Chamber and committees

Would you see objections from the profession if, to change the experience of victims, it would be a requirement for the victim to be able to speak to those legal representatives—however it is legislated for?

The other witnesses might want to address my follow-up question.

I am trying to understand the proposed legislation before us and all the possibilities. It is possible to create a specialist court, as proposed in the bill. We can decide where that is in the hierarchy, but there could be different levels of representation and rights of audience, and sheriffs appointed by the Lord President would be able to sit as judges in that court. However, it seems to me that there is nothing to say that the pilot would not run in the specialist court as opposed to the High Court. Is that fair to say?

In other words, the specialist court with national jurisdiction, wherever it sits, is not the High Court. It would be possible under the bill to have a sheriff appointed by the Lord President, solicitors or any other representation—there is no ban on solicitors representing accused persons in the specialist court—and a single judge all at the same time. Is that right?

Sharon Dowey asked about victims having access to their advocate depute or legal representative. We spoke with one survivor who had a positive experience of proceedings, and it was loud and clear that that seemed to be because she had meetings with the lawyers before, during and after the trial.

Tony Lenehan, would the profession have any objection to reforms in that area? Some advocate deputes do it and some do not; some just go straight to court and do not talk to the victims, and others do talk to them. Is there a need to prescribe that more, in your view?

Do you have any comment on why the Government would want to include such a provision in legislation?

I am very pleased to speak in Emma Harper’s debate, which I think is the first of its kind, highlighting the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I, too, put on the record my thanks for the support of the team at the Parliament’s international relations office. It has been a pleasure to work with Emma Harper, Annabelle Ewing, Tess White, Ross Greer and Jackie Dunbar, who attended the most recent plenary session.

As Labour’s representative on the body, I can say that it is a privilege to take part. I joined as an associate member after the 2016 Brexit vote, and I attended my first meeting in Kilkenny in the province of Leinster, in the south-east of Ireland. Brexit was not on the agenda, which mystified me, but it became clear that we could not stop the politics taking over the agenda. I remember the intense atmosphere in the room and I was captivated by the politics that ensued between the parties of Northern Ireland and Ireland on the impact of the Brexit agreement. I honestly felt that I would like more members to have an insight into that, as it was unique to be able to listen at that time. To me, it was almost as if the forum provided a platform to those parties, and indeed a buffer for the parties of Northern Ireland to debate the acute consequences of such a vote and the on-going suspension of the Stormont Assembly. That is how I feel when I attend BIPA: I see the politics being played out.

As Annabelle Ewing said, BIPA was established in 1990 as the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, and it soon became the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Its origins are in the Good Friday agreement. If I did not know that it was a consequence of the Good Friday agreement, I would be constantly reminded of it—as is everyone else—by John D Taylor, Lord Kilclooney, who was Lord Trimble’s deputy and a key member of the peace talks, and who is still a member of BIPA. I do not agree with him on a great deal, but I do agree with him on two points, the first being that BIPA could play a much stronger role across the legislatures of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Incidentally, and secondly, he is also a very strong supporter of the Palestinian people.

The British-Irish Council was established in 1999 under strand 3 of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. As members will know, the council brings together ministers from Britain, Ireland and the devolved Administrations. Strand 3 of the agreement stated that, as well as intergovernmental links,

“The elected institutions of the members will be encouraged to develop interparliamentary links, perhaps building on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body.”

Hence we have BIPA.

As other members have said, it is the committees that make the forum function. I had the privilege of serving on committee D, which Lord Dubs currently chairs. Its inquiry into abortion services took evidence on the impact on the women of Northern Ireland when the Republic voted for some restricted rights on abortion. That inquiry was something that only a body such as BIPA could conduct, because it looked at the interactions of the different Parliaments. Many women from Northern Ireland were already travelling to the UK for abortion, and we got an insight into some of the horrendous conditions that they had to travel in. We looked at what implications the Republic’s vote to allow abortion would have for them travelling south and what the law was on all of that. It was quite fascinating. We had the head of medical services for the Republic giving evidence that we would not otherwise have seen.

