Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a small point, but it is based on the same line of questioning. As someone who is coming to this issue later than many of my colleagues, it has struck me that the stage 1 report raised concerns about creating the commissioner, suggesting that it would lead to extra bureaucracy, financial issues and opportunity costs. In your response to Sharon Dowey, cabinet secretary, you noted that there are voices in support—and, of course, there are—but this morning the committee received representations from Scottish Women’s Aid reiterating those exact concerns and saying:

“We maintain our opposition to the creation of this Commissioner”.

I believe that other colleagues have submitted amendments to remove the concept of the commissioner completely. Throughout this process, you have shown a commendable willingness to change position based on committee recommendations or representations from groups. How do you respond specifically to the stage 1 concerns and, perhaps more importantly at this stage, the Scottish Women’s Aid representations?

My final question is about juries. The committee’s stage 1 report included evidence from Professor Leverick, who expressed the view that, if we are to move to a system that is similar to those in other jurisdictions, we should consider whether a majority of eight out of 12 jurors—in other words, a two-thirds majority with a reduced jury size—is appropriate. There is a proposal to retain the jury size at 15. I am not aware of any other system that has 15 jurors, so Scotland is potentially an outlier already, but that makes sense if, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, we have a balanced system involving the not proven verdict and corroboration.

In relation to moving to a two-verdict system, changes to corroboration, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, and closer alignment with other jurisdictions on majorities, what does the cabinet secretary say to those who say that it is better to move to a 12-juror system to ensure that the whole system is more closely aligned with those in other jurisdictions where things have been tried and tested?

Indeed.

As you rightly pointed out, some people would say that unanimity, near unanimity or a supermajority is the better way to go. However, it is not currently where you are. The argument would go that a supermajority, let us say, would align more with the other jurisdictions that you say that you are considering when making the reforms. However, if we say that the burden of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”, some people might suggest that there is reasonable doubt with a two-thirds majority.

If that is right, why do you prefer a two-thirds majority? Do you reject outright the proposal for a supermajority or are you minded to consider the idea?

My questions are in the same area.

Cabinet secretary, in your letter from October, you suggested that, moving to having two verdicts—that is, removing not proven—would require a change to

“the majority required for conviction”,

in order to avoid miscarriages of justice. Notably—for something that I will ask about later—you also said:

“Scotland would be the only jurisdiction that considered the simple majority to be appropriate.”

You are proposing a two-thirds majority requirement for conviction. What is the evidential basis that led you to conclude that two thirds is the right and safe figure to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice?

One operational challenge that the committee has heard about is that the current temporary provisions on time limits in solemn cases are scheduled to end in November this year, but the solemn court system is not on track to be able to cope with pre-Covid time limits by that time. You will have seen that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service suggested some solutions. What is your view of those solutions, and, in any event, what is the Government doing in response to those concerns?

I am grateful for that answer. To stick with the issue of definitions, you may have seen that, in a previous evidence session, it was suggested to the committee that the definitions in section 9 of “child” and “young person” are used a little loosely, interchangeably and insufficiently clearly. What is your view on that, having reflected on those evidence sessions? Is that something that you propose to tighten at stage 2 or that you would welcome the committee tightening?

Thank you.

Cabinet secretary, I wish to ask about virtual appearances from police custody. The committee has heard various concerns about the practical arrangements for such virtual appearances—regarding the ability of defence solicitors to consult clients, for example. You have obviously been through the evidence that we have heard. Do you recognise those concerns? Do you think that the solution is a legislative one or a practical one?

I understand—that is interesting.

I will move on to my final question for now. The committee has previously expressed concern, on a general level, about the time that elapses between bills passing and the provisions coming into force. In your view, does this bill allow for reviews to take place of deaths that occur before the relevant provisions are brought into force?