Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me for interrupting, but, just to be absolutely clear, would it be Victim Support Scotland’s position that a case involving a charge of murder should be prosecuted in the sexual offences court and not be retained by the High Court?

I am, but I am speaking more widely, too. The cabinet secretary has made proposals in her letter about changing certain aspects of the bill as it was introduced. When you were looking at that, did you think, “Hang on, that will have a cost implication for our organisation or the sector more generally,” and, if so, do you think that that will be factored in by the cabinet secretary?

I am very grateful for that.

Good morning. I remind the committee, witnesses and anyone who is watching of my interests, in that I am a practising solicitor and I am regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.

At stage 1, the cabinet secretary told the committee—these are my words—that the system needs to be considered holistically, such that, if you remove the not proven verdict, you need to do something with the jury size, for example. That view was reflected in Stuart Munro’s opening remarks.

Now, of course, the cabinet secretary is winding back on jury size but increasing the majority that is needed for a conviction. Michael Meehan, in the faculty’s view, does adding two to the majority provide sufficient safeguards in light of the removal of the verdict? Is there any evidence to suggest that a two-thirds majority is appropriate in a two-verdict system?

Kate Wallace, do you want to add to that?

I understand. Kate Wallace, do you have a view on that?

Kate Wallace, you have cued me up nicely by talking about the victim notification scheme. I recently asked a written question of the Government about the contact centre, the answer to which suggested that money for any developments would need to be found from existing budgets for the sector. In that context, do the changes to the bill that the cabinet secretary is proposing make any difference to the resources that your organisations might need in order to continue to carry out your work effectively? If so, do you get the sense that the cabinet secretary is seeking funding for that?

I have two questions. First, Dr Plastow, just last week, the Parliament had an interesting debate on artificial intelligence. What do you see as the opportunities and challenges from the increasing use of AI in your field of biometrics?

Sticking with the investment that may or may not be coming down the line, in your response to the convener you talked, rightly, about the need for capital investment. The committee heard from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority that, as they put it, an increased capital allocation of £83 million is required to allow them to deliver a basic rolling replacement programme—an estates master plan. If they do not get that—if that is not what they see in the budget—what does the cabinet secretary understand will have to not happen as a result?

I remind the committee up front that I am a solicitor, although I have not done legal aid work for 20 years and I do not do criminal defence work.

Cabinet secretary, I understand and respect the answer that you gave to Pauline McNeill. However, the questions that she put to you are key. We know that there is a huge problem with the lack of numbers of solicitors who enter criminal defence, and evidence shows that that is due to unsustainable working conditions and—according to the dean of the Faculty of Advocates—inadequate remuneration. You will be very aware that Aamer Anwar & Co recently pulled out of doing legal aid work, because those solicitors cannot continue to fund it themselves. That has led many commentators to talk about an inability to access justice.

None of us—least of all you, I know—wants such a situation in Scotland, so give me a direct answer, please: will the Scottish Government do anything about legal aid in the forthcoming budget, and anything about the structural issues that underlie the situation in which we find ourselves?