Chamber and committees

It is important that I come in here because this group of amendments concerns the operation and impact of the bill. Significant concerns have been raised by experts that sections 12 and 13, concerning restrictions on reporting, are overbroad, unworkable and a significant restriction on media freedoms. Above all, they may well be non-compliant with articles 10 and 8 of the ECHR, and therefore the bill, when it becomes an act, may be inoperable—hence my intervention here.

The committee must concern itself with assisting the Government to avoid passing any more legislation that is unlawful or inoperable and that might ultimately be subject to costly challenge. Therefore, I will put specific questions and request answers to each one in order to seek reassurance for the committee.

Has legal advice been taken specifically on sections 12 and 13? If so, were experts in media law part of that? If so, can we see that advice to reassure ourselves? If not, what will the Government do prior to stage 3 regarding the legality of sections 12 and 13 to ensure that Parliament does not inadvertently pass legally incompetent provisions?

We are not being asked to agree sections 12 and 13; we are being asked to agree section 27 or 28—something like that—on the impact and operation of the bill. In response to what I thought was a very reasonable intervention from Willie Rennie, the minister said, “We will come back to you at stage 3,” but in 15 minutes we will be asked to agree the section on the impact and operation of the bill. I am concerned that the answer that the committee has heard from the minister about going away and dealing with the issue at stage 3—I am paraphrasing—is not sufficient to allow the committee to come to a view. I simply make that point.

May I respond, convener?

With respect, did the advice on sections 12 and 13 specifically say that they will be legally competent, and was that advice from experts in media law?

I am not sure whether Mr Marra will talk specifically about taking forward his amendment 217 with the minister. For when the bill comes to stage 3, what reassurance has he had about the competency and workability of that amendment? Earlier, the minister made reasonable comments about whether there is a risk of imposing a duty that cannot be fulfilled, particularly given what was said about provision elsewhere. Has the member got that reassurance? If not, will he seek it in his further conversations with the minister?

I could do, convener, but, with respect, I think that you just need to call the amendments. You proposed putting the question to the amendments en bloc, and I have objected to that.

I am grateful for the intervention, but I do not think that the amendment would create that duplication. First, it would allow the statement to be made when the court has remitted a case following conviction, and secondly, it would allow the passage of time to be observed. We should remember that the amendment would give the victim the opportunity to make a victim impact statement, instead of imposing an obligation in that respect. That choice will still be there, but the amendment provides an important right to the victim. Should they need to update any previous victim impact statement as a result of, say, some post-traumatic event, it gives them the opportunity to do so.

As I said, I am grateful for the intervention, but I think that I have answered the point in my response.

Help me to understand something on amendment 91, minister. The court that initially puts a non-harassment order in place has a victim impact statement to assist it, but, because the Government intends to vote down amendment 206, the panel might not be able to avail itself of the same level of information. Am I reading that right?

Is it correct that a victim impact statement will be available in one forum but not the other?

Something occurs to me that follows on from Willie Rennie’s well-made point. Has the minister considered the possibility that the solution might be to remove the sections, have the round table and bring the provisions back in a final format in whatever the next vehicle is—the next bill that comes forward—in order to get it right, rather than to pass something that may need to be reviewed later?