Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2024. We have no apologies this morning, and our first item of business is an evidence session on the victims, witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill. I refer members to papers 1 to 3. I would like to welcome to the meeting Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. We will also be joined by a number of officials at various points during the meeting. I intend to allow up to two and a half hours for this session. We will stop for a comfort break and I will suspend as we move between parts of the bill so that officials can change over. I remind members to keep any questions or supplementaries that they have specific to which part of the bill we are looking at in town. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks. Good morning, convener. The Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill places victims and witnesses at the heart of the system. It is informed by the experience of victims and their families and organisations who support them, by independent research, cross-sector groups and individuals with academic, legal and practical expertise. The committee is well aware of the significant and long-standing concerns over the not-proven verdict. It has heard evidence that it is not defined or well understood. It can result in confusion and trauma for victims and their families and it can lead to stigma for the accused. It is vital that we improve the fairness, clarity and transparency of decision making in the criminal justice system and in criminal cases. The bill would abolish the not-proven verdict and retain the widely understood verdicts of guilty and not guilty. Reforms to our criminal justice system must command confidence in its integrity and protect the balance and fairness. Therefore, the bill proposes to make changes to the jury size from 15 to 12 and the majority required for conviction from a simple majority to two thirds. That is a proportionate way to achieve this balance. Convener, violence against women and girls is a worldwide endemic problem. Lady Dorian has been clear that we need to make seismic, structural, statutory changes to how our system responds to sexual violence. Peacemail change is not enough to achieve the cultural shift needed to improve the experiences of victims and to give them meaningful access to justice. The bill proposes an automatic lifelong right of anonymity for victims of sexual and certain other offences to ensure privacy and dignity during their lifetime. That may help to increase confidence in reporting, offending behaviour and placing that right in statute is particularly important in today's social media age. The bill also proposes to strengthen the rights of complainers through automatic publicly funded independent legal representation when requests are made to lead evidence about their sexual history or character. The substantial reform will ensure that complainers have a right to access their own legal representative who will assist them in ensuring that their voices are heard in what is a deeply intrusive aspect of sexual offence cases.  The court will embed specialist approaches to the way that these cases are managed and complainers are treated. It will drive reform of practice, process and culture. Complainers' experiences will be improved through greater use of pre-recorded evidence, better judicial case management and mandatory trauma informed training for all involved in the work of the court, including the lawyers. Finally, the bill would enable a time limited pilot of single judge rape trials. I am aware that there are mixed views on this proposal, which again arose from Lady Dorian's review. I agree with Lady Dorian that we should explore, in a practical way, the role of juries in delivering justice for victims of rape. Piloting single judge rape trials for a time limited period will provide much needed evidence and let us have a properly informed debate on how our system deals with these most difficult and challenging cases. Convener, you have heard compelling evidence from multiple sources that our Scottish justice system is not working for victims of sexual offences. None of us should be comfortable with that, and as the Lord Advocate observed, it is simply not good enough. As parliamentarians, it is our role to address the issues identified. This is our watch, it is our responsibility. If we do not act, we will pass the problem to our successors and lose the opportunity to bring about real change for victims going through the system now and in the future. No part of the system should be beyond scrutiny. The bill puts forward proposed reforms, and I repeat, my remarks in chamber last me during a debate about trauma and form justice. If not this, what? If not now, when? And it is time to move forward in the debate, and I hope that we can do so together. I am going to start off this first session with questions on part 4 of the bill, namely the abolition of not proven and changes to jury majorities. If I can start with an opening question, cabinet secretary, we have heard a range of views on what is being proposed around the not proven verdict and jury majorities. Is the Scottish Government still persuaded that the not proven verdict should be abolished, and if you can outline if so, why? The short answer, convener, to your question, is yes. The Scottish Government firmly believes that our law and our legal processes have to meet the needs of modern Scotland, of 21st century Scotland, and clearer and more transparent decision making is an important part of that. As you have heard, convener, during your evidence, many people do not trust a verdict that cannot be adequately explained. It causes trauma to victims, and it can leave a lingering stigma to the accused. It is a historic reform, and it is based on significant and long-standing concerns. The fundamental for me, convener, is that we should always be striving to increase confidence that our verdicts are returned on sound, rational basis, while ensuring balance and fairness to all parties. There is, I believe, broad support for this measure. Four political parties at the last Scottish General Election had a commitment to the abolition of not proven in their manifesto, and it had strong support in the Government's consultation. