Chamber and committees

PE1994, which was lodged by Margaret Fagan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases. We last considered the petition on 8 March, when we agreed to write to the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, Rape Crisis, Victim Support Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

In that last letter, we sought information on the use of section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, under which an accused person can apply to the court to lead evidence at trial that would otherwise be prohibited by section 274 of that act. We requested information on how many applications have been made under that provision and what proportion of them have been granted—I think that we did that in response to that having been advanced as a way in which matters could be progressed.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s response highlights that the provisions of sections 274 and 275 apply equally to the Crown Office and the defence. Indeed, it cites data that suggest that a substantial minority of applications are made by the Crown and that the majority of applications that are made by each side are granted. It should be noted, however, that the response provides limited information on the total number of applications, which is what we were seeking, and it suggests that the committee might wish to seek more robust data from the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. That is important, because we wanted to understand whether, if this was a route that was open, it was being properly accessed by those to whom it was apparently open.

We have also received responses from the Faculty of Advocates and Victim Support Scotland. The response from the Faculty of Advocates raises concerns about unpredictability and the narrowing of the interpretation of section 275, which might have negative implications for the balance between the rights of complainers and the rights of the accused. Meanwhile, the response that was provided by Victim Support Scotland strongly contests the petitioner’s view that law reforms have resulted in innocent people being wrongly convicted. It argues that that view does not align with the experiences of people affected by crime, nor does it reflect the conviction rates for sexual offences.

In the context of our deliberations, it is important to point out that the issues that are raised by the petition are within the scope of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 1 of its parliamentary process.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of that?

Thank you. In the lifetime of this Parliament, as we have successfully sought to destigmatise issues of mental health, we have brought to light the inadequacies of some of the provision and policies that exist in various fields of life. It seems arbitrary to determine that, irrespective of the personal circumstance of the person concerned, when someone’s child reaches the age of one, the ability of that person to be treated as they would have been when their child was not yet one disappears, with—as is the case in the petitioner’s sister’s circumstance—potentially harrowing consequences.

Do members have any suggestions for further action?

That concludes our consideration of new petitions, and that final flourish from Mr Stewart concludes his contribution to the work of the committee, which I again thank him for.

I wish our clerks and my colleagues on the committee a happy and restful summer. I look forward to seeing who we have on the committee when we return after the break, and we can all live in hope that we will be suitably refreshed when we meet again on 6 September.

I think that Mr Brown and I had all of this out in a television programme once, and I am afraid that he failed lamentably. I happened to notice that, since he accused other members of looking at their phones, he has done nothing but look at his own phone, which I find deeply ironic.

We heard Christine Grahame talk about the European Union. It is true that Scotland voted to remain in the EU referendum in 2016; I was one of those who voted to remain. The fact that we voted to remain has been trumpeted by the SNP, but it has not changed the opinion polls in favour of independence.

Mr Brown likes to pop to his feet and talk—sometimes, not even from his feet—about Liz Truss and the dreadful economic catastrophe, as he sees it, that was brought about by the UK Government last year. It was certainly an inglorious period in the history of Conservative government, but that has not changed the opinion polls in favour of Scottish independence. Nothing has changed the opinion polls in favour of Scottish independence. Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly said on television after the independence referendum that she would not call for another until there was a sustained, substantial and consistent majority in opinion polls in favour of independence, but that has never happened.

We have this wheeze, which is a little backroom exercise in how to keep the conversation on independence alive—“What can we pretend to say differently?”—when, as other members have said, that is not the real issue. No constituent of mine in Eastwood has ever knocked on my door and said, “Mr Carlaw, what I want is a new constitution to be thought up for an imaginary, post-independent Scotland.” What they have said to me is, “Why is it four years before I can get my gallbladder operation?” when, 20 years ago, when I had mine, the wait was four months. They have asked why it is that they cannot get a ferry to and from the Isle of Arran, why it is that schools are unable to provide qualifications and an education of a standard that we had before this Government came to office and why it is that firefighters are queuing up to complain about the SNP Government.

Those are the real issues, and Sharon Dowey was quite right to say that, in the debates that we have in the Parliament on those issues, the SNP benches are largely empty. Where are SNP members today? [Interruption.] We turn out to discuss the real issues that affect Scotland—[Interruption.]

—while SNP members turn out to discuss nothing but fantasy.

At the climax of it all, we heard from that would-be international revisionist historian, Ross Greer, with his usual backdoor attack on the monarchy. I say to him and the serried SNP ranks beside him that I am confident that the majority of people in this country look forward to the reign of King Charles III, King William IV and, long after we are all dead and gone, King George VII.

I conclude with two simple statements that sum up the mood of the unionist majority in Scotland: advance Britannia, and God save the King!

I suppose that this afternoon’s debate fits neatly into the traditional BBC summer schedule of repeats.

I apologise to members in advance of making my remarks. Unfortunately, I am suffering from a chronic migraine this afternoon. Although I can see you, Presiding Officer, I cannot see anyone else around the chamber—members are all just in a fog. I hope that they will take that into account.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended an event at Eaglesham primary school, in my constituency, which had gone into partnership with Scottish Opera to put on a marvellous production. The kids were in fantastic costumes and they were singing. It was altogether more coherent, joyful and original and better rehearsed than any speech that I have heard from members who have been advocating the motion.

I understand the importance of the games industry to Scotland. I have never played one, but when my sons were younger they used to play something called “The Sims”. It is a video game in which players can construct a completely artificial little world by using ideas from their own heads. They can construct buildings, put in police stations and write constitutions. [Interruption.]

I will, in just a second.

In no election since has the separatist movement come close to achieving anything like the poll in favour of independence that it achieved then.

In the referendum campaign in 2014, which the separatists lost, they said that the vote would be a once-in-a-generation event. What genuinely surprises me is that, in the years since, there has been no attempt whatsoever from the SNP to define what a generation is and say when another referendum might reasonably take place. [Interruption.]

I see that Mr Robertson knows more about the game than I do—it has inspired him in making his contribution.

I never expected a video game to be the hallmark and the centre of Scottish Government policy. Mr Robertson, who is indulging in that fantasy, in what must be regarded as the high watermark of his contribution to public office, has otherwise written some really rather nice books. He wrote an excellent one on Vienna, which I recommend that members read. He would be far better applying himself to that task rather than to the ridiculous nonsense and fantasy that he has brought before the chamber this afternoon.

I do not know how many SNP or Green members who are sitting behind Mr Robertson were in the Parliament in 2007—a smattering, perhaps. That Government, which was led by Alex Salmond, with no record to defend, was actually quite impressive. In the 2011 election it won an absolute majority and the right to fight a referendum on Scottish independence. It fought that referendum and it lost despite the highest turnout for any public vote that there has ever been in any contest at any time in the entire history of the United Kingdom.

Pardon, Presiding Officer?