Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would expect it to mean in practice that all the circumstances would be taken into account. Obviously, the amendment relates to situations in which someone is a survivor of or is experiencing domestic abuse, and it would enable all the factors to be taken into account and for the council—the housing officer, in particular—to make a decision based on the full facts as presented to them.

This is an enabling piece of legislation, but it requires local authorities to consider all those matters. I am sure that all of us, as representatives, will be aware of circumstances in which we feel that such action would be appropriate, because individuals are in a situation where substantial rent arrears have been accrued in circumstances in which we would believe, as a matter of public policy, that it would be appropriate for those arrears to be effectively written off.

As I have said, it is not my intention to push any of the amendments to a vote today, but I would like to hear the Government’s response before stage 3 and, indeed, to any contributions from other members, if there is a view that there needs to be a tightening of the drafting before stage 3.

The international standards are the obligations set out under international treaties, such as the Istanbul convention. Whether or not the United Kingdom has officially signed up to those treaties, reference would be made to the kinds of standards and obligations that are presented at an international level. The review would look at the extent to which Scotland was complying with the highest standards, rather than the lower standards that might exist in some countries. The work has been done to set out criteria and guidelines for how victims of domestic abuse and violence against women should be treated in such situations. That is very much the thinking behind the amendment.

As I have said, I am happy to consider any representations on making the definition tighter, although I should point out that the amendment was drafted by the clerks in this Parliament. I am happy to reflect on the drafting; the intention is for the standards to be those in the Istanbul convention in particular, but would include any other international standards that have been worked on, debated and agreed as appropriate in terms of the kinds of standards that states should be addressing.

I look forward to the minister’s contribution on the amendments.

I move amendment 1061.

My amendments 62 and 63 relate to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and seek to remove provisions that currently prevent jury research in Scotland. My amendments were lodged last summer after stage 1 and prior to the cabinet secretary lodging her amendments 152 and 153. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has lodged those Scottish Government amendments and that the committee is considering them today.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication that the Scottish Government intends to undertake further research, particularly on jury splits, which have been a live concern and consideration today. I appreciate that there are those who believe that research of that nature is already possible within the current legal framework. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that it is not possible, and the relevant provisions for England have already been repealed from the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to enable research to take place there. I welcome the fact that there will be legal certainty that, in certain circumstances, it will be possible to undertake research.

The cabinet secretary spoke about some of the mock jury research that has been carried out, and I agree with the important point that she made that certain factors can be researched only with mock jury research. However, the committee has looked at the mock jury research and the meta-analysis that has been provided to us and, as I said earlier, I am concerned that the evidence is not substantial enough to give us an understanding of what might happen to conviction rates or to the proportion of guilty and not guilty verdicts if we proceeded with the proposed legislation that is before us.

I have already referred to the concerns that were raised by the Lord Advocate and many others. We know that the conviction rate for rape and attempted rape remains the lowest of any type of crime in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary said, that is no doubt due to preconceived biases and myths that surround victims and survivors. I hope that we would all agree that we need far greater insight into the breakdown of jury outcomes and the jury split, and an understanding of jury majorities in real-world situations. The committee has already heard how research can be a vital tool in building up a sophisticated evidence base on the factors that might inform how juries reach verdicts. We all accept that the existence of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 has heavily restricted the research that can be, or is being, carried out.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will take part in the discussion on how we take forward the research. We need to look at all categories of cases, but there are specific concerns about particular types of cases. I hope that any research and work that is carried out will focus on that, so that we have a better understanding. I also hope that the cabinet secretary will be willing to engage on some of the issues in the lead-up to stage 3 to ensure that we can build up data and information to allow us to make informed decisions that deliver the Scottish Government’s policy intent, which I believe all members of the committee share.

At the appropriate stage, I will not move my amendments 62 and 63, because the Scottish Government has lodged other amendments on the issue.

Pauline McNeill spoke earlier about some of the work that could be done over the next few years if some of the amendments that we will consider later today are passed. The Parliament needs to have proper information about what juries are doing. We might be unable to get it retrospectively—I presume that we are unable to get it, although I might be wrong—but we need proper information as to what juries are doing before we make changes of this nature.

We know that there is already a great deal of concern about low conviction rates in certain types of cases, in particular rape, attempted rape and serious sexual assault cases. We need to understand more about what juries do in those types of cases, because there would be a concern that jury majorities might be narrower in those types of cases in particular. Therefore, some of the proposals today could make a real difference on conviction rates.

Given what the Lord Advocate has said to us and the amount of time that the committee has already spent looking at and being concerned about low conviction rates in rape cases—which I know is a great concern of the Scottish Government—we should be particularly alert to the issue.

You might well be coming on to the point that I will put to you, which is the evidence that the Lord Advocate gave to the committee.

The Lord Advocate wrote to us on 18 March and said:

“In relation to the provision to alter the jury majority required for a guilty verdict I would draw the committee’s attention to the submissions made by the Crown at Stage 1 and my observation during my evidence session that ‘…if we are going to increase the percentage of individuals that we require to vote for a guilty verdict, we will make it far more challenging to secure a guilty verdict in a system that requires corroboration.’”

What is your response to that?

It has been mentioned that Lady Dorrian said that the model that the Scottish Government is proceeding with is not the model that she proposed. Will you respond to that and outline any differences, as you see them, between the Government’s model and the model that was proposed by Lady Dorrian?

Will the member take an intervention?

I know that Ben Macpherson is aware of how difficult it is to get convictions in rape cases. He is also aware of the Lord Advocate’s view that it will be far more challenging to secure a guilty verdict in the system that is being proposed. Does he agree that, before we change the system, it would be helpful to get information on the jury breakdown in cases such as rape, attempted rape and other serious sexual assaults? It may be that the balance of verdicts is different in juries in those cases from the balance in other types of case.

Fulton MacGregor is aware of the Lord Advocate’s views, which have been shared with the committee, and of the concerns about low conviction rates, particularly for rape and other sexual assault cases. It seems to me that one of the risks of the proposals that have been put forward by the Scottish Government is that we will see lower conviction rates in rape and other sexual assault cases. Does he agree that that is a risk that we are facing?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?