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That, I suppose, helpfully leads me on to my next question in relation to the evidence that we have heard, which reflects broad support for the proposal to abolish the not proven verdict. What we have probably been less clear about is support for the proposed jury size change from 15 to 12 and the associated majority required. Concerns have been expressed that this might make it harder to secure convictions. Indeed, the Lord Advocate expressed her concern about the proposal just last week, while she was giving evidence. If the cabinet secretary has reflected on the concerns that have been raised, what is your view on what we have heard and how might you respond to those concerns? Do you ask me about jury size or jury majority? I will start with jury size. In that we have a jury size of 15, most other comparable, jury-stictions have a jury of 12. The independent Scottish jury research, which was one of the largest studies of its kind, was able to look closely because it simulated trials with mock jurors. It was able to look exceptionally closely at the process of deliberation and decision making. What it found with regard to jury size, and perhaps it speaks to more common sense arguments, is that it was able to hold constant sum of factors and look at the impact on decision making of various jury sizes. In short, it found that there was no particular advantage to having a jury size of 15 in terms of the quality of those deliberations, but when the group was a little bit smaller, at 12 that increased participation, there were less people not participating. It came to that view and informed the Government's view that, because there was more participation, there was better deliberation and fewer dominant voices. Okay, thank you. I know members will have some more questions about the composition of juries and majorities. I didn't address the majority. Oh right, yes, I beg your pardon. Which, to be fair, is a much more complex matter. It is my view, convener, that there are very black and white arguments in favour of the abolition of not proven. There has been a long-standing consideration of not proven support and abolition. However, there are some very different considerations around the jury majority. In all of that, at the forefront of our mind, is how we achieve two things. One is to improve the experience for complainers in terms of overcoming barriers to access to justice. It is also about protecting the integrity and balance of the system and reducing any risk of miscarriages of justice. There are some very fine judgments here to be made. I will explain why, on the basis of evidence, the Government is proposing that we move from the simple majority to a qualified majority of two thirds and why we are not proposing to do near unanimity or unanimity. However, it is quite a complex area, convener. In short, I suppose that Scotland, in terms of its jury structure and system, is an outlier. No other system has three verdicts. No other comparable jurisdiction convicts on the basis of the simple majority either and, as I said earlier, no other comparable system has a jury of 15 either. When we looked at the evidence on this, I suppose that there are three sources of evidence. There is the Scottish jury research. There is also a recent meta-analysis and there are other reports over the past 15 years that show that, when you move from three verdicts to two verdicts, you will increase conviction rates. You will do that for all crimes. The research is not quite as unequivocal on that. If you move from three verdicts to two, that will increase convictions but across all crimes and not just in sexual crimes. Therefore, we have opted to, as I said, move away from the simple majority but not going to near unimity because of the other protections in the system that exist. I will leave my remarks there because I appreciate that there will be other questions. Thank you for that. Quite a number of members want to come in, so I will bring in Sharon Dowey and Fulton MacGregor. There are criticisms that there has been a lack of research going into the changing of the jury numbers. In the bill, it is changing the jury size to 12, which is like England and Wales, but we have put in a two-fils majority that is different from England and Wales, so I was just wondering why you decided to go down that road. Our proposition around the size of the jury is based on the Scottish jury research for the reasons that are outlined to the convener. While I acknowledge that the Government's proposition around the abolition of not proven is tied in with other reforms, both in terms of reducing the size of the jury but also in terms of increasing the majority. My own thinking has changed a bit. Initially, I would have described that as the three legs of the stool. In terms of jury size, there is the research that I mentioned. I think that there are common sense arguments. I think that the committee in Parliament will come to a view on that. Where we need to be really engaged and invested in is the debate and discussion around the jury majority and what that jury majority should or should not be as a result of the abolition of not proven, which we have overwhelming, I would contend, support for the abolition of not proven. I have touched on the data that has informed our view about moving to a two-thirds majority, both in terms of the Scottish jury research, which showed that the juries, when they were delivered and when they came to a conclusion about which verdict to pass, that it finally balanced trials, was not just a simple reflection on the assessment of the evidence, that the structure of our jury system had an impact on outcome. The number of jurors, number of verdicts and the jury majority in themselves, those structural issues, influence the outcome. That is why we want to increase the balance a little bit in terms of moving from a simple majority to the two-thirds qualified majority. You will have heard some support from that in terms of your evidence sessions, I suppose that I am thinking of the comments from Lord Matthews in particular. I would also point to that, in terms of our own consultation, there was 52 per cent support for a qualified majority. I would acknowledge that a consultation is not a vote or a plebiscite, in the mean. Those are difficult, complex matters, and there was 40 per cent support for the two-thirds. I hope that that does not come across as a bit cheeky, but the committee in 2013 