Chamber and committees

What significance does the cabinet secretary attach to the provision in section 65(5), which specifies the necessity for written reasons to be provided by a presiding judge in such circumstances? It strikes me that such a provision provides some foundation for long-term developments in the approach to prosecuting sexual crime. There will, for everybody concerned, be a greater distillation of the analysis of the case and the evidence that can be scrutinised as a consequence of written reasons being produced by a presiding judge in those circumstances.

I will continue with the same line of argument or discussion. I was particularly struck, last week, by the comments of the Lord Advocate when she said:

“I consider that the changes that are proposed will make it more difficult to get a conviction in the type of cases that we are talking about.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 31 January 2024; c 12.]

The bill in front of us has the objective of ensuring that we get better outcomes in relation to prosecution and conviction for sexual crimes and that the situation that the Lord Advocate expressed concern about does not materialise. I am very concerned that the abolition of the not proven verdict has been linked to the questions of jury size and simple majority, and I would like to explore that further.

The not proven verdict—which Eamon Keane and Professor Leverick from the University of Glasgow helpfully explained to us—and the not guilty verdict amount to the same thing. We have to be blunt about that point. I would like to understand why there is a need for us to undertake any compensatory changes in relation to jury size and the majority that is required if the verdict that we propose to abolish in the bill amounts to the same as a not guilty verdict.

The difficulty that I have with all of that relates to the fine judgments that the cabinet secretary talked about. Cabinet secretary, you have made it clear that there must be balance and fairness to all parties. However, when I read the Lord Advocate’s evidence, I am worried that, as a consequence of that change, there is a risk of imbalance in relation to complainants compared to where we are today. The whole purpose of the legislation is to address the fact that none of us is happy about where we are today.

There are questions about the relationship that has been constructed in the legislation. I hear the background evidence for why it is so, but the Government needs to explore whether there is sufficiently compelling evidence of the need for a compensatory action in relation to jury size and composition, given that the not proven verdict amounts to the same as a not guilty verdict. I encourage the Government to further consider whether the evidence exists to substantiate that position.

Katy Clark referred to a number of issues about the conduct of trials that were raised with us by victims during our evidence taking. A point to which Katy Clark did not refer, but I certainly will, was the conduct of the defence. An interesting point in the evidence that we heard from Simon Di Rollo was his belief that, if a judge presided with no jury, the tone and atmosphere of the court would become less prone to theatrics, with a more considered focus on the evidence. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is an important consideration in addressing the experiences of complainants? Will that enable them to have confidence that the conduct of a trial in a judge-only pilot will most definitely be trauma informed and will perhaps provide a greater opportunity to consider dispassionately the evidence that is put in front of the court?

I am grateful to Mr Balfour for giving way, because he is advancing an entirely contradictory argument. On the one hand, he is telling Parliament that the Scottish Government has simply followed Westminster policies; on the other hand, he is saying that we are incurring more costs in social security because we are spending more money, as the cabinet secretary just said in her intervention. Will Mr Balfour please bring some coherence to this argument, rather than the incoherence that the Conservatives bring to any debate on welfare in this society?

Mr Rennie makes a serious point. The Government’s child poverty action plan takes into account things other than the child payment. Some of us who served in Government at the time made sure that that was the case and that there was an emphasis on employability to tackle exactly the issue that Mr Rennie raises.

Down at the bottom end of the Parliament’s garden lobby today, there is an illustrative picture that goes through the history of the development of child poverty. I am afraid that the genesis of the current crisis that we face is the austerity that commenced after 2010—it is crippling our society. That is why we have to have an honest discussion about the financial choices that are inherent in the budget, which will be discussed tomorrow, and about trying to tackle child poverty. The UK Government has made the situation that we face in Scotland a great deal worse as a consequence of the prevalence of the austerity agenda.

In advancing the arguments that Beatrice Wishart put forward about encouraging more women to enter business, is the Government prepared to engage in dialogue with Women’s Enterprise Scotland to make use of the formidable resources, skills and capacity that it has to offer on that agenda?

Will the member take an intervention?

Could you explain to the committee the association’s understanding of the role of the Scottish Parliament in our constitutional structures?

If Parliament supports the bill, it will make it the law of Scotland that there should, on a pilot basis, be judge-only trials for rape cases. That will be the law of Scotland. I am intrigued to understand on what basis your members have the right not to follow that law, when you have told the committee that it is the job of the legal profession to do its job in trials.