Chamber and committees

I am sorry to challenge you on that, but there would be a diminution. Cases that go to the High Court attract rights of audience for advocates and solicitor advocates. However, the SPICe briefing is clear that, because the sexual offences court would not be the High Court, it would be possible for solicitors, who currently cannot represent accused in certain categories of case, to represent them in those cases. I do not understand why you would have legislated in that way.

I am sorry, but I think that Andrew Baird just said that, for reasons of workload, you have allowed for solicitors to represent cases where previously there would have been counsel. Have I understood that?

When you decide when to run the pilot and for how long, will you be absolutely certain that cases in which an accused person is convicted in a single-judge trial under a pilot—which I do not think is a great word; witnesses have mentioned that these are real cases, so it is not really a pilot, per se—will not be appealed on some human rights grounds? For example, if a pilot were to run for a year, other people would be tried for the same crimes with a jury either side of that year.

I have a supplementary question. Given what you said about there being a lot of change and the fact that you want to compare and assess, would not it make sense to run the pilot in the High Court, because you already know how it operates? Rather than running the pilot in the specialist court that you would have just set up—and which you need to get right—would not it make sense for the pilot to be run in the High Court, so that you do not have to worry about the vagaries of a new system?

Right, but you will look at conviction rates. That will be a criterion. The witnesses are correct, then.

What is the purpose of including conviction rates?

We want to understand what the assessment process is.

But she is not answering my question.

I agree 100 per cent with the cabinet secretary about the need for change and I am with the Government on what it is trying to achieve. However, among some of the things that survivors and complainers have said would make a difference, we have aired the difference that independent legal representation might make to complainers who have felt that their voice is not heard at the preliminary stage and that there is no one to defend their interests. I therefore welcome what the cabinet secretary said.

A lot has been said in evidence and at our round-table sessions about the notion of a single point of contact. In my mind, changing practice is probably as important as changing the law. We have heard positive stories, and a lot of horrific stories, and the positive ones seem to turn on those complainers getting proper access to their advocate depute and understanding how the trial will be run. I realise that there is only so far you can go with the matter, but a lot of victims say, “I did not get to tell my story in court. I do not understand why the advocate depute did not ask me what I thought was a critical question.” I am sure that there are good reasons for that.

Are you willing to explore changing the experience for all complainers and victims? How can we ensure that every victim gets access to their advocate depute before the trial?

Having a single point of contact has a lot to do with changes to court venues and other practical things, such as where and when someone’s case will be heard. As for the relationship with an independent legal practitioner, perhaps someone who is legally qualified is the best person to be that single point of contact, as they know the court process.

That is helpful.