Seòmar agus comataidhean

I echo your remarks about the previous convener.

I nominate Karen Adam.

Karen Adam was chosen as convener.

Thank you, convener, and welcome to your role.

I have a quick question. You partly covered this issue in your opening statement, but the obvious question is, what would the consequence be of not introducing the bill?

Yes, I think so.

You might not be able to answer this, but how close do you—or the Government—feel that a pilot is to beginning, after the bill as currently drafted is passed? What is in the Government’s mind about that? Is it considering any dates or timeframes?

I have one more question, convener, if that is okay.

I must apologise in advance, cabinet secretary. Because of the fullness of your answers so far in this evidence session, I run the risk of asking you questions that might prompt you to repeat yourself.

You have talked a lot about the various opinions on juryless trials, and we have seen a variety of opinions among victims who have experienced the court process. When you assess the pilot—assuming that it goes ahead—what weight will you give to such questions? The people in the pilot will not have had experience of a jury, but will you be making some comparisons to identify those areas where victims and witnesses felt that one system was better than the other? I ask that, because one of the victims said that they would prefer to have a number of people involved in their case instead of just one. How will that be filtered into the review of the pilot?

That is no problem.

Okay.

I have a final question. To clarify, the Government’s position is that removing the not proven verdict is tied—for want of a better word—to jury sizes. That is the Government’s clear view. There is not an option to remove the not proven verdict and keep the jury size as it is, for example.

Given that there is more work to be done around the modelling of the pilot, which you have articulated well, and given all the factors involved, will there be an opportunity, assuming that the bill is passed, for all stakeholders—those who are supportive and those who have expressed concern—to come together to find a pilot process that at least tries to meet some of those concerns? Can the bill be amended to make that point and ease some of the concerns, given that there seems to be a 50:50 split on the proposal, even in Lady Dorrian’s review group?

It feels as though single-judge trials could work and could be good, but perhaps the period between the passing of the bill and the implementation of the pilot should be seen as an opportunity to bring people together. Indeed, the bill says as much just now, and the defence lawyers and other folk who have raised concerns could have an opportunity to engage at that point. Have you thought about that? Could that be done?

Good morning to you and your officials, cabinet secretary. I had questions on the link between the removal of not proven and the jury changes that are being proposed. However, you have given a good account of that, and the Government’s thinking on it is now a wee bit clearer in my mind.

We have heard some evidence that the changes to the majority will make convictions more difficult. I know that you and your officials will have heard that evidence. Not everybody who has been in front of us has said that, but a large body of evidence says that removing not proven and bringing in the jury changes will make it more difficult to get convictions in such cases. What is your and the Government’s response to the issues that have been raised? What is your thinking? Do you, too, believe that to be the case, or are you confident that it would not be the case?

I accept that. Finding that balance is a very difficult job for the Government and the committee. Obviously, concerns have been raised that getting convictions under the system could be more difficult. Is there anything built into the bill that would review whether the approach is working, getting convictions has become more difficult, or the approach is leading to more miscarriages of justice or whatever? Is anything built into the bill to review the legislation if it is passed?