Seòmar agus comataidhean

I assure you that I am trying very hard to answer your question, Ms McNeill.

We can share new information or reshare information that has already been in the public domain, if that aids discussions and deliberations. That is not a problem. The proviso is that decisions are still to be made about the criteria and the time limit—for example, whether it is to be a year or two years—and about some of the processes around evaluation.

My views are emerging on much of that, including what should be in legislation—because more detail on the pilot could be put in legislation—so you will forgive me for also being keen to understand the committee’s deliberation, in its stage 1 report.

I can share more information now. I am just highlighting that some decisions are not absolutely made yet, because further engagement is, I hope, on-going with people who have fundamental objections to the pilot. However, I am absolutely open to the suggestion that, if there is need for more detail in the bill, as opposed to leaving all the detail to regulations, which was the original plan, it will be anchored in the bill, then we would come back to Parliament with more detailed regulations.

The change will not happen without secondary legislation, but if we can anchor more information in the bill and make more information public, we will do that. Before the bill passes, and before we get to stages 2 and 3, we will have made more definitive decisions on the back of further consultation about the shape and size of the change.

The proposed new sexual offences court is separate from the pilot. We still have to make a decision about whether the pilot will take place in the sexual offences court or in the High Court. I can talk about the thinking on that if time permits.

I deeply regret that some criminal defence lawyers feel so strongly that, at this time, they are talking about a boycott. I will continue to seek to engage as much as possible, and I will seek to work with people on the detail. However, with respect, Mr Findlay, a parliamentary process is going on, which, in my view, should be respected. A process of inquiry and scrutiny is taking place. I will not box myself or anybody else into a corner at this stage.

I will not go into the prison population issue, because, as I said yesterday in reply to Mr Findlay, I will come back to the Parliament in the not-too-distant future to make a statement on that. I refute some of the remarks that Ms Dowey has made and point to the investment in criminal justice social work that is in the draft budget. However, I will lay all that to one side for now.

At the end of the day, we all want guilty people to be convicted, and we all want victims to receive the best support so that they can give the best evidence. It is always fair to scrutinise resources, and it is, of course, fair for me to say that the Government’s funding has not kept pace in real terms. There was a 1.2 per cent real-terms reduction in our block grant funding. That equates to £500 million, and that is before we even get to capital funding, which will contract by 10 per cent in real terms over the next five years.

Nonetheless, when it comes to our resource and capital investment in the Crown Office and in the courts service, the justice budget has a very good settlement in comparison with other areas, despite the real-terms cuts to what the Government has to play with as a whole. There are significant increases—of 11 per cent, 10 per cent and, in some cases, 28 per cent—to budgets, which I hope will give some comfort to Ms Dowey, and I hope that she will support the budget when we come to that point in the parliamentary timetable.

I acknowledge that I have heard Ms McNeill make the point a number of times in this committee that we need to be careful about the scope of powers and the decisions that we make about powers being retained or additional powers being given to other parts of the system.

Our consideration of that is at a fairly early stage. I would always seek to take seriously the views of the Lord Advocate, given her independent role. She has many years of experience and, in particular, a long-standing interest in seeking justice for complainers in sexual offence cases.

That is quite a left-field question, Ms Mackay, if you will forgive me for saying so.

Our proposition is that the jury system will operate across all offences. I think that we would need to give very careful consideration to whether you could have a different—

I take that point on board. We are not at the end of the stage 1 process yet. As I have said before, the bill is a marathon as opposed to a sprint.

It is important to recognise that, as the jury evidence shows, the not proven verdict is seen as the compromise verdict. In a two-verdict system, juries do not have that option. They have to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty.

At this point, without prejudging the rest of the parliamentary process, the Government’s view is that we should make a small adjustment. A simple majority in a jury of 12 would be seven out of 12. We propose a majority of eight out of 12. However, I am also conscious that there continues to be a live debate about the role of corroboration across our system. The Lord Advocate touched on that and spoke powerfully on the impact of corroboration across all cases, especially in sexual offence cases.

I am supportive of reducing the use of floating trials. I very much recognise that they can cause anxiety and uncertainty. I must also recognise that delays cause trauma and anxiety to complainers, victims and witnesses. I am conscious that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has a different perspective from the view that has been expressed by the Lord Advocate and victims groups. As I say, I would very much like to see a reduction in the use of floating trial diets. The sexual offences court will have the opportunity to set its own rules, so that will be a matter for it to consider.

Colleagues will be aware that, in the past week, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service wrote to the committee to set out evidence that 97 per cent of trials call within the float period. It provided information that showed that, if floating diets were to be banned altogether, that would add 22 weeks to the process. We therefore need to take some care in that area. An outright ban might have other consequences, particularly while the court recovery programme continues. That is another example of why the use of pre-recorded evidence is important. I appreciate that it is a live issue, with people having different views.

The proposed new sexual offences court is separate from the pilot. We still have to make a decision about whether the pilot will take place in the sexual offences court or in the High Court. I can talk about the thinking on that if time permits.

I deeply regret that some criminal defence lawyers feel so strongly that, at this time, they are talking about a boycott. I will continue to seek to engage as much as possible, and I will seek to work with people on the detail. However, with respect, Mr Findlay, a parliamentary process is going on, which, in my view, should be respected. A process of inquiry and scrutiny is taking place. I will not box myself or anybody else into a corner at this stage.

I suppose that I am looking at the mountain from a different side. I will come to my officials in a moment. Although we have taken the spirit and the majority of the detail of Lady Dorrian’s report, I contend that some of the changes around unlimited sentencing power enhance the status of the court. I am genuinely struggling to see why it would not be seen as a court of equal status.