Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will bring in officials in a moment.

We have increased the budget for this financial year to prioritise front-line policing. Obviously, Police Scotland has operational responsibility for training. Part of its costs relate to abstraction of officers when they undertake training, as would be the case for any training.

My view and my understanding of that is that we took the information that we were given. Where we were given specific information, particularly where the source was operational organisations, it was placed in the financial memorandum. However, I have had a close look at the Official Report as well as the correspondence from the committee, and I note and take seriously the committee’s remarks.

I ask Mr McGillivray—or Mr Bunch, if need be—to say a wee bit more about the aspect of material costs.

I have closely read the committee’s more general observations and frustrations. I think that financial memorandums have improved over time, not only because they are lengthier: that improvement is as much about quality of information as it is about quantity.

You referred to a stakeholder who said that the estimates were woefully inadequate.

There are a number of processes. I will not repeat the points about the on-going engagement that we have had on the bill to implement Dame Elish Angiolini’s specific recommendations.

By the time a financial memorandum comes to me, it has been through a number of internal processes in the civil service, and there is a Cabinet sub-committee clearing process for the policy memorandum, the financial memorandum, the bill and other associated documents.

If Mr Marra would like more information, we can follow up in writing. Is there anything else of substance that would be helpful here, Mr McGillivray?

As I said to Ms Smith, once Police Scotland had informed the Scottish Government of the precise nature of its evidence to the committee, there was a period of regular discussion and exploration. Given the financial constraints that we all operate within, you will understand that we do not simply accept it when people say that something will cost £X as opposed to £Y. We have a responsibility to scrutinise that.

The training of new police officers and the on-going training of existing police officers and staff is not a frivolous matter. It is, of course, an operational matter, so I need to be respectful of boundaries here. Training is entirely an operational matter for Police Scotland. I am, of course, well within my rights to test information that I am presented with by Police Scotland, but I accept that we should continue to invest in the training of new and existing police officers and staff.

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.

It would be wrong of me to portray those as a tool—a lever or a button—that can increase conviction rates.

I am on record expressing deep concern about conviction rates. We know that, over a five-year period, conviction rates for rape and attempted rape are at 46 per cent, compared to about 84 per cent for other crimes. When we disaggregate different types of rape cases, the conviction rate for acquaintance rape is, according to the Lord Advocate, around 20 or 25 per cent. There is a difference in conviction rates depending on whether the victim is an adult or a child. From memory, in relation to children, where there has been an offence under, I think, section 18 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, the conviction rate is higher, at more than 70 per cent; in relation to adults, where the offence is prosecuted under section 1 of that act, the rate is about 35 per cent.

I cannot be unconcerned about those rates. I must respect the independence of the courts and judiciary—indeed, I am under a legal obligation to do so—but I want to find the right way to tackle the issue and I want to look at the evidence without prejudging, because we cannot ignore those conviction rates.

Juries are at the core of decisions to convict or acquit, or to use the not proven verdict. You, as I have, will have heard victim testimony about conviction rates and other matters. You will have heard the very strong views of victims and victims organisations about the not proven verdict. The role of juries is integral to that, so I do not accept the narrative that juries are removed from the picture.

I accept that, in responding to low conviction rates or the support for and experience of victims, there must be a whole-systems approach—an end-to-end justice journey. I have never argued against that. The police have made changes to how they investigate. No one is suggesting that anybody’s journey in that regard is over.

With regard to specialisms and prosecuting, again I note that the journey is never over. My challenge has always been that we, as parliamentarians, must avoid the situation in which part of the justice system says, “Actually, the problems don’t rest with us. They rest elsewhere”, when in fact the problems exist throughout the system.

In relation to what you said about conviction rates at the start of your question, Ms Clark, it is greatly frustrating to us all that comparing different jurisdictions’ conviction rates is deeply problematic: data is recorded differently and conviction rates are measured differently. There was an excellent report by the UK Government in 2021, “The end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions”. The Government actually apologised to victims and witnesses for their experiences.

The number and quality of cases that actually get to court have a huge bearing on conviction rates. In England and Wales, we have seen a drop of nearly 60 per cent in charges and prosecutions. Committee members might have seen, in the debate south of the border—I am narrating, not passing comment—that some senior police chiefs have been saying that cherry-picking goes on among prosecutors. I am pointing out the fact that we need a whole-system approach but that we are, right now, focused on this part of the system.

That detail will be worked through with experts in sexual offences cases and trauma-informed practice, as well as with the courts, which will have to ensure that all participating parties in the new sexual offences court have undertaken the requisite training. The point about training for professionals who will support the operation of the court is important. We are working with our justice partners on how that training will be developed and, crucially, how we will implement it.

Substantial work on what is required was undertaken with the publication of the trauma-informed skills framework for the justice sector as a whole, which we debated in the Parliament. We know what trauma-informed practice is and what trauma-informed training should look like, and my officials are engaged with our partners on the mechanisms for how, as part of the implementation process for the court, all that will be rolled out in advance of the court becoming operational.

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.