Chamber and committees

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.

Thank you for your time and for all your reflections and answers today. I also thank you for your written submission, and I thank you in advance for the follow-up letter and further correspondence on which you gave an undertaking to Mr Leonard.

It does, and it is helpful in the context of your six key recommendations, especially the sixth one. Thank you very much for elaborating on that.

Before we conclude, is there anything that you have not had the chance to say or to emphasise?

Before I go to colleagues, I want to pick up on a couple of points.

You talked about how you are not necessarily familiar with the work of other commissioners, which is fully understandable, but it is clear from your earlier remarks just how comprehensive your role is. I think that you said that it goes from GPs all the way up to the Scottish Government and across the public sector. Do you want to say a bit more about that? It is different from the work of some other bodies.

You also talked about the big picture and the whole system. Thank you for citing the example of third sector funding in that regard. As we look at what we have been tasked with in respect of SPCB supported bodies, do we need to see that in the context of all the other commissioners and public bodies that provide similar functions but are funded by the Scottish Government, rather than by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body?

In your written submission, you say:

“From a functional perspective, I think I stand both alone in the public sector landscape and alone in the Commissioner landscape.”

The rest of the paragraph elaborates on that first sentence, but it captures the point that you are trying to emphasise. Do you want to say more about that?

That is very helpful. All your evidence today has been helpful, as has your written submission.

I thank both of you for attending, for your contributions and for your time. Next week, the committee will hear from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. As previously agreed, we now move into private session to consider today’s evidence.

As colleagues do not have any further questions, I will ask one last question. It is quite broad, but it is an important one.

You talked—quite rightly—about the need for organisations to ensure that they have resource for responding to freedom of information requests. I know from my experience how much time is taken up in responding to the important right to freedom of information. However, in recent weeks, there has been some discussion in the public and parliamentary domains about portfolio questions perhaps being overused and, arguably, irresponsibly used. Do you want to say anything about the responsible use of and engagement with freedom of information by parliamentarians, journalists and the general public, and about the impact of requests on your resources and those of other bodies?

If you have nothing to say, that is fine. I appreciate that that is a broad question, but I thought that it was relevant in the wider context of prudence.

Welcome back. I am pleased to welcome to the committee Dr Brian Plastow, who is the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, and Ross MacDonald, who is the director of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner’s office. Thank you for joining us, for your written submission and for your time.

We move directly to questions. As with other witnesses in recent weeks, the first question is from me. I would be grateful if you would set out what you consider to be the purpose of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner and how that differs from the role of ministers, MSPs and other bodies that exist for the public and common good of Scotland.