Chamber and committees

In defence of my colleague Murdo Fraser, when we ask these questions, we are not doing so from the position of making a proposal or giving a set view. We ask them to cover the remit of our committee and to ensure that we obtain the evidence that we need to take the work forward. In that context, your examples are helpful to the committee, Gina. Murdo Fraser’s questions and the response that we have received have been helpful, so thank you for adding that.

Thank you for those helpful insights, examples and responses.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for agreeing to have this evidence session between stages 1 and 2. It has been really helpful, particularly given the other sessions that we have had at this juncture. This is a very significant bill, and we want to get it right for many decades to come. Before I ask my questions, I remind members that I am registered on the roll of Scottish solicitors.

When the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates gave evidence to us on 4 December, they said that

“the removal of ... not proven ... is a fundamental change”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 27.]

but the strong indication seems to be that the not proven verdict will be removed, which is something that I support. Of course, corroboration will be a part of this, although we had the Lord Advocate’s reference last autumn. In the interests of balance, I note that the Law Society and the faculty stated to us that, although the Scottish system has differences compared with other systems across the world, no other common-law jurisdiction works in the way that is being proposed for stage 2, with the change to the jury of 15 and a two-thirds majority. The view of the Law Society of Scotland was that

“every other common-law jurisdiction has 12-person juries and requires unanimity or something very close to it”,—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 27.]

while the Faculty of Advocates said:

“The view that the faculty endorses and has expressed is that modern thinking is that one should have either unanimity or a majority of 10 out of 12.” —[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 28.]

I am not against our being unique, but it is something that we need to consider collectively when we seek to do something that is quite different from other common-law jurisdictions across the world. I know that you have already commented on that in response to colleagues, but perhaps you have something further that you wish to say. I have one other question to follow, too.

My next question follows on quite nicely from that. In your letter to Parliament of 31 October, you stated that

“the majority of Senators preferred if Scotland changes to a two verdict system”

with

“a two thirds majority requirement for conviction.”

It was interesting that the senators, in their submission on the bill, suggested

“a conviction of at least 10 in favour of such a verdict”.

Was there consideration of 11 or 12? Is that something that we collectively, as a Parliament, can or should probe? The senators’ position was “at least 10”. Is that something that we can discuss further today, or think about in the weeks ahead?

I am conscious that the senators mention the phrase “at least 10” in their written submission. I just wonder whether we require to go back to them on that specific point at this juncture, given the changes that have been proposed between stages 1 and 2 and as we move towards stage 3.

Perhaps I will just leave that hanging. Thank you very much.

I will go back to the discussion about the proposed commissioner. For completeness, the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee was established following an inquiry into the commissioner landscape by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I convene that new short-term committee and place on record that if the cabinet secretary and the Government wanted to write to that committee to set out the arguments and evidence for the importance of the commissioner that the bill proposes, that would be helpful and welcome.

For clarity, I was not disputing that.

Thank you for providing Parliament with your thoughts on those matters.

Is there anything that you want to say that you have not had a chance to emphasise to us?

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2025 of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. I have received no apologies.

Today, the committee will take evidence from the Scottish Information Commissioner and then from the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. I welcome to the committee David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner. We will move straight to questions.

My first question is a general one. I appreciate that you have provided us with a written submission, for which we are very grateful, but what do you consider to be your purpose as the Scottish Information Commissioner, and how does your role differ from the role of, for example, ministers, members of the Scottish Parliament and other bodies?

In that context, how do you perceive your current role—and, if you want to comment more widely, that of all SPCB supported bodies—with regard to enhancing public trust and confidence in public life in Scotland?