Seòmar agus comataidhean

Could I therefore make a request? Your written submission was helpful, with its one-page summary of ideas for reform, but it sounds like you had some very specific asks, some of which are legislative, some of which are policy driven and some of which are for the Government. Perhaps the committee has a role to play in some of that. Could you put in writing those very specific ideas and recommendations that you would like to be implemented? Then we could perhaps debate them as a committee.

Thank you. That was a technical answer to my question. Nonetheless, the powers expire tomorrow, so the committee has very little room for movement—to take further evidence, to scrutinise matters or to interrogate any of the stakeholders who inputted into the consultation. In fact, we learned in the response that we received late last night that the consultation responses will be published in October, which is way after when the instrument will—presumably—have been agreed to and the powers extended for another six months. That does not strike me as acceptable.

Thank you—that answer addresses my process queries and concerns. Those are noted on the record, and other members may have comments to make on that.

On the substance of the powers that are being extended, the cabinet secretary’s letter helpfully summarised some of the consultation responses that we have been unable to see. My impression from the three-page letter was that more concern than praise was raised, if I can put it that way.

Concerns were raised, in turn, on rule 40A, on time limits; on rule 41A, on accommodation; on rule 63A, on the suspension of visits; on rule 84A, on purposeful activity; and on rule 88A, on recreation. In effect, that covers the entirety of the powers that the Government is seeking to extend. In their substantive responses, all three organisations expressed concerns about some of the rules. Some of them even suggested potential amendments.

We cannot amend the instrument; in fact, we cannot even vote on it, which is unfortunate. However, given the context, level and nature of some of the concerns that have been raised by us and by stakeholders in the consultation process—I am sure that we can go into those in detail—why does the Government think it appropriate for the extension of the powers in their entirety as they currently exist simply to be nodded through?

Sure.

Good morning, panel. We have already covered a lot of ground, and I do not want to risk revisiting some of that, but my questions might lead to some crossover, so we might go back a bit.

First, I go back to the so-called “crisis” in the profession. The SSBA submission states:

“The profession is in crisis”,

so my comments and questions are perhaps best directed at Miss McPartlin in the first instance.

I would like you to elaborate on that; I am sure that some of your comments will echo what Mr Moir said. I want to get to the nub of the matter. Is it the case that the reasons that the profession is in crisis are twofold? First, you are struggling to recruit new entrants to the market, and it takes time to get them up to speed to enable them to handle cases at the level that is required of them, and secondly, there is churn, and you are losing people halfway through their career, or even in the early stages, to other parts of the legal sector.

It has been suggested that the increase in legal aid will be a short-term fix for those issues, but I am not convinced that I have heard the evidence, or the argument, for the connection in that regard. Perhaps someone can help me with that. I do not see a direct link between an immediate raise in fees and a solution to the problem of churn. Why do you think that there is such a crisis in the profession?

That is not what the other witnesses are saying. They are telling us that it is not just that a crisis is brewing—it is already happening. Mr Moir, what is your response to what Mr Fraser said?

The letter from the Public Audit Committee notes that enforcement of the 2010 act falls under civil law but that the review of the wider dog control legislation falls under criminal law, so it seems appropriate that this committee has a watching brief over progress in that area. Given the predecessor committee’s legacy paper, which was clear that the committee was frustrated by the pace of the response to the issue, it is fitting that we raise the issue with the relevant minister, who is probably the Minister for Community Safety, although I am not sure. It would be interesting to ask the minister, in writing or face to face, for an update on progress on the consultations that have been launched and legislative plans in the area.

No. If anyone has a strong view, please wave at me or put an R in the chat function.

I am afraid that I may open a can of worms here, but I think that we need to step back and look at the bigger picture of what is happening in Scotland and the reality on the ground. The joint submission to the committee from James Chalmers, Vanessa Leverick and Fiona Munro states that

“only ... six per cent of reported rape cases result in a conviction”.

Rape Crisis Scotland’s submission notes that,

“Of those that do”

go to court,

“only 43% result in a conviction”,

which can be compared with an overall crime conviction rate of 88 per cent in Scotland. The same submission goes on to state:

“Rape and attempted rape have the lowest conviction rate of any crime type”

in the country.

We all agree that that is not acceptable—no one disagrees with that. We all know that something needs to change, and we also know that we have been saying that for a long time.

I want to hit the nail on the head a little bit more. What exactly needs to change? What do you need us to do? We are the legislators, lawmakers and policy makers. There is no point in going round in circles, talking about what a terrible world this is and why Scotland should be leading the way. I want you to tell me why we are getting it so wrong. That is perhaps a question for the Crown Office. What is going on in the system that means that the conviction rate is ridiculously low?

I also want to hear from the organisations on the front line. What do you want us to do about this?

I note that, in the prosecution service, a lot of good work takes place with victims in sensitive cases, which is to be commended. I know that you are doing everything that you can at your end to improve outcomes, but the numbers speak for themselves. That is what I am trying to get to the nub of.

We all know that the numbers are unacceptable. It sounds to me as though you are doing as much as you can and going as far as you can, so there must be a blockage somewhere in the system. What is it about cases at a technical level in the prosecution procedure that results in the low conviction rate? Is it the nature of how they are tried? Is it the inherent bias of juries? Is it our three-outcome system? Is it the difficulty in achieving decent and substantial evidence?

I am not talking about specific cases; I am talking about the generality and I ask that you comment on that, because the numbers speak for themselves. Something, somewhere, is not working—what is that something? What do we need to do to help you to increase the conviction rate?