Chamber and committees

The Government can keep the three remaining time limits under review, and we propose to continue only three out of the seven original time limits. They can be extended only year by year, so they can be extended until next year and thereafter they can be the subject of only one further extension. Any permanent changes to those time limits would require primary legislation; we do not have plans to introduce primary legislation on time limits. We want to get back to the pre-pandemic normal.

I will answer what I think is within my remit. First and foremost, I want, at the earliest opportunity, for us not to have coronavirus time-limit regulations in place. I want them for no longer than they are needed. I want to get back to our original legislation and the standards that are set out in it. This goes back to my experience from the prison system—although that was not yesterday.

I am aware that time limits can always be altered case by case. I do not have statistics to hand, but such alteration is far from uncommon. One of the reasons why I want us to continue with the three time limits is that I want to avoid misuse of precious court resources that should be focused on the backlog and on getting through trials, and I want not to clog up the system with procedural hearings.

On your reflection on increasing investment in the Crown Office, I think that it is a matter of record that in the past five years its budget went up by 50 to 75 per cent—notwithstanding that demands on its workload have most certainly increased, for reasons that were outlined in an earlier evidence session. To be helpful, the committee might wish me to ask the Lord Advocate to reply to Ms McNeill or to write to the committee. I have endeavoured to answer your question as best I can, from my position.

Yes. I read a very helpful quote from a High Court judge, who said that the advantage of having national jurisdiction for callings from custody is that, where there are a number of warrants and indictments from various courts across the country, they can be heard in one place. I am also an advocate for, where possible, not bussing prisoners around the country. I do not think that that is efficient or effective.

Fiscal fines have existed for many decades for less serious crimes and, as I have indicated, they are likely to be crimes that could perhaps be dealt with by the justice of the peace court. There are limits on the type and the nature of offences that would be subject to fiscal fines. They are not for any offence, but maybe officials can give you some further reassurance.

I heard you raise that in earlier committee sessions. I am happy to write to you offline, but my understanding is that you lodged amendments at stage 2 and stage 3 but then did not move them. That related to an exchange that you had with Keith Brown, but I am happy to supply the information that I have been privy to on that.

The draft order is an order in council made by His Majesty under powers in the International Organisations Act 1968. The nature of the reserved-devolved divide means that, where privileges and immunities relate to devolved matters in Scotland, the function of advising His Majesty on the order is devolved. A parallel order has been made and is in force in the rest of the United Kingdom and for non-devolved Scots law. This order confers no new privileges and immunities but simply expands the range of meetings where they apply in line with the 1959 Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

To assist the committee, I will say a little more about the background to this order. In the 1959 agreement, the UK agreed to provide privileges and immunities to representatives of agency members attending

“any international conference, symposium, seminar or panel”

convened by the agency. That language was not entirely reflected in the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974, which implemented the agreement obligations into UK domestic law. The discrepancy recently came to light during the development of the host country agreement requirement to hold the 2023 IAEA fusion for energy conference in London, as it is at odds with the agreement obligation. It was agreed with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that that should be remedied by each Administration to the extent that it has power to do so.

Separately, this order makes consequential amendments resulting from the parallel UK order. That is to restate the provisions of the 1974 order that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and is an opportunity to clarify the definition of representatives of members so that it more fully reflects the wording of the 1959 agreement. Passing this order will correct an historical error and ensure that we are able to fully meet our international obligations.

As a good global citizen, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to bring the order to the Parliament for consideration and I commend it to the committee.

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.

Notwithstanding the fact that some victims organisations take a different view on the value of a victims and witnesses commissioner, it appears to me from the responses to the consultation and the representations that we have received over a number of years that the biggest advocates for such a commissioner are victims themselves.

As for the costs, I have put them on the record, and people will scrutinise them and come to a view as to whether that money should be used to establish a victims and witnesses commissioner. Individual MSPs, parties or committees can do the same and, if they come to the view that the money would be better spent elsewhere, they will of course be free to say so. I have also outlined the investment that we continue to make in victims organisations.

The implementation of that legislation was interrupted by the pandemic and, in the meantime, we have introduced a bill that will put more extensive protections in place in the civil system. The legislation that you are referring to was pretty bespoke and was introduced to deal with certain family cases. The bill will deliver more; indeed, my focus is on delivering more with maximum impact.

Scotland is an outlier in having juries with 15 jurors and three verdicts. We are all rightly proud of our unique Scottish justice system, but it is important to stress that our system has always evolved and learned from others over the centuries and that no part of our justice system is exempt from examination or, indeed, change.