Chamber and committees

I have recently been contacted by a number of constituents employed by NatureScot as part of a group of 27 bat workers, all of whom I understand are to face redundancy. What consideration has been given to the impact that the redundancy of NatureScot’s 27 bat workers, with their considerable experience and expertise, might have on bat conservation in Scotland?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support bat conservation. (S6O-03348)

Sometimes, when we have debates like this, we should remind ourselves why we are debating such changes in the first place. We had a powerful reminder of that from Karen Adam a short time ago.

It is also worth mentioning again—particularly for the victims of sexual offences—that the latest figures show that only 24 per cent of those who are accused of rape in single-complainer cases are convicted. That is a shockingly low figure. Aside from the Government’s proposals, I do not hear any others. It cannot be the case that we do nothing.

I have also heard a fair bit of criticism about the size of the bill. I say to members that they should look at the system and see what bit they can pick out without affecting other bits. The bill has to be comprehensive—it has to address a number of different things at the same time. Perhaps that accounts for both its complexity and its size.

We have known about the discrepancy in convictions for sexual offences for a long time, and this is a chance to do something about that. We cannot forget the many women, in particular, to whom many members have spoken, who have come forward in recent years with their testimonies, waiving the right to anonymity for the public good, to share with the public their experience of the legal system and its shortcomings. Those women have also helped to create an awareness campaign that has successfully highlighted the many shortcomings of the legal system and what can be done differently. As I have said for a number of years, the system is failing women in particular.

A couple of points have been raised. I heard the Tories saying that it has taken a while to get round to abolishing the not proven verdict. Well, we have not taken the decades or centuries that the Tory party took. We came forward with the proposal in the past and it was rejected by the Parliament. This time, it looks as though it will be accepted by the Parliament. The most compelling reason for it, to my mind, is simply the fact that a judge is not allowed to explain to a jury the effect of the not proven verdict. That cannot be good in any system that is meant to be based on lay understanding.

There are those who argue—we heard one statement to this effect—that we must listen to the Lord Advocate on some things but not on others. We must listen to her about the size of juries, but we should not listen to her in her compelling support for juryless trials. Another argument is that the judiciary is against us. It is not. Lady Dorrian is not. Many in the senior judiciary are in favour of many of the proposals. All that that says is that it is divided—as the rest of us are. There are different points of opinion, but let us at least acknowledge that.

I do not agree with the vast bulk of the points that Michael Marra made, but the point that he made about commissioners was quite a good one. I supported the establishment of a commissioner. If the position is to be established for its own sake, we should not have it, but if there is a definite role for it, we should have it, for the reasons that have been mentioned. It has previously been supported by the Conservatives. Almost three years into this Parliament, I am still waiting to see the victims bill for which support has been demanded from me and others, or the domestic abuse registration system bill that we have been asked to support. We should really see those things. They were manifesto commitments. If we will not see them until after we take this bill through, what is the point? They could affect the impact of the bill. In the summing up, it would be useful to hear where the Tories are with the two bills that they were committed to bringing forward.

It is also perverse of the Conservatives not to support the general principles of the bill. I have to be perfectly honest and say that I do not think that there is even a slight chance of the Conservatives voting for the bill at any stage. We heard a demolition of each of the six sections of the bill from its spokesperson—the party’s position is not going to change. We know the approach that the Tories are taking on the bill.

However, the cabinet secretary should do as she has been doing and continue to listen to others and take on board the points and genuine concerns that people have. Having shown a willingness not just to listen but to adapt her proposals, she has shown that this is a genuine debate. It would be so much more powerful if we could get to a position in which the whole Parliament spoke with one voice, but we have to be realistic about the prospect of that. We will not get support from the Conservatives, and, given what Michael Marra said, I doubt that we will get support from the Labour Party either. Nevertheless, it is always worth listening to Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark about the concerns that people have. It is important that the bill proceeds, because it has been wanted for a long time and it will make a difference.

We should remember that juryless trials are part of a pilot. If we are not going make a bold change, what should we do? If we do not think that a bold change is required for the appalling situation that we are now in with regard to the treatment of women and victims of sexual offences, what is the big idea that others have? Should we not try it? The Scottish legal system has a very proud history of being innovative and willing to embrace change, and it very often leads other systems to do so. Many systems around the world have taken inspiration from our system, and this is the chance for us to do likewise. If it does not work—I do not dispute the point that was made about having properly set out and transparent criteria for displaying that it has worked—then it should not continue.

Will the member give way?

No. I apologise, but I am in my last minute.

I cannot remember disagreeing with my good friend and colleague John Swinney before the discussion about jury sizes. However, the point that he made about corroboration is important. If that change is not to take place until 2028, perhaps it is time to take another big chunk. Corroboration on judgments is a huge issue that affects lots of different elements of the bill. If that was dealt with to the satisfaction of the legal system and Parliament, perhaps it should drive what we do on jury size. It is worth bearing in mind that all College of Justice senators and many people in the judiciary are supportive of further reforms to corroboration, notwithstanding the very effective reforms that have already taken place.

Let us be honest about what we support. We require change, and if parties do not support the change that the Government proposes, they should at least come forward with something else.

Every day, we hear about the harm that Brexit is causing the Scottish economy, and indeed the UK economy, with the cost now estimated at £140 billion. I say that, but there is a conspiracy of silence among the unionist parties, which will not raise a word of concern or criticism about the effect that Brexit is having.

Today, I, along with other members of the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, visited an exporter, who said that it is “utterly exhausting” trying to deal with the new burdens that Brexit imposes. He talked about businesses that have gone bust overnight, and some that no longer export.

Scotland’s rural industries in constituencies such as mine are bearing the brunt of Brexit. The new migration rules are just the latest in a long list of toxic Tory Westminster policies. A Labour Westminster Government would do nothing to change that; it would keep Scotland out of the European Union, out of the single market—

To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government considers this month’s changes to United Kingdom migration rules will have on the seasonal workforce in Scotland, as the soft fruit sector begins to prepare for the summer season. (S6F-03030)

—and without freedom of movement.

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland needs not a change of Government at Westminster, but the change that only independence can bring?

As the minister will be aware, a significant amount of innovative work is under way in the Clackmannanshire part of my constituency, including the growing partnership between NHS Forth Valley, the University of Stirling and Forth Valley College, as well as the sector-leading work on sustainable ageing, which is planned as part of the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal. The minister will also be aware of how central and fantastic the locations of Clackmannanshire and Stirling are.

Does the minister agree that locating the headquarters of Scotland’s national care service alongside that centre of innovation would align with its goal of future proofing the social care sector for generations to come, and will she meet me to discuss potential opportunities further?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder if it is possible for you to clarify, given the terms of the motion that we are about to discuss, which is on repeal of the 2021 act, that the actual effect of a majority vote for the motion—which I do not expect to happen—would have no impact on the 2021 act or on the law as it currently stands.