Chamber and committees

I have followed a lot of Willie Rennie’s argument and I understand where he is coming from. However, I will establish the link with his comments about Somerset Council. A lot of the reforms require changes of attitudes, as well as the money being in place. It is right to press on resources, but it is also right for Parliament to press about changes in attitudes within public authorities to undertake the reforms—such as those that happened in Somerset, which the member correctly cited—that require to be undertaken to deliver the Promise in its entirety.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way and for the remarks that she has just placed on the record, because this is a significant issue.

In her further consideration, will the cabinet secretary take into account the Scottish jurisdiction’s requirement for corroboration? That is a significant material factor in the judgment that she needs to make about the content of the proposal.

If Mr Marra will forgive me, I will not. I do not have much time, and I want to make another substantial point.

I am wholly supportive of the proposal to abolish the not proven verdict, which is, in essence, a not guilty verdict, but it does not always come across as that. For an accused, the verdict can leave a stain on their character. For a victim, it can leave the impression that they have not been believed in court. We heard in evidence the unsatisfactory nature of the verdict’s application, so I support its abolition.

However, I have serious concerns about how the abolition of the not proven verdict has been linked to proposals to change the size of the jury in such trials and to increase the threshold to deliver a guilty verdict. I am concerned that such changes will make it more difficult to obtain convictions in sexual assault cases. The Parliament would do well to consider with care what the Lord Advocate told the committee on that question on 31 January 2024:

“Fundamentally, however, if we are going to increase the percentage of individuals that we require to vote for a guilty verdict, we will make it far more challenging to secure a guilty verdict in a system that requires corroboration.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 31 January 2024; c 15.]

The Parliament needs to consider carefully that serious warning, given the significance of corroboration in such judgments.

I understand the conclusion that the Government reached after studying evidence from mock jury research that having a two-verdict system is more likely to lead to a tendency to convict, but I am profoundly concerned that we might undermine the bill’s purpose if we establish a connection between the abolition of the not proven verdict and the changes to jury size and composition. I recognise that many people have long campaigned for the abolition of the not proven verdict, for entirely understandable reasons and invariably because of tremendous personal suffering and anguish, but if it is considered that changes to jury size and composition are necessary to go along with the abolition of the not proven verdict, I would withdraw the proposal to abolish that verdict.

This debate has been advanced due to the courage of victims in speaking up. In the committee, we benefited from hearing that evidence. Their testimony is profound and should shape the approach that is taken by the Parliament. This is the moment for the Parliament to undertake fundamental reform to ensure that our criminal justice system addresses the legitimate concerns of victims and witnesses. They deserve nothing less.

The purpose of the bill is to address some of the long-standing concerns raised by victims and witnesses surrounding their experiences in the criminal justice system and to act to improve the outcomes for those who are the victims of sexual crime. I do not doubt that every member of the Scottish Parliament wishes to see the purpose of the bill succeed, although I also recognise that members will have different views on how best to achieve that purpose.

One of the problems with which we wrestle as a Parliament is that, in our current discourse, we often exaggerate the scale and nature of those differences of opinion. The Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report is a very good example of how to openly air differences of opinion and try to find a way to reconcile those differences in a coherent and respectful fashion.

I welcome the fact that all members of the committee supported the general principles of the bill, with some important caveats that the Scottish Government must consider should the bill proceed beyond stage 1. That is surely the correct way to proceed. We all want to see action to improve outcomes in the criminal justice system for victims of sexual violence, but we need to focus on how to get that right at stages 2 and 3.

I also welcome the tone and substance of the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is demonstrating a clear willingness to listen to different views, and she should be commended for doing so on such a difficult set of issues.

There is much to welcome in the bill and to merit our support. The provision to mandate trauma-informed practice in all the work of the criminal justice system is a welcome step to improve the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. If that was all very straightforward, surely that would be happening now, but the fact that it is not means that we need to legislate to make sure that it happens.

The proposal to establish a sexual offences court will create the opportunity to ensure that sexual crimes are tried in a more appropriate environment that will embed trauma-informed practice and that has been specifically established to improve handling in such cases.

I accept the argument that a new court is required to ensure that that can be done, because I do not believe that the adaptation of existing structures—which the legal profession has argued for and could happen today if there was the impetus for it, but that has not happened—will provide the appropriate environment in which that objective can be achieved.

The most controversial aspect of the bill is the concept of the juryless trial pilot. Given the opportunity to conduct trials without the performative approach to jury persuasion, the concern about the existence of rape myths and the requirement for written judgments to be delivered, I believe that the trial would be a valuable intervention to explore how best to try such cases. I recognise that, in the Scottish Government’s response to the committee, the cabinet secretary said that she is willing to consider measures that might address concerns about the proposal. The approach that she has taken is welcome.

During the committee’s transactions, I very much agreed with Pauline McNeill on the importance of there being open and transparent criteria for the evaluation of the pilot. That is essential before we go any further. That detail must be in the bill, because it will give the Parliament the confidence that there is an established basis for evaluating the performance of that measure. We should consider the evidence because, as the committee has wrestled with, there is not always an abundance of evidence on many of these questions.

Given the degree to which many of the practical changes that will require to be made in order for us to achieve our climate targets are often contested or are the subject of criticism and are frequently resisted by some members of Parliament, what significance does the cabinet secretary attach to efforts to overcome those obstacles by working with local community-driven initiatives, such as the one that she visited in my constituency yesterday, where people are coming together in Dunkeld and Birnam to encourage real commitment to climate action in their own community? Does that not offer us more hope than the hot air and empty rhetoric that we have heard from the Opposition today?

Good morning, Stephanie. Thank you very much for coming in today and for the courage that you have demonstrated in facing up to the circumstances that we are discussing, which we are truly sorry about.

A moment ago, you made the point to Russell Findlay that, essentially, you were having to work against the system and you were pleading for help from the police. That strikes me as being entirely the wrong position for you to have been in, as a mother who was searching for your son. Could you say a little bit more about how you felt about how the police acted towards you when you began to raise your concerns about how they had handled your case?

Thank you for sharing that with us. The point that you have made highlights to me that, in the short period of time between Rhys going missing and his body being discovered, the police made mistakes. Is that fair?

So, what would your message be to us about what it is that we need to fix here? We are all human, so we make mistakes. The police will make mistakes, because we all make mistakes.

I have been a politician for years, and I have made mistakes and got some things wrong, but it is important to be open.