Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, is it okay if I go on to part 5?

I beg your pardon. I just wanted to move on.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. Can you update us on your thinking on amendments in relation to the sexual offences court? Your letter that we received in the autumn suggested that you were thinking of amending the bill to ensure that any case involving a charge of murder is still prosecuted in the High Court. Are you still open to doing that, or is there new thinking on that issue?

I am sorry for confusing the two parts.

The provisions on the rape trials pilot are to be removed from the bill. You have outlined the reasons for that and said that you are working on a range of legislative and non-legislative measures to explore and address the underlying issues that the pilot would have sought to address. Will you expand on what those measures might be and what research might be carried out?

Has the working group been set up? Do you have a deadline for gathering information on that?

That is great.

Thank you for that.

Moving on, you mentioned vulnerable witnesses and said that you are exploring amendments to embed choice—which I think is a really good thing—and that that will remain a fundamental bedrock of the new court. However, Scottish Women’s Aid has concerns about the need for qualification for some women and the fact that

“the court can still order, or decline, special measures”

in certain circumstances, which

“means that women face uncertainty as to whether they will ... have to face the abuser in court”

et cetera.

The organisation is concerned about the amendment relating to the test for deemed vulnerability. Although it welcomes the fact that that approach will be embedded in the civil and criminal courts, it says that it is unacceptable that people would have to provide evidence for eligibility for special measures—it could be from a health practitioner—and that someone who has been a victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault would need to have that qualification applied to them. Scottish Women’s Aid thinks that that is “unacceptable as a test” for women, as they might have to undergo “intrusive” questions and examinations.

Is that coming into your thinking in the amendments that you will lodge on the issue?

That is very reassuring.

It absolutely does. I want to ask you about when reviews are carried out in parallel with criminal proceedings and with regard to preventing prejudice. The Lord Advocate would have power to pause or end a review to prevent prejudice in those proceedings. How often and in what types of situations would that power be used?