Chamber and committees

The faculty’s position is therefore that, if we are going to have the potential for an eight to seven decision in a jury, we have to have the reassurance of an option such as the not proven verdict. We can design an alternative that gets rid of the not proven option, but we will have to take account of the variables that come about as a consequence.

I just want to carry on with that line of discussion with Mr Macleod. One of the fundamental conclusions emerging from the evidence is that, whichever bit of this Rubik’s cube you move around, there will be implications for other bits of the Rubik’s cube. We are trying to feel our way towards where the right balance lies in protecting the process of justice. I am interested in the extent to which you can illuminate our discussions with where you think the greatest risks lie in changing the existing arrangements. We do not want to end up in a worse position; clearly, we want to end up in a better position.

I am keen to explore where that all rests, given the key factors that we have to bear in mind in what might change and what might produce different outcomes from those that we currently have in the criminal justice system.

My final question is on the vexed question that you put in front of us about a seven to five majority for a guilty verdict that then leads to an acquittal. In the other jurisdictions with which we are often compared, where you might have an eight to four or a nine to three guilty verdict leading to an acquittal, to what degree is there public concern about such a result?

Okay.

I appreciate the comments that Mr O’Kane is putting on the record. I agree entirely with what he said about the failures of the Conservative system and its approach to all of us. Does he think that we have reached a moment where, strategically, the United Kingdom has got to get to a different position on the question of migration? We need to acknowledge that we are short of people in this country and that we could benefit from the expansion of the population, and particularly the working-age population. There are ways in which that can be done, through taking a completely different approach to the failed way that the Conservative Government has adopted, but we will need to change attitudes and views in our approaches towards migration. I think that the Scottish Government is up for that agenda. Does Mr O’Kane share my view?

Before Mr Cole-Hamilton leaves that point, does he recognise that the proposed approach, whereby spouses cannot accompany people in coming to this country, will have a catastrophic impact on the availability of people to work in our economy, particularly in our public services and caring services? Does he recognise the urgent necessity for a strong parliamentary expression of the importance of the dangers that we face as a consequence of that measure?

I am grateful to members who signed the motion to commemorate the centenary yesterday of the election to the House of Commons of Katharine Stewart-Murray, the Duchess of Atholl, as the MP for Kinross and West Perthshire, which made her the first woman to be elected to Westminster from a Scottish constituency.

It is not unreasonable for members to wonder why on earth a lifelong Scottish nationalist has lodged a motion and is leading a members’ business debate in the Scottish Parliament to mark the centenary of the election of a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party to the House of Commons, and I feel that the Parliament requires a bit of an explanation. First, I do so because I believe that it is vital in our politics that we look at people for who they are and what they do, rather than simply judging them from their party affiliation. I have always believed that, and I believe it ever more in today’s rather toxic political climate.

The second reason is that Katharine Stewart-Murray led an extraordinary and, in many ways, enigmatic political life that merits greater understanding and appreciation, because she did not act as we might at first sight have expected a Conservative MP who was also the Duchess of Atholl to act.

The third reason is that, as one of her parliamentary successors in the House of Commons and as a member of the Scottish Parliament, it is incumbent on me to make sure that some parliamentary acknowledgement is given.

No political life is straightforward or without question or challenge. I am sure that there will be parts of the political life of Katharine Stewart-Murray with which we will not all agree, but I believe that this centenary gives us the opportunity to ensure that there is greater awareness of a fascinating individual who made a contribution to our politics and whose work raises important questions of real validity for us today.

The very election of Katharine Stewart-Murray in the 1923 Westminster general election was remarkable in at least two respects. First, just a decade earlier, she had been a vehement opponent of the right of women to vote, yet, 10 years later, her mind had been changed and she was elected to Westminster.

Secondly, the election was a bit of a local cliffhanger. She won the seat from the Liberals with a majority of just 150 in a two-horse race. One of our Conservative colleagues, Liz Smith, was involved in a cliffhanger election in a Perthshire seat during the 2001 Westminster election. Mercifully, the majority of 48 on that occasion was in favour of my party and not hers, and our Deputy Presiding Officer might have had more than a passing interest in the outcome.

