Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the member for that intervention. I prefer the phrase “moving into the unknown” rather than “shot in the dark”, but I take the general premise of what she says. However, the committee has already made decisions and we need to take responsibility for that.

As a committee, we agreed that we wanted to move away from the not proven verdict. We put that in our stage 1 report and we have moved on from that point. We are now in a position where, as Liam Kerr said—although I do not agree with where he was going with it, I agree with what he said—we need to make a decision. Although we are moving into the unknown, the cabinet secretary’s proposals are the most balanced. They try to take the majority of views and bring them together into as balanced an action as possible.

We do not know if that will be the case. I do not believe for a minute that the cabinet secretary and the Government would bring forward proposals if they knowingly believed that that would be the case.

What I was about to say will probably answer Katy Clark’s intervention: I believe that this aspect needs to be reviewed. We will come to amendments on that later, but I also believe that the terms of any review should be clear and that stakeholders should understand that there will be a process that tests whether there is an increase in concerns or in achieving convictions. All those different factors can be looked at, and the Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise them. I believe that that will be a very, very important part of the bill in allowing us to move forward.

I will be supporting the cabinet secretary’s amendments at this stage.

Good morning, and apologies for the state of my voice this morning.

I start with the not proven verdict. We have established that the not proven verdict had to go. As others have said this morning, not everybody took that view, but the evidence for it was pretty strong. Unless someone is saying today that we should retain the not proven verdict, and I do not think that there are any amendments to that effect, that brings us to where we are.

Like others, personally, I have found this to be by far the most difficult part of the bill to grapple with, because we need to acknowledge that we are moving into the unknown.

I completely agree with the Government lodging an amendment the effect of which is to retain a jury of 15, and I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for taking on board the committee’s consideration of all the evidence that was given to the committee and directly to Government. The most difficult issue, therefore, has been to do with the verdicts themselves.

I have to say that I agree with Sharon Dowey regarding the jury research, and, although I also accept that it was a good piece of work, ultimately, it involved mock juries, and flaws in the process were outlined quite persuasively by people who appeared before the committee. However, I do not agree with the premise that the Government proposed changes on the basis of that research alone. The cabinet secretary has already outlined the position in her opening remarks.

We have heard the opposing stances on the size of majorities. The Lord Advocate’s letter has been mentioned. It clearly says that she feels that not having a simple majority any more would make it more difficult to get a conviction. We have also heard Sharon Dowey, backed up by Liam Kerr, outlining her amendment and providing evidence to support near unanimity—that is easy for me to say.

I go back to something that Rona Mackay said a minute ago. It is our job to find a balance. That is why I am happy to support the Government’s amendments. I am concerned that it might be made even more difficult to get a conviction in such a system, as Pauline McNeill outlined, but the simple fact is that we do not know. We do not know how juries currently act and, as I already said, we are moving into an unknown space. Of course, we have corroboration, which other members and the cabinet secretary mentioned.

Liam Kerr made a good argument for arriving at that position, and he made it well, demonstrating his legal background. However, I do not agree with him, because the Scottish system remains unique. As my colleague Ben Macpherson said in an intervention on Liam Kerr, corroboration remains as well. Simply copying another system is not the right way forward. That is why I will support the Government’s amendments. They bring the most balance and juggle all the various factors of Scots law.

I will say that, whatever decision we take today in going forward into stage 3, we all remain uncomfortable about the impact that it might have. As Pauline McNeill said, it is unclear whether there will be an increase or a decrease in the number of convictions and what the scale of that increase or decrease will be. What is really important is that the bill is reviewed. I understand that there will be later amendments that we will probably get to next week—

My apologies for being late—I had some train trouble today. As the convener alluded to, when you are late, you run the risk of covering things that have been answered or were included in the opening statements. I apologise if that is the case, and feel free to let me know if the issue has been covered.

The committee has heard that damp and mould problems can be created or exacerbated by poor-quality installation or insulation to existing homes. What are your organisations doing to ensure that renovations and retrofits will not create damp and mould problems for tenants in future? Given the size of the panel, I perhaps do not need everybody to answer, convener.

Do you feel that that approach will safeguard tenants into the future? If so, how long into the future?

I will be brief. I, too, take the opportunity to offer my thanks to Amelia Price. She has been in touch with me, and we have corresponded. I thank her for her bravery in talking about her situation.

I believe that the three amendments in the group have merit. However, as Maggie Chapman outlined, Pam Gosal’s amendment does not cover cases in which the perpetrator is a stranger. That issue would need to be ironed out.

As Sharon Dowey said, I know that the Government will cite concerns about the amendments’ potential impact on court decision making. We need to be fully aware of that.

I have not had a chance to speak with the members who lodged the amendments about this, but I wonder whether they and the cabinet secretary have any plans to meet ahead of stage 3 to iron out the difficulties and to try to agree to something that meets their aims and objectives. If they do, they need not move or press their amendments today. Perhaps the cabinet secretary and Pam Gosal could address that.

Convener, I must apologise to you and to colleagues on the committee—I probably should have come in on this as an intervention during the discussion on amendment 251, which was the amendment on remorse being shown by prisoners. I know that we have had a good discussion on that, but, as a previous criminal justice social worker, I just want to say to Jamie Greene that it is my understanding that remorse is definitely taken into account in the probation system—and in the criminal justice system generally—from the early stages of report writing right through to when somebody is in custody and waiting for release. I just wanted to note that.

I agree with other members—I do not think that we can support amendment 251 at this time. It raises a lot more questions than answers when we take into account Rona Mackay’s point about the impact when people cannot display remorse and, of course, the opposite of that—that is, when people feign it.

From what I have said, members might think that people who work in the justice system grapple with this issue every day, but I agree with Rona Mackay—I think that it was her, although it might have been Pauline McNeill—that, by bringing it into the bill, we run the risk that it will become a crucial deciding factor, one way or another. As other members have said, the committee has not had the opportunity to scrutinise the full implications of that.

I have a lot of respect for the member. He has brought a lot to this stage of the bill, as he did when he was on the committee, but I encourage him not to move the amendment at this stage.

I must apologise again, convener. With hindsight, I think that it would have been better to have come in when the debate was going on, but I felt that the member was getting a lot of interventions at that point.

Thanks, convener. I will try to be as seamless as possible but, given that I am online, I am happy for you to decide who will answer the questions.

I want to ask about the impact of the cost of living and fuel poverty. That is a fairly big issue just now and it takes up a lot of our constituency inboxes. To what extent is the cost of living crisis impacting on the problems of dampness and mould in homes? Can any other support be provided to tenants to manage fuel costs and keep their homes adequately warm?

The Scottish Government has argued that RAAC remediation work is solely a matter for home owners and landlords. What is your view on that approach?