Chamber and committees

It actually takes them further. It is much more comprehensive.

You must forgive me, Mr Findlay; I am trying to operationalise in my head how that would work in practice.

Yes, that is the recurring cost.

The Government has been engaging with stakeholders on that issue since around 2019. In the consultation responses, there was broad support for a victims and witnesses commissioner. Clearly, there is a demand for it from victims and victims organisations, although I hasten to add that we would not expect a unanimity of views. The purpose of that provision is to establish an independent statutory commissioner who would be accountable to the Parliament and whose role would complement, rather than duplicate, that of victims organisations, for example.

You mentioned the issue of funding. Currently, we invest heavily in victims organisations. We have allocated £48 million to the victim-centred approach fund and £19 million to the equally safe fund. The cost of establishing a victims and witnesses commissioner is laid out in the bill’s financial memorandum. No financial cost is insignificant, but the costs associated with that proposal are far less substantial than the amount that we are currently investing and will continue to invest in victims organisations.

Lady Dorrian’s review was silent on that. The cross-sectoral working group that picked up the work following her review opted for the position, which is also the Government’s current position, that it would be mandatory for the accused in the relevant cases to participate in the pilot. In the same way, when looking at how the justice system operates more broadly, complainers or the accused do not decide which court, at which level or which procedure would be used for their case—that is mandatory. The other practical aspect is that, where we seek the Parliament’s consent to introduce regulation to have a time-limited pilot, any pilot will require a certain number of cases if it is to be effective, particularly if it is to be time-limited.

We have not considered it or consulted on it. It was not part of the Lady Dorrian review or of any of the recommendations that flowed from that, and we have not explored in any way the unintended consequences of such an extension to anonymity.

One of the advantages of removing the not proven verdict is that, in a two-verdict system, people are either guilty or not guilty, and if someone is found to be not guilty, that is clear and unambiguous.

It is important to reflect a little bit on the history of jury sizes, which have varied over the years. For example, during the second world war, the jury size was much lower than 15 members. The size of the jury has changed at different points in history.

The core of the evidence is that, if we reduce the size of the jury from 15 members to 12, we have higher levels of participation, lower levels of jurors not participating and less domination by some jurors. In essence, reducing the size is about responding to the evidence that says that it improves the process of deliberation. It is no more complicated than that.

I will ask Lisa McCloy to respond to Ms Dowey’s question about the qualified majority, which is sliding and exists in most circumstances when jurors have to be excused part way through the process. However, there are one or two exceptions.

I will flag up a point that might be useful. The policy memorandum speaks in detail about the jury research and gives a reference to it. We have published information today or yesterday about rape myths, which also talks about the research. I assure the committee that information is publicly available so that people can peruse the further detail.

The point that I was making in reference to the research is that we do not want to change one part of the jury system in isolation because that may well have unintended consequences. That is why we are looking at this as a package. We are following the evidence that was illuminated by the research. I hope that I understand Ms Clark correctly. The reforms will apply to all cases and throughout the system, so we must ensure that there is balance, fairness and integrity and that there are none of the unintended consequences that might be caused by changing one part without changing the other constituent parts.

It is important to stress that the jury reforms are not about increasing or decreasing conviction rates; they are about the integrity and fairness of our system, and transparency in decision making.

In my opening remarks, I intimated that there are challenges in people having confidence in a verdict that cannot be explained and which is open to interpretation. The independent Scottish jury research demonstrated that the not proven verdict was not understood by jurors and that understanding of it varied. It was sometimes seen as a compromise verdict. It was used if people believed that someone was guilty, but there was not enough evidence. The evidence also showed that people believed that the verdict came with associated stigma.

If we are moving from a three-verdict system to a two-verdict system, we have to make associated reforms to ensure that we keep a balanced system. Removing the not proven verdict is, of course, a historic reform, but we have to consider our verdict system in the round by considering the number of verdicts, moving from a simple to a qualifying majority and the size of juries. On all three counts, our system is unique—there is no other comparable system. However, the overriding message that I want to convey is that this is about the transparency of the decision-making process, so that we can have as much confidence as possible in the administration of justice and that our convictions and verdicts command confidence. The reforms are in no way a blunt tool in any shape or form to increase or decrease convictions.

Convener, I am not gonnae breenge into Northern Irish affairs. With respect to—