Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee will want to continue to scrutinise the new benefits. So, if the cabinet secretary will keep the committee advised, that will be much appreciated.

Given that that seems to be a changing situation, it would be helpful if the committee could be kept closely advised on it.

Another issue is the new benefits that are coming in. The Scottish Government is introducing two new benefits this year: pension age disability payment and pension age winter heating payment. How much is it costing to create the systems and processes to deliver those new benefits, and how is it envisaged that those benefits will be different from the equivalents delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions?

Cabinet secretary, why is the programme budget increasing when the programme business case suggested that it would be falling by this stage? Is the programme still expected to finish at the end of 2025, as is stated in the business case?

The cabinet secretary may be able to keep the committee advised on that. Does her colleague want to add anything?

Yes. I am sorry—I could not unmute myself to come in.

Can I bring in Cheryl Thomas on that issue? Parliament is being asked to make some substantial changes to the court processes for rape cases, but some of us genuinely believe that a better approach might be to look at the independent legal representation issue. Can Professor Thomas can give any information on that from her experience? Is that something that she has any knowledge about?

I thank the witnesses for the clarity in their responses so far, which have made clear that their concerns are not about specialisation or the concept of a specialist court but about the specific proposals in the bill.

One issue that the committee has to consider is whether the bill is acceptable as it stands or whether it is amendable. Sheila Webster has spoken about the experiences of witnesses.

Do the panel members have a view on whether amendments could be made that could address some of the genuine concerns about the experiences of trial witnesses? We are getting evidence that, even with some of the new practices that have already been brought in, such as taking evidence on commission, the experience of complainers is simply not acceptable throughout the process of the criminal justice system and not just in court.

I invite Tony Lenehan to come in on that, although the convener could perhaps bring in others who wish to respond. I am not in the committee room, so it is difficult to catch people’s eye to see if they wish to contribute.

Convener, I do not know whether you want to bring in any of the other witnesses.

Is it fair to say, from what the witnesses have said so far, that different research has come to quite different conclusions in relation to rape myths? Is there any difference between mock jury research and research into real jurors? Can any witnesses expand on that point or give any other explanation as to why different research has come to different conclusions? We have heard a lot about the Scottish jury research, which involved mock jurors. We have also heard that the cases were quite short, and that the amount of time spent by the jurors on the case was quite short compared with a real case. Also, there were only two sets of facts, so there might have been limitations there.

Do you think that it is wise for politicians to base decisions in relation to the abolition of jury trials on research when there is so little clarity? There might be other reasons to get rid of jurors in rape cases—reasons to do with the experiences of witnesses, survivors and complainers, for instance—but would it be unwise to base conclusions around rape myths when the evidence seems so unclear?

Perhaps Cheryl Thomas would want to respond—although the convener will be better placed to see whether the witness wishes to answer.

No.

Professor Chalmers kindly attended an event that I held in the Parliament last year on independent legal representation. The witnesses will be aware that a number of other jurisdictions have far more extensive independent legal representation for rape victims or complainers through the trial process and outside the courtroom. That happens in systems that are in many ways similar to the Scottish system. Have the academics looked at that? Do they have views on it?

On independent legal representation, is there scope to look beyond what is proposed in the bill that we are scrutinising? The committee is extremely concerned—it is fair to say that the concern is cross-party—about low conviction rates and, just as importantly, about the experience of rape complainers who have given evidence repeatedly over many years about the retraumatising effect of the criminal justice system and how that system lets them down.

It is often said that the role of the criminal justice system is not to deliver for the complainer—it is a process by the state. We are keen to explore how we improve the experience for complainers. Would independent legal representation and advice provide one way to empower complainers through the process and improve their experience? As Professor Chalmers has looked at the issue previously, I will bring him in first.