Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Christine Grahame. Please never stop giving your impassioned speeches about the importance of passing good-quality legislation. I really value your contribution, because you have given me food for thought.

As someone who has proudly supported the devolution settlement, which I fought for, I believe in it. However, there have been long periods of failure in intergovernmental activity. I am concerned that the Scottish Government was not formally notified of the UK Government’s proposed approach. That is wrong, and it goes against the grain of what I believe in, as someone who supports the devolution settlement. That gives me cause for concern.

On the definition issue, I share Katy Clark’s concerns. Given that we do not have a definition enshrined in the legislation and that we lack parameters with regard to what an XL bully dog is, I worry that we will have to return to that question.

As I have said openly, I have limited understanding of the issue, which I have paid attention to and tried to understand only since it appeared in the news. It seems that there are problems with the breed in general, which is why I asked why we are not talking about why breeders are breeding such large dogs that probably need more exercise and need to be under more control than most other dogs. As others have mentioned, we have had some horrific examples of what XL bully dogs have done, although it is not the only breed in relation to which there has been an issue with control and danger to life.

What concerns me when I look at all the various aspects of the issue is the fact that we have a loophole. As the minister said at the beginning, the framework of the English legislation has banned such dogs being taken out of England and Wales. It is an offence to bring such a dog to Scotland, but that can be enforced only if there is parallel legislation. That was my understanding from the beginning, which is why I commented on the situation.

We must make a decision today, so we do not have long to think about the matter. The thing about SSIs is that, even when they are controversial, we have limited time to deal with them. Although the committee is concerned about the justice issues, there are also animal welfare issues and issues to do with the impact on vets. Those are not for this committee, but as an animal lover who has a large dog—I have a German shepherd—I am interested in and concerned about them, and I hope that ministers will continue to have the relevant conversations with the relevant committee about the animal welfare issues.

For those reasons, given that we have to make a decision and I do not want to abstain, I will vote against the motion to annul.

I agree 100 per cent with the cabinet secretary about the need for change and I am with the Government on what it is trying to achieve. However, among some of the things that survivors and complainers have said would make a difference, we have aired the difference that independent legal representation might make to complainers who have felt that their voice is not heard at the preliminary stage and that there is no one to defend their interests. I therefore welcome what the cabinet secretary said.

A lot has been said in evidence and at our round-table sessions about the notion of a single point of contact. In my mind, changing practice is probably as important as changing the law. We have heard positive stories, and a lot of horrific stories, and the positive ones seem to turn on those complainers getting proper access to their advocate depute and understanding how the trial will be run. I realise that there is only so far you can go with the matter, but a lot of victims say, “I did not get to tell my story in court. I do not understand why the advocate depute did not ask me what I thought was a critical question.” I am sure that there are good reasons for that.

Are you willing to explore changing the experience for all complainers and victims? How can we ensure that every victim gets access to their advocate depute before the trial?

Having a single point of contact has a lot to do with changes to court venues and other practical things, such as where and when someone’s case will be heard. As for the relationship with an independent legal practitioner, perhaps someone who is legally qualified is the best person to be that single point of contact, as they know the court process.

I preface my remarks by saying that I think that the proposal for a specialist sexual offences court is the most significant proposal in the bill. However, I have to say that the Government is putting itself in danger of losing the consensus on that, which is what my line of questioning relates to.

Why did you not fully adopt Lady Dorrian’s suggestion? As you said, cabinet secretary, you do not think that the specialist sexual offences court should be considered to be a lower court but, in fact, it will be. However, if you had adopted Lady Dorrian’s recommendations for it to be a parallel court, there would be no question over that.

I have questions on rights of audience that illustrate why I think it will be seen as a lower court. I know that you were not cabinet secretary when the bill was drafted, so I would be happy if your officials want to come in. It seems extraordinary for Lady Dorrian to do this work and come up with a proposal that everyone thinks is good but for you to dilute it by saying that it will not be a parallel court to the High Court—I really do not understand that.

You have probably heard me ask questions about rights of audience, and that concern about a change to the rights of audience is shared by the senators. Forgive me, because, as a layperson, I am trying to fully understand this:

“Despite the restriction in relation to rape and murder, the types of cases where a solicitor would be able to represent the accused in the Sexual Offences Court could include ones which are currently prosecuted in the High Court. Thus allowing solicitors to represent an accused in a broader range of serious cases.”

The bill will allow that to change so that a procurator fiscal depute cannot prosecute. That is in section 47(6). For some offences, rape and murder excluded, there will be a change to the rights of audience.

Surely you must realise that that will be seen as lowering the status of the court. We have the rules for a reason. We have had years of differences between advocates and solicitor advocates and who can represent an accused person who faces eight or nine years in jail. Did that proposed change come about by deliberate provision or accident?

We are still an outlier.

Okay.

I preface my remarks by saying that I think that the proposal for a specialist sexual offences court is the most significant proposal in the bill. However, I have to say that the Government is putting itself in danger of losing the consensus on that, which is what my line of questioning relates to.

Why did you not fully adopt Lady Dorrian’s suggestion? As you said, cabinet secretary, you do not think that the specialist sexual offences court should be considered to be a lower court but, in fact, it will be. However, if you had adopted Lady Dorrian’s recommendations for it to be a parallel court, there would be no question over that.

I have questions on rights of audience that illustrate why I think it will be seen as a lower court. I know that you were not cabinet secretary when the bill was drafted, so I would be happy if your officials want to come in. It seems extraordinary for Lady Dorrian to do this work and come up with a proposal that everyone thinks is good but for you to dilute it by saying that it will not be a parallel court to the High Court—I really do not understand that.

Lady Dorrian specifically said that she thought that it should be a parallel court, but you did not go for that. Why is that? I hear what you are saying, and I totally support the Government in seeking to change the experience and do things differently, but why did you not adopt Lady Dorrian’s suggestion that it should be a parallel court? If you had, we would not be having an argument about whether you have lowered the status of sexual offences. Do you see what I mean?

There would be. The SPICe briefing is clear. It would be helpful if Andrew Baird could answer that.

For reasons of workload, you decided to broaden out the scope of who could represent accused persons in cases that are not rape and murder. Is that fair to an accused person, who would not necessarily be represented by an advocate or solicitor advocate when they previously would have the right to be?