Chamber and committees

There are a number of processes. I will not repeat the points about the on-going engagement that we have had on the bill to implement Dame Elish Angiolini’s specific recommendations.

By the time a financial memorandum comes to me, it has been through a number of internal processes in the civil service, and there is a Cabinet sub-committee clearing process for the policy memorandum, the financial memorandum, the bill and other associated documents.

If Mr Marra would like more information, we can follow up in writing. Is there anything else of substance that would be helpful here, Mr McGillivray?

As I said to Ms Smith, once Police Scotland had informed the Scottish Government of the precise nature of its evidence to the committee, there was a period of regular discussion and exploration. Given the financial constraints that we all operate within, you will understand that we do not simply accept it when people say that something will cost £X as opposed to £Y. We have a responsibility to scrutinise that.

The training of new police officers and the on-going training of existing police officers and staff is not a frivolous matter. It is, of course, an operational matter, so I need to be respectful of boundaries here. Training is entirely an operational matter for Police Scotland. I am, of course, well within my rights to test information that I am presented with by Police Scotland, but I accept that we should continue to invest in the training of new and existing police officers and staff.

Our proposal on the size of the jury is based on the Scottish jury research, for the reasons that I outlined to the convener. Although I acknowledge that the Government’s proposal to abolish the not proven verdict is tied in with reforms to reduce the size of the jury and to increase the majority required, my own thinking has changed a bit. Initially, I would have described those as the three legs of the stool. On jury size, there is the research that I mentioned, and there are commonsense arguments. I think that the committee and Parliament will come to a view on that.

Where we need to be really engaged and invested is in the debate and discussion on what the jury majority should or should not be as a result of the abolition of the not proven verdict, for which, I would contend, we have overwhelming support.

I have touched on the data that has informed our view about moving to a two-thirds majority, including that from the Scottish jury research. It showed that, when juries deliberated and came to a conclusion about which verdict to pass, in finely balanced trials, the structure of our jury system, and not simply the reflections on and the assessment of the evidence, had an impact on outcome. The number of jurors, the number of verdicts and the jury majority requirement—those structural issues—influence the outcome. That is why we want to shift the balance a little bit by moving from a simple majority to the two-thirds qualified majority.

You will have heard some support for that in your evidence sessions—I am thinking of the comments from Lord Matthews in particular. In our consultation, there was 52 per cent support for a qualified majority. I acknowledge that a consultation is not a vote or a plebiscite, and that these are difficult and complex matters. There was 40 per cent support for a two-thirds majority.

If you do not mind—I hope that this does not come across as a bit cheeky—I will note that, in 2013, the then Justice Committee made some reflections about this. I appreciate that the personnel on the committee are different now, but I want to point out that there is a history of evidence or consideration in this matter. In 2013, there was an acknowledgement that, if you abolish not proven, you need to consider the jury majority size, because of the impact that it could have on all cases across the board.

I am also aware—again, I hope that members do not think that I am being cheeky—that there was previously a member’s bill by Michael McMahon that proposed the abolition of not proven. That bill was tied into a two-thirds qualified majority, too.

I appreciate that these are judgments that we will all have to make together and navigate our way through. There is a particular relationship between the not proven verdict and the various options for the majority, which I am sure that we will continue to discuss and debate.

There was 52 per cent support in our consultation for a qualified majority, which could be at various levels, and there was 40 per cent support in the consultation for the particular option of eight out of 12.

Ultimately, Parliament will decide on that, particularly as we proceed through stages 2 and 3. I have outlined the Government’s position and our preference, and we will, of course, continue to engage on the issue. I am conscious of the evidence that the Lord Advocate gave the other week as well as the contribution of Lord Matthews.

The overriding point that I want to make is that we have to give serious consideration to all this, and there needs to be on-going depth to our mutual scrutiny, if I can put it that way, because of what the evidence tells us about the impact of moving from three verdicts to two.

In exercising the right to reply to the preamble to Mr Findlay’s question, I think that I have laid out today that we have lots of evidence. We have also laid out some ethical and legal considerations about the type of evidence that can be gathered and how it can be gathered. I accept the argument that there is always a case for seeking more evidence, but we also have to acknowledge that there can be other limits and that we could continue to seek evidence for ever and a day without ever implementing any of it. I do accept, however, that, as Ms Clark has pointed out, there is a balance to be struck.

On the very important question about trauma-informed practice, there is a difference between the definitions that are required in practice and what has to be expressed in the context of the law. Let me reassure Mr Findlay that my door is never closed and that we continue to engage with a large number of stakeholders—

I know that you are impatient.

My apologies, Ms McNeill. I think that I have understood your question from the wrong angle. The Government did not want solicitor advocates or counsel to be compelled to represent cases that they would not normally be involved in. There is an underlying issue of ensuring that appropriate legal aid is available.

I am supportive of reducing the use of floating trials. I very much recognise that they can cause anxiety and uncertainty. I must also recognise that delays cause trauma and anxiety to complainers, victims and witnesses. I am conscious that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has a different perspective from the view that has been expressed by the Lord Advocate and victims groups. As I say, I would very much like to see a reduction in the use of floating trial diets. The sexual offences court will have the opportunity to set its own rules, so that will be a matter for it to consider.

Colleagues will be aware that, in the past week, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service wrote to the committee to set out evidence that 97 per cent of trials call within the float period. It provided information that showed that, if floating diets were to be banned altogether, that would add 22 weeks to the process. We therefore need to take some care in that area. An outright ban might have other consequences, particularly while the court recovery programme continues. That is another example of why the use of pre-recorded evidence is important. I appreciate that it is a live issue, with people having different views.

I accept that the law needs to be as unambiguous and clear as possible. There is always a distinction between what is in the black letter of the law and what might follow through further regulation or guidance. There is a need for a clear pathway and for clarity and mutual understanding with regards to what is and is not on the record. We will seek to give comfort to members in that regard as we proceed with stages 2 and 3.

Lisa McCloy, would you like to add anything else?