Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I bring in other members, minister, I want to touch on your point about the stakeholder forum. You indicated that, in taking the issue forward, you have had extensive engagement with stakeholders. As we all know, they have raised a specific issue around the timescales for constraints, such as muzzling in particular, to be rolled out and the difficulties that that could cause for owners. Will the stakeholder forum look to address some of the concerns that stakeholders have raised? What is the purpose of the forum as the process moves forward?

The final question comes from Pauline McNeill.

The question is, that motion S6M-12106, to annul the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Our next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum for the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, which is UK Parliament legislation. I refer members to paper 2. I invite any views or comments from members, including on whether the committee wishes to recommend to the Parliament that consent be given to the relevant provisions in the bill.

That would be for the Lord Advocate to decide.

I will bring in Sharon Dowey and come back to you if there is time.

We will have a comfort break for five minutes or so. I suspend the meeting.

Thank you for that. A number of members want to come in. I will bring in Sharon Dowey and then Fulton MacGregor.

Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have not received any apologies.

Our first item of business is an evidence session on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. I refer members to papers 1 to 3. I welcome to the meeting Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. We will also be joined by a number of officials at various points during the meeting.

I intend to allow up to two and a half hours for the evidence session. We will stop for a comfort break, and I will suspend the meeting as we move between parts of the bill so that officials can change over. I remind members to keep their questions specific to the part of the bill that we are looking at at the time.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks.

We have to move on. If there is time at the end, I am happy to come back to members who have further questions on part 4 of the bill.

We move on to part 5, which contains the provisions that relate to the creation of a sexual offences court. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware that, last week, Lord Matthews gave evidence to the committee during which he said:

“The judiciary is, broadly speaking, in favour of the proposal for a sexual offences court. We agree with the thinking of and the conclusions drawn by Lady Dorrian’s review group, for the various reasons that she has set out. Despite a number of statutory interventions over the years and the best efforts of everyone involved, the pace of change has been glacial, and we have not been able to effect the cultural change that we think is needed, because reform has been piecemeal.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 31 January 2024; c 21]

We have, of course, heard other concerns about the proposals on resourcing, sentencing powers and the ability of the Lord Justice General to remove judges. Have you had an opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we have heard, and are you able to provide some reassurance on the concerns that have been raised?