Are you saying that the specialist court is the High Court or not? We need to be clear about that. Either it is or it is not. If it is not, that means that it is not the senior court. You can disagree with me. I am saying that you cannot put rape cases in a specialist court—well, perhaps that is not the intention. There is obviously a difference between sexual offence cases, which are non-rape cases, and rape cases.

I really welcome that. I would go so far as to say that, if that practice had continued in such cases, someone—I do not know who—should have been able to intervene and say no. It is so fundamentally oppressive to the victim for that to happen; I was quite shocked by it.

I want to ask about the specialist courts—this question may be for Danielle McLaughlin. Maybe I have not understood this correctly. Is there any reason why the specialist courts cannot be part of the High Court, or is that the intention? It is confusing. It has been suggested that the sentencing power should be 10 years. To my mind, that means that rape cases cannot be brought to a specialist court, because they must go to the High Court—unless you are going to tell me that I am wrong about that.

I support the idea, but I have some issues with a specialist court—I have to be honest about that. We have been here before, when there was a suggestion of grading crimes of rape. Obviously there would be concerns about any suggestion of downgrading if it looked as though such a case was going to a different court. I appreciate that I may not have understood exactly what is intended, but that is my line of questioning.

Including rape?

Do you see where I am coming from?

I want to flag something up, but I am not sure to whom the question should be directed, so I do not really expect an answer.

The Bonomy reforms have extended sentencing powers to five years in the sheriff court. At the time, Lord Bonomy was clear that that should not debar serious cases from having senior counsel. However, it is now virtually impossible to get senior counsel even for a serious case, because it is not automatic, as it used to be. In contrast, my understanding is that, for cases that go to the High Court, there would automatically be counsel.

I flag to everybody that, if rights of audience are an issue for the new specialist court, it will look as though those crimes are being downgraded. Somebody has to address that question somewhere, if you see where I am coming from. There are lots of complex cases in the sheriff courts that previously, before we changed the sentencing powers, would have gone to the High Court—you can check that with the Faculty of Advocates—and I would be concerned if the rules around rights of audience were to change.

I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether that could be flagged up to the partners in relation to the strategic review.

You have made it clear, and your comments were really helpful. I now understand the motivation behind it. Earlier, it sounded as though you were just going to implement the review, but you have made it clear that legislation would be required. That makes complete sense.

I have two sets of questions. One is around the trial diets, and I have another question for Danielle McLaughlin about the specialist court issue.

Mr Fraser, what is your view on ensuring that rape cases have fixed trial diets as opposed to floating ones? I have dealt with such cases, and I have discussed a couple of them directly with you. One survivor had 13 different first diet dates—from any point of view, that is not acceptable. What would the barriers be to implementing fixed trial diets for rape cases, which would prevent the continual rescheduling of those cases?

You mentioned that the location could be moved, which has triggered a memory for me. One survivor told us that the trial, in what is quite a well-known case, was scheduled to be held in Glasgow—you can correct me if I am wrong—and, two days before the start, it was rescheduled for Livingston. To my mind, thinking about the logistics of getting to Livingston and having no support, that is an absolute no-no. I was really quite horrified to hear that.

Good morning. My question is a follow-up from Jamie Greene’s question about pay and staffing. First, though, I say that I fully acknowledge that Crown Office staff having parity with Government lawyers is long overdue. I go back a wee bit on this issue, so I am fully aware of how long that has taken, and I am delighted that it has happened.

My question relates to that issue. The Crown Agent has said that the challenge of outstanding trials is huge. However, I would have thought that, if all the parts of the system are not functioning as they should, we have got a bigger problem. You will be aware of the boycott of court due to the dispute on legal aid fees. Yesterday, I spoke to the presidents of the Glasgow Bar Association and the Edinburgh Bar Association and I heard that those lawyers are working 26 days consecutively over the period of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—including the three weekends. As the Lord Advocate said, if you work out the hourly rate for a lawyer working in those circumstances, you will see that it is pretty low, and the committee has already heard evidence that the conditions are not exactly family friendly.

It is clear that one part of the system is not working. We are losing good lawyers because of the dispute on the issue of legal aid, the end of which is long overdue. Is there a danger that a shortfall in the availability of suitably experienced defence lawyers might undermine efforts to improve criminal justice and meet the challenges that are before you, as you outlined to the committee?

It would be helpful to get a response to the convener’s remark. I raised that issue in our virtual session in September because I represent Glasgow, and, obviously, HMP Barlinnie is an important prison for the west of Scotland. That date just seems so far away.

It is important that I acknowledge, as other members have done, the serious challenge for the Prison Service and its staff during the pandemic and the amazing job that they have done under very difficult circumstances.

Ms Medhurst knows that I am interested in making progress on the amount of fresh air that prisoners can get outside their cells. Obviously, the opportunity to do that has been very much restricted during the pandemic. I do not need to remind you that

“Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work”

is entitled to

“at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air”.

We have heard your answers to our questions, and you cannot be accountable for all that, but we need to make serious progress in Scotland on meeting our obligations under the European convention on human rights. What shift in the budget would be required to double or make a significant difference to the minimum period for which prisoners can go outside?