Katharine Murray was one of only eight female MPs out of the 615 who were elected to the House of Commons in 1923 and she went on to make a significant contribution to business at Westminster. She took a close interest in how people were treated in the then British empire and was shouted down by male MPs for sharing with the House of Commons the horrific details of female genital mutilation all those years ago. She believed that, if women in India were living under the umbrella of the British empire, they should be protected from practices that were not approved of by the British Government.

Her talent and industriousness were recognised, and she went on to become the first female Conservative education minister. She championed the power of education to safeguard the future of children, and the wellbeing of children became a central feature of her political contribution. When the Conservatives went into opposition, she went to the back benches and her political outlook began to take a new course. She took a keen interest in matters of international policy and became increasingly alarmed by the rise of fascism in Europe. There were strands of people in the British establishment in the 1930s who were entirely relaxed about the growing spectre of fascism in Europe and did not believe that the United Kingdom needed to address the threat. Katharine Murray railed against that sentiment, which she saw as a direct threat to democracy and human rights. She travelled extensively in Europe to understand the events that were taking place and to try to comprehend the fear and the alarm that were spreading in a growing number of countries as the threat from fascism materialised. She warned of the dangers, but was increasingly marginalised and dismissed in the domestic debate.

As the Spanish civil war took its ferocious course, she was horrified by what she witnessed. She was especially alarmed by the dangers that were faced by children and the effects of the warfare on them. With others, she worked at speed to arrange for 4,000 children to be brought to the safety of the United Kingdom to avoid the horror of the Spanish civil war. Her actions were necessary in the 1930s, but they contain important lessons for us today.

Donald Cameron’s timely intervention brings me to the event last night that I hosted in the Parliament, to which we welcomed some of the children of the children who were brought out of the turmoil of the Spanish civil war to the safety of the United Kingdom by the Duchess of Atholl. They told the stories of their parents’ survival and wanted to say one thing to the family members of the Duchess of Atholl, who were present last night. They wanted to express their thanks for her actions, because, quite simply, without them, those children would not be here today. Those lessons are vital for us as we wrestle with the current challenges in our society.

The Duchess of Atholl’s acute interest in the rise of fascism led her to closely study the contents of Hitler’s words in “Mein Kampf”. She read the original text in German—she was a German speaker—and felt that the English translation that was originally on offer did not properly convey the contents of Hitler’s full plan. Therefore, she arranged for a full English translation and agitated to get the United Kingdom Government of the time to take the emerging threat seriously.

She became increasingly frustrated that she could not convince the British Government to act, so she tried to force its hand. To address the issue, she triggered a by-election in Kinross and West Perthshire, which took place on 21 December 1938—a very cold winter’s night, apparently. The huge might of the Conservative Party was deployed against her and she lost the by-election, but only narrowly. She might have lost the by-election, but events proved that her concerns were valid and legitimate.

I suspect that, if people were asked in the street, few would know who the first female MP to be elected in Scotland was. I think that it would surprise them to find that that individual was married to an aristocrat, was opposed to suffrage for women, was a Conservative and Unionist who campaigned for educational opportunities for all, helped refugee children to safety from the Spanish civil war and ended her political career to press the alarm about the rise of fascism. That, however, was the enigmatic life of the Duchess of Atholl, the MP for Kinross and West Perthshire, Katharine Murray, the red duchess.

That opens up a link to the questions that Katy Clark pursued a moment ago. The way that you articulated that final argument is incredibly powerful. From the defence perspective, there is an advantage in labouring the term “proven” in the way that you have just described.

Katy Clark put the question whether, if we get rid of the not proven verdict, there would be a need for some rebalancing in the system. That is the Government’s proposition in the bill. That raises the question in my mind of where the appropriate balance of fairness is in the process, because, whatever comes from the changes that we make here, there must be fairness on all sides. There must be fairness for the accused and for the Crown in pursuing its arguments.

The Government’s proposition is that getting rid of the not proven verdict would mean that there is a need for some counterbalancing changes to the size or composition of juries. You said that the labouring of the term “proven” might already be creating an imbalance in the system, which might mean that getting rid of the not proven verdict would just be removing an imbalance. Do we, as a committee, have to consider some counterbalancing measure, or would that actually lead to us changing the balance again?

That is not a particularly coherent question, but you know what I am getting at.

But Sandy Brindley would not share that view.