Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are arguing for equality of arms.

My approach starts from the position that, although there is not unanimity, there are still people opposed to the abolition of the not proven verdict. However, even among those who oppose the abolition of the not proven verdict, there is acceptance that it is likely to happen if the Parliament approves the bill.

My reasons for amending the bill are partly to reflect the Government’s position in response to the committee’s stage 1 report. In particular, I will amend the bill to retain a jury size of 15. Although there was an argument to reduce the size of juries, I do not want to lose focus on where the debate now is and where it should be.

The debate now needs to focus on what the jury majority—that is, the threshold for conviction—should be. I recognise that there are different views on that, although, based on the amendments and a range of discussions with stakeholders, it appears that most people would have concerns about the threshold being a simple majority. There are strong, respected voices in favour of the simple majority. However, we need to make a careful judgment, based on the research—from Scotland and elsewhere—and meta-analysis, which tell us that moving from three possible verdicts to two has an impact on other parts of our verdict and jury system.

Going forward, we need to have absolute confidence that verdicts are returned on a sound, rational basis that ensures balance and fairness to all parties. Part 4 of the bill, on criminal juries and verdicts, is the cornerstone of the bill and a fundamental part of our system. It is also a stand-alone reform.

I know, and I was giving my position for clarity. I meant no disrespect, convener, to you or to Mr Macpherson.

For clarity, we have not changed our position on the not proven verdict, and we have not changed our position on a two-thirds majority either. We have changed our position on the size of the jury.

That is now on my radar.

My worry about that, Mr MacGregor—and I will be direct and forthright, so forgive me—is that it sounds like a cop-out. We have substantial evidence from the meta-analysis and the Scottish research. We do not have unanimity among all the stakeholders, but in my experience, unanimity among all parliamentarians, including at this committee, is somewhat of a rarity. You can build consensus, but consensus is different from absolute unanimity across the board, and we have a great range of evidence.

I hope that I have outlined that near unanimity, in the context of our existing system and in the context of reforms, is just too high a standard. However, based on the evidence, it is also my reading of the position that the majority of stakeholders recognise that a simple majority would be too low a standard. Therefore, the Government and the senators of the College of Justice have come to a balanced and proportionate view.

I will ask Lisa McCloy to come in on that. The process has, from beginning to end, been one of deliberation. I think that there has been good visibility of the consideration that would be required to amend the jury majority if the not proven verdict were to be abolished, but there have been numerous discussions with numerous stakeholders, and those will continue.

I do not know whether Lisa can add anything further.

There is the view of the senators. We also know the views of victim support organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, which are advocating for a simple majority. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are advocating for a supermajority, as it has been labelled by Mr Kerr.

I would point out that stakeholders, as a whole, have to come to a careful judgment, and, at the end of the day, it will be the committee and the Parliament that will vote on this. However, it appears to me that there is more rather than less acceptance that, if we move to a two-verdict system, you need to address issues around the—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I cannot read what my official is showing me. They will have to print it.

If it would be acceptable to Ms McNeill, I could raise the issue with the Lord Advocate and the Crown and ask them to reply to the committee. I am not in any way trying to be obtuse. I am conscious that, in the context of the bill, or with any legislation, I cannot modify the Lord Advocate’s discretion, because that gets us into issues of legislative competence.

Okay, so the concern is a bit broader than part 2 of the bill. I will try to trot through things fairly briefly, if I can.

Several provisions in part 1 make permanent measures that are currently temporary but which have been in practice, broadly, since 2020. The new provisions in part 1 on digital productions and the authentication of electronic copy documents will be addressed through the digital evidence sharing capability—DESC—programme, which the Government is committed to funding to the tune of £33 million.

On areas where we want to see improvements, such as the practical improvements that are required around measures such as virtual attendance or virtual custodies, I know that you will be aware of the evidence from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that it has paused some work for further evaluation.

There is still work to be done on evaluation and on defining models that can be operationalised in a systems-wide sense, and there will be further work on business cases. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland, both verbally and in writing, have indicated that it is a bit too early to say what some costs will be. In broad terms, we are not making mandatory operational requirements as such, although we should bear in mind that the bill will enable innovation and that it bolts in the gains that have been made thus far. We will need people to proceed to develop business cases, which will be brought forward in the normal course of annual budgeting.

In relation to part 2, the financial memorandum states that the costs of setting up the review oversight committee and the public appointment of the chairs and deputy chairs, including financial support for expenses related to their recruitment, would fall to the Government. There is also provision to support families with some of the costs that they bear. Therefore, costs under part 2 will be met by the Government, as detailed in the financial memorandum.