³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Please do.

That is fascinating. Thank you for sharing all that. I will hand over to my colleagues to pick up those points.

How does an officer of Parliament work along with the rest of the legislature to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account?

Yes, please.

It is interesting that, because of the criteria and processes that have been in place since 1989, New Zealand’s Parliament has kept the officers of Parliament very tight and structured, whereas, looking at the list of Crown entities, I see that they seem to have developed in a less streamlined and systematic way.

I want to go back to one of your earlier answers. It would be good to get a little more clarity on the process that is involved when there is a proposal for a new officer of Parliament. Would a proposal go to the Officers of Parliament Committee before it was legislated for, and would it be considered again by the committee once legislation was introduced? During any scrutiny processes, would subject committees refer to the criteria as well? You spoke earlier about how some proposed officers of Parliament have been considered by the Environment Committee, for example. Would subject committees apply the criteria in the same way?

Thank you. That is a really helpful clarification. I hand back to Lorna Slater to ask questions on support and resources for officers of Parliament.

That is helpful. Finally, is there anything that you want to express or emphasise to us that you think might be helpful and that you have not had a chance to mention in relation to how things operate in New Zealand?

Absolutely.

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.