Chamber and committees

I was going to come on to that, but I might as well ask you now, as you are on the screen. What is your view on the complete removal of juries from cases of rape or attempted rape?

I know that. I just want to know what your position is. If we remove the not proven verdict, there could be a majority of one, and you would not have any concerns about that.

First, I will ask Sandy Brindley to go back to where she left off, on the jury majority issue. I want to be clear in my own mind that you would be comfortable with a majority of one if we remove the not proven verdict. I note what you say about a fully unanimous jury verdict being rare; I think that in England, a two-thirds majority is required. Are you comfortable that a conviction for rape or attempted rape in the High Court could be achieved with a majority of one?

That is helpful—thank you.

My second question is to Ronnie Renucci of the Faculty of Advocates. There is quite a lot in your submission, but I will try to narrow it down. I note the faculty’s concerns about the setting up of specialist courts. In your evidence to the committee, you point out that the High Court is already a specialist court. You have concerns about the specific proposal, suggesting that it might downgrade the status or importance of the crime of rape. I wonder whether you wish to say something in response to that.

Staying with the general background, I have a question for Dr Marsha Scott. Everyone seems to be painting a bleak picture. I have been following the issue closely, and I have written to the Lord Advocate.

I note the statistics that Moira Price used. It seems to me that violence against women throughout the United Kingdom, and probably globally, is getting worse. Marsha Scott talked about how the underlying issue is the need for women’s inequality to be resolved. I have been reading in the press about teenage girls of 13 and 14—and some boys, but particularly girls—being bullied to provide nude photographs of themselves.

I am tying all of that together in my own mind. Violence against women by men seems to me to be worse than it was when I first became a politician, in 1999. I follow the international trends. It is a depressing picture.

Marsha Scott, do you agree with that?

I note from your submission that you oppose the removal of juries. You will have heard Sandy Brindley talk about another way—about having a judge with lay assessors—and about providing a video for juries to watch in advance, which Lady Dorrian proposed. Would any of those things work or make any difference to outcomes?

Lastly, I ask Teresa Medhurst to answer that question.

My question is why it has taken so long. Why would it take to 2025-26? Is that just how long it takes to build a prison? It seems an extraordinarily long timetable. That means that, for five years, until we imprison fewer people, the largest prison in the estate, which is over capacity, will still take the wrong prisoners—it is meant to be a short-term prison but it is taking long-term prisoners—and we will not be able to get prisoners out of their cells. What is the explanation for why it will take until 2026? I thought that it was 2025, but now you are saying that it is 2026.

Good morning, everyone. My question concerns the conditions in which prisoners on remand and other prisoners are held in our prison estate. I am sure that I do not need to say it, but—for the record—we have among the highest numbers in Europe of prisoners on remand. Prisoners are on remand for an average of 18 months. Notwithstanding the pandemic, the figures are alarming.

I am interested to hear answers from quite a few members of the panel. Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, Dr Katrina Morrison from the Howard League, Phil Fairlie and Teresa Medhurst might like to answer the question. Is it time to consider specific rights, in particular for remand prisoners, but also for the prison population generally, in relation to being out of cells for a certain amount of time in a day? I am certainly keen that all prisoners have the right to fresh air. I realise that there are capacity issues and estate issues.

I record my admiration for the work that is done by prison officers and others who are involved in running our prison estate. The papers that have been provided dig deep into the intricacies of having a rising and ageing population, and all the other things. I am very conscious of that.

I am interested in moving forward and looking to the future to where we would ideally like to be. Is it time to have specific enforceable rights—even a charter of rights for prisoners—such that they would be allowed out of their cells once a day for a prescribed amount of time to get fresh air?

I suggest that we start with Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, who is the chief inspector of prisons.

Can you confirm that you referred to a figure of 80 per cent to 85 per cent?