments. Does the committee agree to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that the relevant provisions of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I will arrange for a short, factual report to be published on our deliberations.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. We move into private session and on to MS Teams.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the third meeting in 2022 of the Criminal Justice? Committee. There are no apologies. I ask that members ensure that their mobile phones are switched to silent and that they wait for the sound engineer to switch on their microphone before speaking.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of two petitions that were referred to the Justice Committee in the previous parliamentary session and which were carried over into this session. I refer members to paper 1. I should say that this is the first time that we have looked at the petitions since the Criminal Justice Committee was established. I will shortly invite members to give their thoughts.

I will start with PE1370, which was lodged by Dr Jim Swire on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group. This important petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

The previous committee kept the petition open and, in effect, placed it on hold pending the conclusion of the different inquiries and various legal cases that were being pursued in the courts. The committee members felt that they could not?make a decision?on the merits of the petition until those processes had been concluded.

As the clerk’s paper notes, some but not all of the legal processes have been completed. Members will note the letter that was received yesterday from Iain McKie on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi committee, which confirms that the family of Mr al-Megrahi continue to seek a Supreme Court opinion. We are grateful to Mr McKie for the helpful update.

My suggestion for the committee is likely to be that we continue to keep the petition open until we are clearer about what steps, if any, the family of Mr al-Megrahi plan to take in relation to any appeal to the Supreme Court.

I invite views and comments from members.

That is helpful.

I am grateful for members’ comments and views. On the basis of those points, we agree to keep the petition open until we are clearer on what progress has been made, and we can make further decisions when the petition next returns to the committee. I thank members for their assistance.

I do not think that anyone else wants to come in. On the basis of the points that have been made, I think that we are agreed. I know that Rona Mackay is minded to close the petition, but my suggestion is that we keep it open. As members have commented, we seek further clarity on the plan to take the matter forward and we will write to the cabinet secretary for details on progress and a further update on timescales. My proposal is that we keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I will bring in Jamie Greene, who will be followed by Katy Clark.

I thank members for their comments. There is a lot in there. I agree with some of the issues that have been raised, including Jamie Greene’s question about the capital budget, particularly for policing. There is a lot in what has been said about issues such as FAIs and deaths in custody. We all acknowledge that a lot of work has been done and progress made on that, but we must keep an eye on the issue.

I propose consolidating the points that have been made. We may wish to follow that up with some correspondence to the cabinet secretary, seeking clarity on those points, or we may be content with the reply that he has provided. Do members agree to some follow-up correspondence with the cabinet secretary?