���˿���

Thank you very much. Again, that was really fascinating.

We move to further consideration of governance and funding.

The links to other committees are interesting, as is the subject expertise that the officers bring.

Does the Officers of Parliament Committee have the same functions as other committees, or is it different because of its unique role and structure? How often does it meet every year, for example? Can you say a bit more about its composition?

That was really interesting. We move from budget setting and scrutiny to questions about criteria and decision making for creating officers of Parliament. To probe those issues a little, I pass to our colleague Murdo Fraser, who joins us remotely.

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee.

Ash Regan MSP has sent her apologies for the start of this meeting and hopes to join us later. I have received no other apologies. I am joined in the room by Richard Leonard MSP and Lorna Slater MSP. Our colleague Murdo Fraser MSP joins us remotely.

Today, the committee will take evidence on the New Zealand officers of Parliament. We are pleased to welcome Dr David Wilson, clerk of the House of Representatives of the New Zealand Parliament. Thank you for your time and for being with us this morning, Dr Wilson. We are looking forward to hearing your insights. Thank you for taking our questions and joining us for our evidence taking.

We will move directly to questions. My first question is quite generic. At the start of each previous evidence session, we have asked those in front of us what they think the purpose of an SPCB-supported body is. In the same way, for completeness, I would be grateful if you could outline what the purpose of a New Zealand officer of Parliament is and what you think their purpose is.

That was really helpful additional information, Dr Wilson. I see that colleagues in the room have no further questions.

Thank you again for your time and insights. We are grateful to have heard from you this morning—it is morning where we are and it is evening where you are. You mentioned at one point that you might follow up with a bit more detail—if you could, we would be grateful for it.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

I am sorry to interrupt Liam Kerr as he was concluding. I appreciate the point that he makes about other jurisdictions, but I highlight the challenge that we face, collectively, as a result of the fact that Scotland has a system of corroboration, which makes us distinct. We must consider all the different aspects of what makes Scotland’s current system distinct when we consider what changes we may or may not wish to make.

Will the deputy convener take a short intervention?

I really respect the discussion that we have had this morning and all colleagues’ deliberations on these very significant changes. Like colleagues, I feel the weight of responsibility heavily today and have done throughout this process. I joined the committee after stage 1, and it is this change that has been most on my mind since joining the committee.

Some may argue that we should not have considered these changes to the criminal justice system at all. I do not agree with that. Many stakeholders have been arguing for change for a long time, and there is an electoral mandate to consider these issues. That is why the Government has introduced the legislation. It has done so to respond to the calls from different quarters to change our legal system. Both in the committee stage 1 report and throughout the stage 2 process, we have agreed to remove the not proven verdict because it is felt to be unsatisfactory by different parties. That has been debated and articulated, so we have already embarked on a process of change.

Colleagues have talked about how the proposition from the Government has an element of the unknown and about how we need to pick between that and what has been argued is the known position in Sharon Dowey’s amendments, which reflect the Law Society submission and much of the system in England and Wales. However, a jury of 15 is a known element as well, because, as Liam Kerr articulated in his thoughtful contribution, we have had a jury of 15 for several centuries.

Scotland’s system is unique in the world. We have drawn on a variety of evidence—the Parliament has taken a substantial amount of evidence, and a substantial amount of evidence has been submitted—so, although I respect colleagues’ points of view, I do not think that it is fair to say that there is not an evidence base for the decision that we are considering today.

We are in a position in which we are an outlier, and in which we are trying, with a deep sense of responsibility, to improve the criminal justice system for all involved. My mind, therefore, has tried to settle on the issue of how we consider both what is safe and what is effective. I do not think that we will ever get a perfect outcome. There is no way of analysing and coming to a perfect position. This is all about a balance and, as has been articulated, considering the four pillars of the criminal justice system in Scotland.

I have come to my view after much deliberation, probing and engagement. I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with the Law Society of Scotland and I remind colleagues that I am on the roll of Scottish solicitors. I have listened carefully to the evidence from the Government and other witnesses at stages 1 and 2. After weighing everything up, I am reassured by the two-thirds majority proposition from the Government, because a jury of 15 is a known. If we move from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority—if Parliament agrees to that—we are settling on a position that has an additional degree of safeguard. Sharon Dowey’s amendment 92 proposes a five-sixths majority or unanimity, but that is not significantly more than the two-thirds majority that is proposed in the Government amendment.

The Government amendment sets the balance as well as it can be set between, on the one hand, going forward with a known—a jury of 15—and adding the additional safeguard of moving from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority.

I have listened carefully to the points from Katy Clark, and those from Pauline McNeill about the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and seeking a fuller understanding of the breakdown of jury decision making in the current system. However, I am not in a position to give a view on the practicalities of getting that understanding before enactment and implementation. That would be for the Government to articulate.

We are all balancing a difficult decision. How do we arrive at a position where the justice system performs in a way that delivers justice, whether that is for the victim, the complainer or the accused? We are all seeking to build a justice system that is more effective than the present one. That is not me implicitly stating that the current system is not effective, but we are in a process of trying to make improvements, having been called to do so by a number of stakeholders in different ways and having had an electoral mandate, communicated by the public in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, to see change in this area.

I will conclude by saying that the evidence that was given by the senators—and which is repeated somewhat verbatim in the cabinet secretary’s amendments—on the requirement for a majority of “at least 10”, is persuasive.

All things considered, I will be voting for the Government’s amendments.

For clarity, did you mean section 34?