BIPA is taken very seriously and it has been addressed by important speakers from the UK and Irish Governments including the Rt Hon Steve Baker, Minister of State for Northern Ireland; Keir Starmer; Jeffrey Donaldson, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party; John Finucane, an MP representing Sinn Féin; the current Taoiseach; and all previous Taoiseachs. They have all addressed this important forum.

We were privileged—I sometimes wish that it had been filmed and minuted—to listen to Bertie Ahern, Senator Mitchell and John Holmes, who was a civil servant at the time, give unique insights into how the Good Friday talks could actually have crumbled. Bertie Ahern spoke of going to his mother’s funeral on one of the days and then going back to the talks. Such a profound act was seen as one that brought some of the people together to make sure of the agreement. He also spoke of the importance of John Major’s contribution, but he said that, without the personality of Tony Blair, he did not believe that it could have happened. It was a historic moment that I and others who were there were privileged to listen to.

I am delighted that we have had a chance to provide some insights to members, but let us do more to make sure that other members can see the work of BIPA as a forum. I thank Emma Harper again for bringing the debate to the chamber.

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to whether there is a need for regulatory oversight of companies that install low-emissions heating systems and upgrade homes to be more energy efficient. (S6O-02981)

Turning Point Scotland’s 218 service in Glasgow will close in February. Glasgow City Council presented the service with an unworkable budget of £650,000, down from £1.5 million. The funding was previously ring fenced by the Scottish Government, which signed off a reduction in that funding in a letter on 31 May last year. That decision has, in effect, resulted in the closure of the service.

Is the First Minister content that there is now no bed facility for women offenders with drug use as their main problem—a facility that has kept hundreds of women out of jail? The Lilias centre in Maryhill, which is brilliant, was cited by the cabinet secretary in her response to the news, but it is not an alternative to custody disposal. Ministers surely cannot wash their hands of this tragic outcome.

I thank the minister for exchanging letters with me on this subject, which I care a lot about. The minister will be aware that we currently have 1,300 companies, and there are only 4,000 installers across the UK, so we will need a lot more in time to come.

Last month, Citizens Advice Scotland warned that existing consumer protection is insufficient and could allow rogue traders and scammers to prey on people’s good intentions. There have been many examples of that. Notwithstanding that the minister has said that the regulation of consumer protection is a matter for the Westminster Parliament, does he agree that the absence of minimum legal standards for all heat-pump installations means that there will continue to be a potential risk to consumers if there is not a single accreditation scheme for all installers in the net zero market?

There is a fine balance to be struck, because I imagine that an advocate depute would say that they were the best judge of what the best evidence was. I would accept that, but there are certainly cases that I have heard of in which the case would have been put better if the victim had been able to say, “You missed something really important.”

I was going to ask about that issue, so I will carry on where Rona Mackay left off.

Emma Bryson spoke about the difference between theory and practice and asked what the practice will be. What will the law be? What is it that we are legislating for? That is what I am thinking about. I was quite persuaded by Lady Dorrian’s evidence last week and her report on the specialist court, which she envisages as being a branch of the High Court. I am mystified by some of the changes that the Government made when it went from the report stage to the bill stage, and that is what I want to ask you about.

Sandy Brindley, as you rightly said, the sexual offences court will be a national jurisdiction court that will have sentencing powers, but what is missing is that the rights of audience will not be the same as those in the High Court. You also said that in your submission. For that reason, my view is that the specialist court will not be the same as the High Court unless that issue is resolved.

I draw attention to a point that I made to Lady Dorrian. Do not quote me on the year because I have no idea, but when we extended the sentencing powers of the sheriff court, Lord Bonomy made the same point about floating trials as he did about the right of an accused person—who, before we extended the powers, would have been tried in the High Court—to have rights of audience of more senior counsel. It is now impossible to get senior counsel approved by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It strikes me that we need to ask SLAB what its view of that is. If the right is not enshrined in law, I am absolutely certain that the whole area will become murky. In my view, the distinction in law is that rape and murder can go only to the High Court, and everything flows from that.

Sandy, from your submission, I think that you share my concerns that we need to persuade the Government that, if we do not sort out the issue, the specialist court could not really be what Lady Dorrian envisaged it being.