Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a helpful update and clarification.

The bill sets out a number of proposals on the victims commissioner’s role. In general, beyond what is set out in the bill, is there anything else that you feel would be relevant to include in that role, or are you supportive of the provisions as they stand? From your previous answer, I think that you are.

I will open up the discussion to members. Pauline McNeill wants to pick up on the matter of a victims commissioner.

Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies.

I welcome the Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate. Thank you for taking the time to attend—it is much appreciated. We have already heard from Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service officials and have had written evidence, but the committee felt that we needed to ask you specifically about a few very important issues, so we are grateful that you are able to join us today.

I intend to allow up to 60 minutes for this evidence session, and I propose that we focus our questions to the Lord Advocate on the proposal for a victims commissioner, then on trauma-informed training and then, finally, on the abolition of the not proven verdict and changes to jury majorities.

I understand that you do not want to make an opening statement, Lord Advocate, so I will open with a question about the bill’s provisions on the proposed victims and witnesses commissioner. We understand that you have concerns that those provisions might unintentionally interfere with your independence. Will you outline those concerns and the changes that you consider are needed to address them?

Yes.

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?