Seòmar agus comataidhean

Today’s debate has highlighted the urgent need for the dangerous dogs legislation to be updated. I know that the Scottish Government has done work on that, and I hope that a bill will be introduced sooner rather than later, because dog attacks in Scotland have risen by 80 per cent in the past decade. Even in the past year, dog attacks on postal workers have increased by 15 per cent.

How I will vote today will be determined by the attacks that have taken place recently, some of which have been horrific. I will vote against the motion, not because I think that the statutory instrument that is before us is well drafted or represents the solution, but because I think that it will address some of the problem. I therefore feel that I have no choice other than to support it, for community safety reasons.

I hope that the point that Christine Grahame made so powerfully about the quality of the legislation that we pass is taken on board by the Scottish Parliament, because it is one that is made repeatedly. From what the minister has said, I understand that the provisions have been defined in the way that they have simply to mirror the approach that is being taken down south. I question whether that is the right approach. However, that is what is in the statutory instrument that we have in front of us. We cannot amend it. If we reject it, it will be some time before more proposals come back. On that basis, I feel that I have to support the Scottish Government position today.

You have to accept that politicians will presume that there might be a cost-cutting agenda here, because that was the experience in the past. Pauline McNeill has outlined one example of that, and there are others.

If the pilot led to lower conviction rates, I would see that as a failure. I wonder whether you agree with me on that.

Are you saying that the committee’s views would be taken into account? I am not saying that you would necessarily agree with those views, but would you consider them?

Cabinet secretary, you said that the evidence was clear on the impact of removing the not proven verdict on the number of convictions, but the evidence that we have heard is far more mixed. We were not aware of the metadata evidence that you mentioned to Pauline McNeill, but we were aware of the other Scottish mock jury research to which we have been directed.

The views that we have heard from the various witnesses who have come to speak to us are far more complicated, as, I am sure, you are aware. Witnesses have also told us that it is not possible to provide a breakdown of whether jury decisions were unanimous or majority or to provide exact numbers and a breakdown of outcomes from juries. Would it not be sensible to get that data before we make significant changes to jury majorities in the Scottish system? There is a dispute over whether we can do that legally in Scotland, and legislation has been passed down south to enable that kind of research to take place. Would it not be sensible to have a better understanding of what happens now before we make really significant changes to the system?

I have spoken to the cabinet secretary previously about independent legal representation beyond what is proposed in the bill. Given that she has been to Norway and various other jurisdictions that have more extensive rights of advice and representation for victims, has she any reflections on that?

But you will go there.

I do not think that there is any suggestion that the outcomes of individual cases would be publicised; we are talking about research across the board so that we can begin to understand trends and what is actually happening. I know that we are short of time, but it is surprising that we are not trying to get a firmer evidence base. The cabinet secretary says that the evidence is clear, but that is not what other witnesses have said to us, as I am sure that she has seen.

Given everything that Pauline McNeill said about previous experience, cabinet secretary, do you not accept that we need clarity in the black letter of the law? It does not matter what politicians’ intentions are, and it does not matter what assurances or correspondence there is with the committee—what matters is what the law will be.

If you are going to set up a separate court, there need to be clear rights. The alternative would have been to have specialist divisions of the sheriff court and the High Court and many people would argue for that. They could work differently from the way things are at the moment, with their own rules of court. However, you have chosen this pathway, so you must surely accept that there must be absolute clarity in the black letter of the law that the rights of those involved will not in any way be reduced. Does the cabinet secretary accept that?

I am quite happy to have a yes or no answer. What do you see as success and failure?