Seòmar agus comataidhean

Such answers are helpful as we consider our recommendations to the Parliament.

In your helpful written submission, you reflected that you thought that your audit requirements were “disproportionate”, given the size of your organisation. Will you say a bit more about that?

I appreciate that that point might be relevant to other commissioners, so that is helpful to the committee’s work, which is likely to include hearing from Audit Scotland in the weeks ahead.

I am conscious of the specific areas of focus that you have engaged in and the impactful nature of your work. For example, there is the work around free school meals—Gina Wilson, I know that you have been very involved in that—and the work around Scottish football and young people, part of which involves the petition on improving youth football in Scotland, which I think is the longest-running petition in the Scottish Parliament’s history. Nick Hobbs, you have been engaged in that work, and, commissioner, you are across all that, too. Do you want to add anything? This is almost related to my first question—I am thinking about the specific things that you are involved in, the importance of that work and the impact that you can make.

I will go back to the discussion about the proposed commissioner. For completeness, the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee was established following an inquiry into the commissioner landscape by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I convene that new short-term committee and place on record that if the cabinet secretary and the Government wanted to write to that committee to set out the arguments and evidence for the importance of the commissioner that the bill proposes, that would be helpful and welcome.

For clarity, I was not disputing that.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for agreeing to have this evidence session between stages 1 and 2. It has been really helpful, particularly given the other sessions that we have had at this juncture. This is a very significant bill, and we want to get it right for many decades to come. Before I ask my questions, I remind members that I am registered on the roll of Scottish solicitors.

When the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates gave evidence to us on 4 December, they said that

“the removal of ... not proven ... is a fundamental change”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 27.]

but the strong indication seems to be that the not proven verdict will be removed, which is something that I support. Of course, corroboration will be a part of this, although we had the Lord Advocate’s reference last autumn. In the interests of balance, I note that the Law Society and the faculty stated to us that, although the Scottish system has differences compared with other systems across the world, no other common-law jurisdiction works in the way that is being proposed for stage 2, with the change to the jury of 15 and a two-thirds majority. The view of the Law Society of Scotland was that

“every other common-law jurisdiction has 12-person juries and requires unanimity or something very close to it”,—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 27.]

while the Faculty of Advocates said:

“The view that the faculty endorses and has expressed is that modern thinking is that one should have either unanimity or a majority of 10 out of 12.” —[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 28.]

I am not against our being unique, but it is something that we need to consider collectively when we seek to do something that is quite different from other common-law jurisdictions across the world. I know that you have already commented on that in response to colleagues, but perhaps you have something further that you wish to say. I have one other question to follow, too.

My next question follows on quite nicely from that. In your letter to Parliament of 31 October, you stated that

“the majority of Senators preferred if Scotland changes to a two verdict system”

with

“a two thirds majority requirement for conviction.”

It was interesting that the senators, in their submission on the bill, suggested

“a conviction of at least 10 in favour of such a verdict”.

Was there consideration of 11 or 12? Is that something that we collectively, as a Parliament, can or should probe? The senators’ position was “at least 10”. Is that something that we can discuss further today, or think about in the weeks ahead?

I am conscious that the senators mention the phrase “at least 10” in their written submission. I just wonder whether we require to go back to them on that specific point at this juncture, given the changes that have been proposed between stages 1 and 2 and as we move towards stage 3.

Perhaps I will just leave that hanging. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time and for all your reflections and answers today. I also thank you for your written submission, and I thank you in advance for the follow-up letter and further correspondence on which you gave an undertaking to Mr Leonard.

It does, and it is helpful in the context of your six key recommendations, especially the sixth one. Thank you very much for elaborating on that.

Before we conclude, is there anything that you have not had the chance to say or to emphasise?

Before I go to colleagues, I want to pick up on a couple of points.

You talked about how you are not necessarily familiar with the work of other commissioners, which is fully understandable, but it is clear from your earlier remarks just how comprehensive your role is. I think that you said that it goes from GPs all the way up to the Scottish Government and across the public sector. Do you want to say a bit more about that? It is different from the work of some other bodies.

You also talked about the big picture and the whole system. Thank you for citing the example of third sector funding in that regard. As we look at what we have been tasked with in respect of SPCB supported bodies, do we need to see that in the context of all the other commissioners and public bodies that provide similar functions but are funded by the Scottish Government, rather than by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body?