Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am genuinely listening very carefully to the debate to work out what best to do here. You talk about the stand-alone court. Do you think that when those many voices spoke in support of a stand-alone sexual offences court, they might have had in their minds that it would be a new building with new people in it, with sufficient resources to deal with backlogs and to deal with cases timeously? Am I not right that, in fact, when we talk about a stand-alone court, it would be in part of the same building and would use the same people, the same processes and the same information technology, such that the outcomes that people are, rightly, desperate for might well not be achieved?

I thank Jamie Greene for his comments so far, and I am particularly enjoying listening to him explain both sides of the case. That is helpful to the committee in deciding how to vote.

Rona Mackay’s challenge is a reasonable one. However, I have been looking at your amendment 251, Mr Greene, and I see that subsection (2)(b) simply says that

“the Board must take into account any remorse shown”.

In other words, in coming to a decision, the board would have to weigh up “any remorse shown”. By extension, does that not mean that it would also have to take into account any of the challenges that Rona Mackay has put to you and that, as a result, it is not fatal to the amendment that someone might have such difficulties?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her remarks. For the benefit of the committee, I note that I have seven amendments in the group, which are numbered 122 to 128, and they all relate to section 32 on page 16 of the bill. As drafted, section 32 will amend the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. As section 22D of the 2004 act sets up a presumption that the personal conduct of certain cases should be prohibited, section 32(4) in the bill, as drafted, sets out that

“a register of solicitors who may be appointed by a court”

in such circumstances should be maintained.

For full transparency, I remind my colleagues that I am a practising solicitor.

Subsection (2) of proposed section 22E says:

“The Scottish Ministers, by regulations... must... specify the requirements that a person must satisfy”

in order to be on and stay on the register. Regulations must then set out the processes for entry to, removal from and appealing a decision about the register. It is important to note that no members have raised any concerns about those provisions.

However, by the omission of reference to remuneration in the regulation obligation, the Scottish ministers will have the discretion to regulate on the remuneration of solicitors appointed in those cases, but they will not need to do so. Accordingly, my amendment 122 seeks to fill that lacuna in the legislation by requiring the Scottish ministers to address that aspect in the regulations.

Amendment 123, which I shall come back to, simply takes on the principle and would ensure that ministers would be obliged to confer on someone the duty to maintain the register.

Amendments 124 and 125 are consequential to those amendments.

Amendments 127 and 128 relate to the same set of amendments being made to the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. Proposed new section 22E(3) requires that, before the regulations that we have just looked at are made under section 22E(2), the Scottish ministers “must consult” the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland. To the best of my knowledge, no member or stakeholder has raised any issue with that perfectly supportable principle.

It occurred to me that it is all well and good to have consultation but that it is important to know what the consultation finds and concludes. My amendment 127 would simply require that a report on that consultation be published, and amendment 128 sets out what should be in the report. That would ensure that the views of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates could be fully considered before regulations were made that could affect vulnerable people’s access to the legal professions. Amendment 126 would simply make a technical change to pave the way for amendments 127 and 128 to be inserted properly.

The cabinet secretary made some important remarks about amendments 123 and 125. On reflection, I can see that my amendment 123 would override the new section 22E(2)(d)(i), which, as drafted, leaves the decision on regulation with the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government “may” then pass on the responsibility. My amendment 123 would mean that the Scottish Government “must” pass it on, whether or not that is the best idea. That requirement would not be particularly sensible, in my view, and it was certainly not my intention. I also listened to the cabinet secretary’s reflections on the agencies that would be involved and their opinion on the amendments.

With that in mind, I do not intend to move amendments 123 and 125, but I intend to move the rest of my amendments in the group.

