Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning to the panel. I would like to explore two areas. The first is the proposal to make it an offence to use the title of lawyer when there is an

“intent to deceive ... in connection with providing ... legal services”.

As this is our first evidence session, I am looking for comments on where the witnesses stand on that provision. By extension, is there any risk that regulating the title of lawyer unduly restricts the work of other unregulated lawyers, such as paralegals, legal academics and so on? I am looking for a broad view on where you stand on the provision. I am quite happy to hear from you in any order. [Interruption.] Do not all rush.

Does anybody else have any views on that? Excellent. Thanks very much. That was good.

I also want to ask about the bill’s provisions on alternative business structures. Again, I am looking for a broad discussion-based response to get your thoughts on the proposals to liberalise ABSs and what impact that might have on consumer practice.

My questions are on part 6 of the bill and anonymity for victims. Cabinet secretary, can you outline the advantages of replacing the current approach to anonymity for victims of sexual offences with a statutory protection, as outlined in the bill?

I very much welcome that provision. Was any consideration given to the possibility of extending anonymity to accused persons? That is a much more difficult area, but during the debate on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee in the chamber last Thursday, I was struck by the discussion of the impact on the family members of the accused, which was a point that was put quite powerfully by members. The person is an accused person, but more often than not, their family members are innocent parties, yet they are also impacted by such serious accusations. Has the Government given any consideration to extending the right to anonymity?

I have a brief question because we have covered a lot already. It follows on from Katy Clark’s line of questioning. Priority may be the wrong word, but I am interested in understanding whether the Government has a priority within the reforms and where any lines in the sand might be. If this committee, or the Parliament as a whole, decided to amend the bill—for example to retain the not proven verdict or to require only a simple majority for a guilty verdict—where would the Government stand on that? Does part 4 of the bill have to come as a whole package?

That brings me on to my follow-up question. You have predicted where I am going today, Heather.

I think that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are, a lot of the time, quite keen on high-level stuff. Even the engagement here is about national scales. You gave a good example, but how can the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government get more into the decisions that actually affect people? For example, in North Lanarkshire, which is my area, there is a lot of talk about shutting down libraries, swimming pools and so on. There will be big debates about that in the next few weeks, as the subject is aired more. How do we get to the people we have spoken about to hear their views on those things and their impact? What more can the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament do? Today’s discussion, apart from the Fa’side example, has been quite high-level—at Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government level. What about the stuff that is impacting people on the ground? Does anybody have ideas about what more we can do to allow people’s voices be heard?

My line of questioning follows on particularly from Heather Williams’s remarks. The committee has heard many times that particular groups who rely on public services are most impacted by budgeting decisions—for example, disabled people; black, Asian and minority ethnic people; and women. What more can the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament do to make sure that their voices are heard? We have talked a wee bit about this and you have heard from the convener about something that the committee is trialling, which so far looks to be doing well.

You have certainly given us a lot of food for thought when we come to discuss what we have heard today.

There are two wee points that I want to ask about—well, they are wee in terms of the evidence session, but they are not small by any means. During the pandemic, there was an increase in the number of deaths in prison. John Swinney asked about that. Did you ever get any information, or was information ever released as part of the work that you did, about what caused those deaths? Did they relate to the pandemic—either the virus or the restrictions? Did you ever get a feel for that?

Thank you very much for your evidence.

On a similar point, you mentioned that there had been an increase in the number of deaths over the summer, since May. Is there any analysis of why that has happened?