had made some reflections. I appreciate the different personnel on the committee, but I will point to the history of consideration here. In 2013, there was an acknowledgement that, if you have not been able to prove that you need to consider the jury majority because of the impact that you could have on all cases across the board. I hope that members do not think that I am being cheeky here either. There was a previous members' bill by Michael McMahon as well that supported the proposed abolition of not proven, and that bill was also tied into the two-thirds qualified majority. I appreciate that those are judgments that we are all going to have to make together and navigate our way through. There is a particular relationship between the not proven verdict and the majority in various options that I am sure we will continue to discuss in debate. There was a 40 per cent support for the two-thirds majority. There was 52 per cent support in our consultation for a qualified majority, and a qualified majority could be at various levels, but there was 40 per cent support in the consultation for this particular option of 8 out of 12. The majority support was for a qualified majority, as opposed to the simple majority. However, as I said, there is a consultation that is not a plebiscite, it is not a vote, I was just reflecting on various strands of evidence. By contrast, in terms of, because you did ask about, forgive me, Mr Weed, about England, where their system, two verdict system, they have near unanimity 10 out of 12. That option in our consultation was not popular. I think that that received about 13 per cent support. There are other safeguards within our system as it stands. In particular, we do not stand in the Lord Advocate's recent successful reference to the appeal court. We still have corroboration and it is a mean stay of our system, and that would be one of the reasons that this Government would not support going to near unanimity or unanimity. I have some questions on the linkage between the removal of not proven and the changes in the jury that are being proposed. I think that you have given quite a good account of that. I do feel that where the Government was thinking about that is now a wee bit clearer for me, at least in my mind. Some of the evidence that we have heard is that the changes to the majority will make convictions more difficult. I know that the Cabinet Secretary and your officials will have heard this evidence. It has been pretty, not everybody, not everybody that has been in front of us has said that, but there has been a large body of evidence saying that removing not proven and bringing in these changes to the jury will make it more difficult to to get convictions in those type of cases. I am just wondering what you, as the Cabinet Secretary and the Government's response is to the issues that have been raised. What is your thinking on it? Do you believe that to be the case as well or are you confident that that would not be the case? The evidence shows that, if we go from three verdicts to two, that will increase convictions across the board in all cases. We need to ensure that we keep the balance and the integrity in our system if, on the basis—we are turning up the dial a little bit, and that is on the basis that there are other aspects, in particular how the jury system is constructed that influences outcomes, particularly in finely balanced cases, as opposed to just the facts and circumstances. I suppose that there are other more, and it is a balance. I hear those voices and it is the part of the bill that I think I have wrestled with most. It is part of the bill that I will continue to wrestle with most because this is the balance about how we ensure that we minimise the risk of increasing miscarriages of justice. You have heard Lord Matthews talk about that. That is a majority of one sufficient for decisions on innocence or guilt or beyond reasonable doubt in most serious cases.  The jury reforms and the abolition of not proven will apply to all cases. In many regards, the part of the bill is almost a standalone reform. It is not unrelated to the experience of victims in terms of transparency and the very strong views that victims have in particular about the not proven verdict. However, the other parts of the bill have a much stronger correlation around improving that experience. The only point that I am trying to make, Mr Fulton, is that wherever we land on this and other matters, it is the confidence in our system to maintain fairness to all parties, whether that is the complainer or the accused. It is a very difficult job for the Government and for the committee to find that balance, but some concerns have been raised that it could make it more difficult to get convictions under that system. Is there anything built into the bill that would review that, if it is working, if it has become more difficult, if it is leading to more miscarriages of justice or whatever it is, built into the bill to review it if it passes? I suppose that we have built a bill that is based on the substantial research that exists right now. We will build into the bill—I have no doubts about that—that there will have to be on-going evaluation of the impact of the bill, whether that is a more collective impact or an evaluation of the impact of particular aspects of the bill. I want to clarify that the position of the Government is that we are clearly tied, if you like, to remove not-proven as tied to the jury sizes. It is the Government's clear view on that. Just now, there is not an option, for example, to remove not-proven but to keep the jury size as it is, just as an example. Ultimately, this will be what Parliament decides, particularly as we proceed through stage 2 and stage 3. I have outlined the Government's position, our preference. We will, of course, continue to engage in that issue. I am very conscious of the evidence that the Lord Advocate made the other week, as well as the contribution of Lord Matthews. The overriding point that I really want to make is that we have to give serious consideration and that there needs to be that on-going depth of our mutual scrutiny, if I can put it that way, because of what the evidence tells us about the impact of moving from stage 3 to stage 2. We have just got about 15 minutes left and I have still got five members wanting to come in, so if we can have fairly brief questions and