This is just for my own clarity. At least part of your case is that amendment 251 is not necessary; the Parole Board is already doing what it addresses, so there is no need to reiterate it, and if Mr Greene chooses not to move the amendment—or, if he does, but the committee votes it down—the remorse piece will still be there, because it is there already. Is that a fair reflection of what you are saying?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I just want to track back to amendment 104. I think that what you are saying, cabinet secretary, is this: “Look, Liam, you don’t need amendment 104, because it’s already covered entirely by section 12(3).” That is reassuring, and I see where you are going, but have you checked the position with any of the legal agencies to ensure that they are comfortable that this is definitely not a lacuna in the legislation?

I am very grateful. My intervention will be slightly out of order, in the sense that it is really an intervention on the cabinet secretary, but you have the floor, Mr Findlay. Did you understand from the cabinet secretary’s remarks that she would look to work with Jamie Greene on his amendment 239? I understood the objection to be to the wording that there “must” be notification, whereas the provision might need to be wound back to say “may be notified, subject to”. Did you get the sense that the cabinet secretary was saying that she would work with Jamie Greene on amendment 239, or did you not have that impression?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and to my friend Pauline McNeill for their comments. I think that it has been a good debate; I have enjoyed the back and forth of it.

The cabinet secretary’s point on amendment 104 is well made. I am concerned to absolutely ensure that everything is covered, so in order to preserve the position while reassurance is sought, I will not press amendment 104.

On amendment 106, after listening to the cabinet secretary, I am persuaded that amendment 135 covers what I was trying to do—I think that amendment 135 was lodged after I had already lodged amendment 106, hence the crossover. My intention with amendment 106 was to give the commissioner teeth, and I am persuaded by the cabinet secretary’s remarks that amendment 135 does that. Amendment 106 is therefore not required and I will not move it when asked to do so later.

The point about the unintended consequences that could arise if I pressed amendment 110 to a vote and if it were agreed to is interesting. None of us, whatever our persuasion, wants unintended consequences, and we are all working very hard to make the bill as good as it can be. Again, I find myself persuaded by the cabinet secretary’s course of action to avoid unintended consequences of any drafting and by the sensible suggestion that we always check what could happen with the Crown Office. I shall preserve my position on the matter and work with the cabinet secretary to ensure that the bill is as good as it can be. Therefore, I will not move amendment 110 when asked to do so.

Amendment 104, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 105 and 13 not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13—Reports on investigations

Amendment 14 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14—Power to gather information

Amendments 106 and 15 not moved.

Section 14 agreed to.

After section 14

Amendment 135 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 15—Offence of Commissioner disclosing confidential information

Amendments 107 and 16 not moved.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Annual Report

Amendment 136 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 108, 109 and 17 not moved.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17—Requirement to respond to annual report

Amendment 137 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 18 not moved.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18—Publication of responses to annual report

Amendment 19 not moved.

Section 18 agreed to.

Section 19—Reports

Amendments 138 and 139 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Section 20—Protection from actions of defamation

Amendment 21 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

Section 21—Co-operation with Commissioner

Amendments 110 and 22 not moved.

Section 21 agreed to.

Section 22—Application of public authorities legislation

Amendments 111 and 23 not moved.

Section 22 agreed to.

Schedule 2—Application of public authorities legislation to the office of Victims and Witnesses Commissioner for Scotland

Amendments 112 to 116 and 24 not moved.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Section 23—Interpretation of Part

Amendments 117 and 118 not moved.

Amendment 140 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 119 to 121 and 25 not moved.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

After section 23

Amendment 235 moved—[Sharon Dowey].

I am very grateful.

I will be brief. Thank you, cabinet secretary—that was an interesting discussion with much to consider. I entirely see the points that you make. I very much enjoy the working relationship that we have, and I am pleased in particular that you will look to work with me on the definition of “victim”. I think that you take my point—we share a concern in that regard, and I look forward to working with you on the definition. I think that there is an issue, but let us explore it together and make the bill as good as it can be.

With that in mind, I will not press amendment 94 to a vote.

Amendment 94, by agreement, withdrawn.