Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am listening carefully and am very much in support of what the member is trying to achieve. She raised the SCTS letter, and it is absolutely right that she focuses on that. The SCTS said that there might be “significant costs associated” with meeting the proposal. If I assume that the amendment passes today, how has the member quantified those costs, and how will she ensure that the Government properly funds that welcome change to ensure that it happens?

That is a good point, and it is well made. However, as the member knows, corroboration, which makes us distinct, has changed. As I said at the outset of my submission, the Lord Advocate does not yet know what the implications of that are. In her letter, she specifically says:

“the full implications of these decisions are still being considered”.

The problem, it seems to me, is that we have to make a decision today. I absolutely concede that, because we have things such as corroboration, we will not be absolutely mapped to the system in England and Wales. However, I come back to the fact that the safest way to achieve justice is, surely, to mirror as closely as possible systems that are already in place and which we know operate—at least, on paper—well.

I am genuinely very interested in what you are saying. What do you suggest that we do? We are faced with a bill that will do things and with various amendments that will change what the bill will do, but you are deeply uncomfortable—as, I suspect, we all are—with some of the proposals, because you do not think that there is sufficient evidence. So, what should we vote for today? If we vote for nothing, we will nevertheless be voting for change.

You have just said that you are “satisfied” that the jury size can go back to 15 and that that will not make a material difference. Could you tell us on what evidence you base that statement?

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?