Seòmar agus comataidhean

But that principle is not offended by amendments 189 and 190. To say that it is, is factually incorrect, is it not?

Amendment 179 is another of Russell Findlay’s amendments that I will speak to, as he is unable to be with us today.

This amendment relates to the principle of transparency with regard to open justice. As I explained earlier on amendment 189, victims groups have raised serious concerns about an information vacuum in relation to the panel system. As was set out earlier, more criminal cases will be dealt with by the panel, and that number will increase as a result of the rise in the age.

Scotland’s courts are public buildings. They are open to the public, with proceedings conducted, by and large, in public—that is the default position, albeit that there are important safeguards in place. Judges are, of course, able to conduct proceedings in private and to issue other orders where relevant in relation to victims and witnesses, but the principle remains that transparency is fundamental to open justice, and that must be cherished. Amendment 179 simply seeks to extend that transparency to the panel system, which is increasingly dealing with cases—often serious—of a criminal nature. Crucially, the amendment caveats that by ensuring that the chair will still be able to refuse attendance when that is in the best interests of the child.

I move amendment 179.

How does the principle that the minister has just elaborated stack up against the caveat in section (2) of the amendment, which would allow the chair to make the appropriate decision in the best interests of the child?

I have listened very carefully to what the minister has to say, and she says that she does not agree with the premise of the amendment, but the premise of open justice and transparency is core. Russell Findlay has also put in, very clearly—

We can both look at the Official Report afterwards to check what I noted down when the minister was speaking.

The caveat that Russell Findlay has put into amendment 179 is clear and unequivocal: it gives the chair appropriate jurisdiction over the hearings over which the chair presides. That utterly destroys the minister’s argument that there is, in some way, an erosion of rights. Therefore, I press amendment 179, in Russell Findlay’s name.

Because the principle that the Government opposes is supported by Victim Support Scotland, the legal basis provided by the minister is dubious at best and drafting ambiguities can be cleared at stage 3, I will move amendment 189.

Amendment 189 moved—[Liam Kerr].

On the ground of its being ambiguous?

Forgive me, convener. Do you not need to ask the committee whether it accepts the withdrawal of amendment 174?

Does the minister have any concerns that the amendments could restrict press freedom?

Will the member take an intervention?