Chamber and committees

I remind members that we are looking at parts 1 to 4 of the bill.

As ever, a number of members would like to ask supplementary questions. We are dealing with a really important part of the bill. I will bring in Pauline McNeill and then John Swinney. I ask them to be as brief as possible.

John Swinney is happy not to come back in. Katy Clark has a question.

On that positive note, I thank the Lord Advocate for joining us. That has been immensely helpful.

We will have a short suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.

Before I bring in Pauline McNeill, I will ask a couple of questions about the proposals for the rape trial pilot. As we know, the judiciary’s submission reflected different opinions on the proposal, which were well set out and helpful. However, we recently took evidence from Professor Vanessa Munro who said, in relation to the proposal for a time-limited pilot:

“In our written submission, we have tried to say that a judge-only pilot would not be an unreasonable move for gathering more evidence, and that is akin to what Lady Dorrian said in her testimony to the committee on the importance of developing a stronger evidence base for comparison.”

She went on:

“Part of the reason for having a pilot would be to learn more about what that alternative would look like and what change it may or may not result in.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 24 January 2024; c 17.]

Given that we have heard different views on the proposals for a pilot, I wonder whether you, on behalf of the judiciary, have a thought or opinion on how we take that information together—both sides of the coin, if you like—and what a pilot could look like, perhaps with some different thinking around the proposal as it is set out in the bill, if that makes sense.

Thank you. We will come back to that. Seonaid Stevenson-McCabe, would you like to add anything?

Before I bring in Russell Findlay, I have a slightly left-field question. Should the provisions on anonymity be extended to the accused? I do not know whether you have looked at that issue in the scope of your work, but, in any case, I would be interested to know what, if any, views you have on that.

That is interesting. I will bring in Russell Findlay.

I will bring in Sharon Dowey in a moment. First, following on from Pauline McNeill’s final question, the issue that has come into my head during the session is victims’ autonomy. We have spoken about their choices and the extent of their control. Which factors should be considered in how we inform a victim about their choices on anonymity, so that we balance the legislative provisions with aspects such as their welfare and their right to autonomy? It is more of a practical question about what that would look like. How do we tell them what anonymity is and what it means for them?

That is an interesting point.