Chamber and committees

To be fair, in my assessment, even those who support its retention realise that there is a consensus that we must move on from it. I am trying to understand how we then get a consensus on another thing if we remove that verdict. Am I correct in saying that you have put on the record that the purpose of the reform is not to increase conviction rates per se?

You have probably heard me ask questions about rights of audience, and that concern about a change to the rights of audience is shared by the senators. Forgive me, because, as a layperson, I am trying to fully understand this:

“Despite the restriction in relation to rape and murder, the types of cases where a solicitor would be able to represent the accused in the Sexual Offences Court could include ones which are currently prosecuted in the High Court. Thus allowing solicitors to represent an accused in a broader range of serious cases.”

The bill will allow that to change so that a procurator fiscal depute cannot prosecute. That is in section 47(6). For some offences, rape and murder excluded, there will be a change to the rights of audience.

Surely you must realise that that will be seen as lowering the status of the court. We have the rules for a reason. We have had years of differences between advocates and solicitor advocates and who can represent an accused person who faces eight or nine years in jail. Did that proposed change come about by deliberate provision or accident?

So, representing those accused persons is a development opportunity that you give solicitors. I think that we need clarity. You can understand my concern.

Sure.

I was trying to establish whether the committee is aware of that research. I do not know that we are. You said that that research says that the removal of the not proven verdict would increase convictions, which is at odds with what the Lord Advocate said last week. John Swinney, in his line of questioning, expressed concerns about the Lord Advocate saying that she thought that it would result in a lower conviction rate. Your research shows otherwise. The problem that I have is that I would like to have put that research to other witnesses. Did we miss that?

I would be grateful for that, because the issue is giving me cause for concern. I am happy to leave it there.

But there is confusion around that. Will you publish—

That is where the confusion comes from.

It would be useful to summarise that for the committee, Heather.

Does that mean that the answer to my question is that Scotland would still be an outlier but you are comfortable with that because we have other measures that other jurisdictions do not have? Do those amount to corroboration?