Chamber and committees

Audit Scotland has previously explained that you can charge only for work that has been undertaken. There was an inference that there may be an element of additional fee income from work that is undertaken in 2022-23, but which relates to audits from previous years. To what extent does the budget proposal include fee income arising from audits relating to previous years as well as fee income from work undertaken in 2022-23?

In paragraph 65 of the budget proposal, Audit Scotland advises that it expects its headcount

“will increase further as we continue to identify key areas requiring further investment”.

How many additional posts are expected beyond the headcount of 330? Have the costs of additional posts been included in the budget projections for 2023-24 and 2024-25 that appear in table 1 on page 10 of the budget proposal?

Auditor General, you have perhaps just answered my first question. What is your latest estimate for when you will catch up with the audit work that has been delayed because of disruption due to the pandemic?

Thank you. This is my final question. What further update can be provided on implementation of the recommendations in the consultant’s report on the commission’s workforce structure and the financial implications that will arise?

I wish to consider some of the issues that were raised about weaknesses in business planning. The Auditor General’s report outlined that the auditor was unable to conclude that the commission would be in a financially sustainable position over the medium to long term because of weaknesses in its overall business planning. That included a need for the commission to further develop its medium-term financial plan and to develop its workforce planning and staffing structure, which you mentioned earlier.

At the evidence session on 2 December 2021, the chair and chief executive of the Crofting Commission explained how the commission intended to develop its medium-term financial plan and said that it had appointed consultants to review its staffing structure. Is the Scottish Government content with the commission’s on-going financial position and the steps that it has taken to improve its medium-term financial plan?

Thank you. A lot of work is going into the workforce plan. The issue of input to the budget was highlighted in the previous report. What is being done to ensure appropriate involvement of the board and others in setting the commission’s budget?

Are you quite happy that once the plan is implemented there will be a system of on-going review to ensure that issues can be highlighted and acted on immediately?

The not proven verdict, which is perhaps the most unique aspect of Scots criminal law, has split opinion through the centuries. It is easy to see how controversial the verdict is from its many names: the convenient verdict, the sophisticated but ungracious verdict, or the second-class acquittal. It is characterised as both ambiguous and indefensible. Sir Walter Scott, perhaps Scotland’s most famous lawyer, even referred to it as a “bastard verdict”, and said:

“One who is not proved guilty is innocent in the eyes of the law.”

That is a view that many share, and it is the reason why we are gathered here today. Just as elected representatives and judges in Scotland have gathered to debate the issue, not just in 2016 but in 1994, 1975 and even in 1728, when a Scottish jury declared its ancient right to pass a judgment of not guilty rather than use the term “not proven”.

A “historical accident” is how some have described the verdict. Numerous legal academics support that theory. It has been noted that

“there were no set forms of verdict used by early juries”

and that a wide range of terms was used. Not proven was just one verdict among many, with those found guilty sometimes being found “fylet, culpable and convict”, whereas those who were not guilty were “clene, innocent and acquit”. Not proven is the product of a messy legal system: a wrinkle from a different time that has never quite been ironed out, and one that is now having severe repercussions in the 21st century.

We hear it from all corners of society: from the families of murder victims, victims of domestic abuse, and women’s rights organisations. Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre have all campaigned to abolish the verdict.

“Not proven is not justice”

they say, and they are right. The role of not proven in cases of sexual violence is evidence enough for the verdict’s removal. Conviction rates for rape are much lower than those for any other crime. The removal of the not proven verdict would strengthen the law in this area and introduce an element of black and white to such cases, rather than the unsatisfying ambiguity that a not proven decision leaves behind.

What is more, if the verdict was a satisfactory way to resolve cases, we would be seeing it used in courts around the world. Instead, we find that only 0.06 per cent of the world’s population live in jurisdictions that use the verdict. That should say it all.

It is time for a little housekeeping in the Scottish legal system. We have heard many statistics, case studies and arguments made by my Scottish Conservative colleagues calling for the abolition of this ancient verdict. They are right, as history has shown time and again. Not proven has no place in our legal system today, just like a horse and cart has no place on a motorway.

I am on my last sentence.

I urge members to support the motion and abolish this out-of-date verdict for good.

As you say, at the moment, the process is so long that by the time the Scottish Government actually gets around to offering someone a job, they have already taken a job elsewhere, which adds to the issue.

During the committee round table on Scotland’s colleges, we heard that the national health service in Edinburgh also had a long recruitment lead time of around 12 weeks. However, we also heard that it had managed to reduce the process to four weeks because of the pandemic and the need to recruit staff at pace. Do you know whether the Scottish Government is actively seeking to adapt and change its recruitment processes?