Chamber and committees

Further to the question that you will consider about scrutiny in Parliament—in particular, of the vaccination passport regulations—I note that, in a radio interview that was given by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care after the debate, he said that the evidence to back the Government’s position was lodged with the Scottish Parliament information centre. However, I pursued that and was told that no such evidence exists.

I therefore ask the Presiding Officer to consider whether members of Parliament who have an interest in this debate but are not part of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee—that includes me and many others—must have access to all the Government’s advice and evidence, so that we can consider what position we want to take. It is really unsatisfactory, when we are considering the whole basis of the Government’s argument on Covid vaccination passports, if that advice and evidence are not available in our information centre.

As we all know, police officers have served their country during the pandemic in people’s homes; in accident and emergency departments in hospitals; and on our streets, working alongside other dedicated public service teams. As we have heard, they are exposed to significant risks in their jobs.

Has the First Minister questioned the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation clinicians on why police officers were not a priority for vaccination? I appreciate that, in the past, she has said that it is a matter for them. However, I wonder whether it is time to question why they would not be a priority for the booster programme. That decision should perhaps be reconsidered in the light of the exposure to risk, and so that we are clear as a Parliament, and as a Scottish Government, that we stand up for serving police officers who are facing those risks.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to ban the use of snares to capture wild animals. (S6O-00189)

OneKind, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have continually called for an outright ban on the use of snares in capturing wild animals, and I would argue that action by the Scottish Government is imperative. Britain is one of only five European countries where the use of snares is still permitted. It is archaic, indiscriminate and cruel. Why is banning the use of snares not specifically listed in the review of animal welfare legislation if the Government is as committed to animal welfare legislation as it claims to be?

First, I will ask Sandy Brindley to go back to where she left off, on the jury majority issue. I want to be clear in my own mind that you would be comfortable with a majority of one if we remove the not proven verdict. I note what you say about a fully unanimous jury verdict being rare; I think that in England, a two-thirds majority is required. Are you comfortable that a conviction for rape or attempted rape in the High Court could be achieved with a majority of one?

That is helpful—thank you.

My second question is to Ronnie Renucci of the Faculty of Advocates. There is quite a lot in your submission, but I will try to narrow it down. I note the faculty’s concerns about the setting up of specialist courts. In your evidence to the committee, you point out that the High Court is already a specialist court. You have concerns about the specific proposal, suggesting that it might downgrade the status or importance of the crime of rape. I wonder whether you wish to say something in response to that.

Staying with the general background, I have a question for Dr Marsha Scott. Everyone seems to be painting a bleak picture. I have been following the issue closely, and I have written to the Lord Advocate.

I note the statistics that Moira Price used. It seems to me that violence against women throughout the United Kingdom, and probably globally, is getting worse. Marsha Scott talked about how the underlying issue is the need for women’s inequality to be resolved. I have been reading in the press about teenage girls of 13 and 14—and some boys, but particularly girls—being bullied to provide nude photographs of themselves.

I am tying all of that together in my own mind. Violence against women by men seems to me to be worse than it was when I first became a politician, in 1999. I follow the international trends. It is a depressing picture.

Marsha Scott, do you agree with that?

I was going to come on to that, but I might as well ask you now, as you are on the screen. What is your view on the complete removal of juries from cases of rape or attempted rape?

I know that. I just want to know what your position is. If we remove the not proven verdict, there could be a majority of one, and you would not have any concerns about that.

I note from your submission that you oppose the removal of juries. You will have heard Sandy Brindley talk about another way—about having a judge with lay assessors—and about providing a video for juries to watch in advance, which Lady Dorrian proposed. Would any of those things work or make any difference to outcomes?