Chamber and committees

Dr Neal, you have said that you have been immersed in this area for years and you have helpfully alluded to practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Could you submit any material that you think might be helpful to guide our deliberations on this? Plainly, the experience of areas where there is a specific offence is relevant, and the more information that we can glean about how the situations in those places compare with what has happened in Scotland, the better.

I agree with Alexander Stewart. I note that in its response Transport Scotland has stated that delivering a permanent and resilient solution is a priority, which is welcome, but I think that the seven to 10-year timescale will cause concern and consternation in the parts of Scotland that are reliant on the link. When the road is closed, the detour is very substantial indeed and far longer than any other detours that I know of that affect such a large group of people. I know that these things are complex, but I am concerned about the length of time that all of this will take and the fact that the preferred route and solution has not yet been identified in order to provide reasonable transport links for people in those parts of Scotland.

Good morning and thank you for your evidence thus far. I absolutely understand that this is a huge area of concern, but the particular aspect that Nicola Murray has asked us to consider is the proposal for an unborn victim of violence act. That is her focus, and in the evidence that she gave to the committee in June, she gave a very articulate, moving and harrowing account of her own experience of losing children. She told the committee:

“I lost a child—I lost children—my children lost siblings and my parents lost grandchildren”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2.]

The assailant was charged and was convicted thereafter of a lesser offence and fined £300, which is something that will obviously rankle, probably for ever.

With that background in mind, I want to ask a few specific questions about the petition, given that that is what we have been asked to do, instead of considering the hugely important wider issues that the witnesses have quite rightly talked about.

First, should a new offence be created, or should we simply adapt the existing statutory or common-law offence to libel, if you like, that an act of violence has led, through causation, to the death of an unborn child? I guess that that is a legal question, so I am not sure whether all the witnesses will be able to answer it. It might be that we need to ask it of the Crown Office and the Scottish Sentencing Council. However, what are the witnesses’ views on that? Should there be a specific new act or an offence of causing violence to an unborn child, leading—I imagine in most cases—to the death of that unborn child, or can we use the existing weaponry of offences in statutory or common law?

Thank you for those responses. I will ask a related question. In Nicola Murray’s case and, I suspect, in other cases, the original charge that was libelled was reduced, and she was not aware of or consulted on that. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is rightly independent of politicians and so on, and it cherishes that independence, but do the witnesses consider that, in the particular circumstances that we are talking about, there should be a duty, whether it is created by law or practice, on a fiscal or lawyer handling a particular prosecution to consult the victim prior to the decision being taken to reduce a charge?

In the case of Nicola Murray, the reduced charge led to a monetary penalty of £300. We, of course, have to be careful not to make judgments about the case, because we were not there and did not hear all the evidence, whereas the judge heard all the evidence, so I do not mean to make any value judgment and I cannot do so, because I am not in a position to do so.

As a matter of principle, however, do the witnesses consider, given the gravity of the consequences that Dr Neal rightly described, that there should at least be a consultation? At the end of the day, the decision-making power probably has to rest with the prosecution authorities, but should there at least be a form of consultation required prior to the acceptance of a reduced charge by the fiscal or the Crown Office?

I want to probe that further. I can understand that an entirely new act would create clarity and certainty and draw attention to the matter, which I think you are arguing would be good things. Why have you formed that view about the alternative of using the existing measures given the flexibility that is inherent in Scots law, and particularly the ability to libel different types of charges such as assault, culpable homicide or even murder?

The existing common-law offences are flexible and, as I understand it—although my practice as a criminal lawyer is now a distant memory—that flexibility can be used by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to libel different circumstances in the charge. It is a matter of will, practice and the determination of the authorities to follow that through and take it seriously. Surely that is the issue, rather than the inadequacy of the legal framework, which could be used to adapt the existing charges.

That is very helpful. Do the other witnesses have comments?

That is very helpful.

Perhaps we need to pursue those points with others, namely the Crown Office and the Scottish Sentencing Council, but that will be for a later date.

Good morning, gentlemen. I want to ask about your engagement with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government told the committee in October last year—more than a year ago—that

“Officials will make contact with the Petitioner to discuss engagement between Transport Scotland and the Taxi sector”.

What was the outcome of those discussions?

The particular focus of the petition is on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. It generally asks that there be representation from islands on public bodies with a responsibility for lifeline services to islands, but, looking at the detail of what the petitioners seek, the particular focus relates to HIAL. I appreciate that the minister has responded quite a lot in relation to ferries, but I think that the focus is very much on HIAL.

What the petitioners have specifically suggested, as far as I can see, is that three seats should be allocated for specific island groups—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland—without excluding other island groups. I have just checked the web to see the size of the HIAL board, as one does not want to have boards that are overwieldy in numbers. The Cairngorms National Park Authority board, for example, has 25 members, which is too many, in my humble opinion. The HIAL board has only eight members, I think, although perhaps I have got that wrong—if I have, I apologise. Given that HIAL has a relatively small board, as far as I can see, an awful lot could be gained by adding the island voice.

I have not raised the issue with Inglis Lyon, and I am sure that, if HIAL representatives were here, they would say that they engage—and they have procedures for engaging with islands, of course, as we have heard before. I just wonder whether we could get a specific response, either today or after reflection and consultation with HIAL, which would be only fair to HIAL. I have not raised the matter with HIAL, nor have I raised it with you, minister, but it seems to me that what the petitioners are specifically asking for has a certain rationale and force behind it and could be accommodated without making the governance of HIAL unwieldy or cumbersome. It could add quite a lot of accountability and scrutiny, as well as a feeling of belonging on the part of people in the islands, who feel very remote and detached from things from time to time, as you will know, minister.