³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That was really helpful. I certainly acknowledge that the powers might well be needed, but the cabinet secretary should appreciate that we are interested in where the safeguards are. If I am to agree to the instrument today, I need to be satisfied that safeguards exist. Moreover, going back to a comment that you made to Jamie Greene, I am uncomfortable with extending the powers to next March, and the length of time that you are asking for might be reason enough for me to vote against the proposal. I accept a lot of what you have said, and you have told Jamie Greene that you would be prepared to bring the issue back to us before then, but if I am to support the instrument, I need to have that absolutely confirmed. I cannot vote to extend for six months what are quite wide-ranging powers, even with all the safeguards and caveats in place, without the matter being brought back to the committee before next March.

I agree with what has been said and will try not to repeat those points.

I would have been minded to support a motion to annul but I am content with what has been said. I note that the SSI includes the power to suspend purposeful activity and visitation rights and to detain prisoners in their cells if a health professional has said that there is cause for concern around coronavirus. I acknowledge that there are reasons to have those powers but I agree with Jamie Greene and Katy Clark that the committee needs to keep a watchful eye on the length of time for which the powers are in force and the consistency of governors’ decisions. As the cabinet secretary has indicated to the committee that he would be happy to return to the matter, I am content to do nothing other than to note the instrument.

I note from your submission that you oppose the removal of juries. You will have heard Sandy Brindley talk about another way—about having a judge with lay assessors—and about providing a video for juries to watch in advance, which Lady Dorrian proposed. Would any of those things work or make any difference to outcomes?

First, I will ask Sandy Brindley to go back to where she left off, on the jury majority issue. I want to be clear in my own mind that you would be comfortable with a majority of one if we remove the not proven verdict. I note what you say about a fully unanimous jury verdict being rare; I think that in England, a two-thirds majority is required. Are you comfortable that a conviction for rape or attempted rape in the High Court could be achieved with a majority of one?

That is helpful—thank you.

My second question is to Ronnie Renucci of the Faculty of Advocates. There is quite a lot in your submission, but I will try to narrow it down. I note the faculty’s concerns about the setting up of specialist courts. In your evidence to the committee, you point out that the High Court is already a specialist court. You have concerns about the specific proposal, suggesting that it might downgrade the status or importance of the crime of rape. I wonder whether you wish to say something in response to that.

Staying with the general background, I have a question for Dr Marsha Scott. Everyone seems to be painting a bleak picture. I have been following the issue closely, and I have written to the Lord Advocate.

I note the statistics that Moira Price used. It seems to me that violence against women throughout the United Kingdom, and probably globally, is getting worse. Marsha Scott talked about how the underlying issue is the need for women’s inequality to be resolved. I have been reading in the press about teenage girls of 13 and 14—and some boys, but particularly girls—being bullied to provide nude photographs of themselves.

I am tying all of that together in my own mind. Violence against women by men seems to me to be worse than it was when I first became a politician, in 1999. I follow the international trends. It is a depressing picture.

Marsha Scott, do you agree with that?

I was going to come on to that, but I might as well ask you now, as you are on the screen. What is your view on the complete removal of juries from cases of rape or attempted rape?

I know that. I just want to know what your position is. If we remove the not proven verdict, there could be a majority of one, and you would not have any concerns about that.

I will make it quick. To be honest, I am not sure who is best placed to answer this, but I hope that the witnesses can help me.

We have heard a lot of important stuff, including from Ashley Cameron, about secure care, which probably needs to be reviewed and so on. I know that we are going to come on to discuss deaths in custody, but I want to highlight the case of William Lindsay—also known as William Brown—although I am sure that there are others. He was a 16-year-old who should have been referred to secure care and not to a prison—everyone involved in the case was clear about that. However, my understanding is that secure care was not available.

Has anything happened since that case? I know that there have been other cases to deal with—there seems to be a lack of secure care. I believe that we are only mandated to a maximum of 70 or 80 per cent, leaving the remainder for English placements. I do not understand why we have done that, so can anyone help me understand it? Does anyone have any answers as to whether we have actually acted since that case? To me, it is a death that could have been avoided.

I thank the minister for her thorough explanation. I do not have any questions, but it is worth noting that the minister specifically said that there will be no immunity in relation to road traffic offences, which was an issue that sprung to my mind.