Chamber and committees

When did you come to the conclusion that you could not deliver what the stakeholders wanted, cabinet secretary?

Given that you had had three years of conversation, why did people such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Amnesty and those who were referenced in Maggie Chapman’s and Annie Wells’s questions react in such a visceral way?

I appreciate that my colleagues might well pick up on that point, so I will hand back to the convener.

Unfortunately, I was absent from the committee when we took evidence on these issues. However, obviously, I have read some of the evidence. There is much in the arguments that Maggie Chapman has made that is important and needs to be put on the record and explored, particularly the point about wider access to justice. I hope that the Government will reflect on those points and particularly the one about what it is fair to call a crisis in legal services. That is particularly the case with access to lawyers in criminal defence trials and the availability of lawyers through legal aid. I have had a number of constituency issues relating to the pursuers panel and pursuing solicitors who are at fault.

There is a range of issues that need to be looked at in the round, and I hope that the Government will take that on board. I have a degree of sympathy with Ms Chapman’s approach, but I am concerned about what would happen to the court system if we annul the instruments. I appreciate the costs that are involved and the arguments that have been made. I would be much more comfortable if the minister would say, in summing up, what further action she intends to take as a result of this discussion. However, I share the concerns that annulling the instruments might have a knock-on impact.

Last week, Professor McHarg provided a number of suggestions or a range of options for exploring this issue with the UK Government. To what extent has the Government considered that paper? It would be helpful to understand the cabinet secretary’s intention as to what will form the basis of her discussions with the UK Government.

I used the word “abandoned”—and I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about that—because I think that people feel that the bill has been abandoned for this session of Parliament. I think that it is fair to say that we will not have a bill this session. That is certainly the language that has been used to me by human rights organisations, and I am just trying to relay that back.

I absolutely accept what the cabinet secretary has said about the need for a renewed relationship. That is important, and we have heard a lot of evidence about avenues that could be explored. However, I am trying to understand what honest conversations the cabinet secretary has had, in the three years between the UNCRC judgment and now, with the stakeholders that we have talked about in which she has said what she has just said to me about the need for further work to be done, and what avenues she has explored. I might well talk about one in particular, but it would be helpful for the committee to understand what work has been undertaken during the three-year period.

I am keen to get from Dr Tickell his view of the possibility of solving the problems that have been created.

Does Lucy Miller want to add anything on those questions? I will pivot slightly when I come to Professor O’Hagan, if that is possible.

I appreciate that you do not want to speculate. However, do you think that budgetary pressures perhaps played a role in the overarching programme for government, if not in this decision?

Let us briefly expand on that. On the interaction with the UK Government, the Scottish Government has at times said that the relationship with the previous Government was too difficult in this space, and you seem to be suggesting that the relationship with the new Government provides the opportunity to be more successful. I am not sure that those two things can be entirely true. Are you saying that there is a need for the Government to move forward, state its aim and try to work with the incoming Government regardless, in order to move the bill forward?