succinct answers, that would be helpful. I will bring in Russell Finlay and then John Swinney. Brief questions is my middle name. Good morning. The not proven is likely on its way out, but part 4 also deals with duty sizes, as we have heard. Reducing the numbers from 15 to 12 will require eight out of those 12 to reach a guilty verdict, which we have also heard. That would be inconsistent with just about every comparable jurisdiction worldwide, where it is either unanimity or 10 or 11 out of 12. There is a comment that we have received from the faculty of advocates that this would be quote, an international communication that Scotland places less value in protecting its citizens accused of crime than any and every other nation with a jury system. Perhaps more surprisingly, Professor Fiona Leverick and Eamon Keane told us that they opposed the eight out of 12 proposition in the bill. I am struggling to understand why the Scottish Government want to get rid of one international anomaly not proven and effectively replace it with another, which is this two thirds majority in a jury of 12. I would refute strongly some of the views with respect that has been expressed by the faculty of advocates here. We are removing a verdict that is not understood by jurors, as Mr Finlay has acknowledged, and are seeking to make associated reforms that are clear, proportionate and balanced, that have at its core fairness to both the complainer and the accused. In terms of your more specific point, Mr Finlay, the existence of corroboration is one of the main reasons why I and the Government would not support going to near unanimity or unanimity. I understand what you are saying, that when you look at all those other comparable jurisdictions with a two verdict system, they are 10 out of 12. However, we do not have hung trials in our system, and we still have corroboration, notwithstanding the changes to corroboration as a result of the Lord Advocate's recent reference. I think that what surprises me is the fact that the two professors who are up until now have not expressed a position on the size of the required majority. Both said that they believed that it was a mistake. Is that something that you have taken on board or reflect on, or is that a fixed view now? I have worked very hard to meaningfully listen to a range of views on all aspects of the bill, because I genuinely believe that what complainers and the accused and what we all require is a debate of the highest standard. I have set out why our preference is to go to a two-thirds qualified majority, because we need to ensure that we have the right protections and balance in the system. Our judgment is bearing in mind corroboration that going to unanimity or near unanimity would just be more than is required. The continuation of that line of questioning in the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate perhaps unsurprisingly support the proposal for the two-thirds majority, but they want to go a bit further than that. Where there is a case where, for example, seven out of 12 believe the accused to be guilty, they would like to have the power or the mechanism to seek a retrial. They say that they are in discussion with the Scottish Government about that. Have you taken that on board? Are you likely to amend the legislation to include this provision, or do you think that that would further exacerbate the concerns of those who are referred to in my initial question? Just for clarity, I really hope that I have not misheard Mr Finlay in terms of the Lord Advocate's evidence last week. I do not think that for a minute—I will stand to be corrected—I do not think that she was in any shape or form arguing for unanimity or near unanimity. No, she agrees that with the bill's provision, which is a two-thirds majority, but she wanted to take a step further in that she wanted to have an additional protection or mechanism of seeking a retrial if, for example, only seven out of 12 believed in the accused's guilt. In terms of that request by the Crown for the bill to be amended to have the capacity to seek a retrial, is that something that the Government has agreed to? 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.  It's not off the table. It's being considered. No, I think that's fair. It's not off the table. I suppose that I just want to say something positive and something where we need to be careful. What I wouldn't want to do is that, in removing not proven where we have moved towards taking out something that is seen as a third verdict or the compromise verdict in difficult cases, we need to keep clear positions. We don't, in our system thus far, retrials haven't been a feature. Our system has rested on the finality of verdicts. In terms of transparency between me and committee, I would want to explore further whether the Lord Advocate has outlined or is looking for a system of retrial, or whether it's about more in line with adding in additional exceptions to double jeopardy legislation. Absolutely, there will of course be discussions. I think that the current submission was that, in the event of a 7 out of 12, for example, it would be able to ask the court for a retrial. John Swinney, followed by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, I will continue on this line of argument or discussion. I was struck particularly last week by the comments of the Lord Advocate column 12 in a official report where the Lord Advocate indicated that she considered that the changes that are proposed will make it more difficult to get a conviction in the type of cases that we are talking about. We will have a bill in front of us where the objective is to ensure that we get to better outcomes in relation to the prosecution conviction for sexual crimes. The situation that the Lord Advocate expressed concern about does not materialise. I am very concerned that the abolition of the not proven verdict has been linked to the jury size question. I want to explore the simple majority question. I would like to explore that further. The not proven verdict, which Eamon Keane and Professor Leverick from the University of Glasgow helped to explain to us. The not proven verdict and the not guilty verdict amount to the same thing. I think that we have to be blunt about that point. I therefore would like to understand why, if those two verdicts amount to the same thing, is there a need for us to undertake any compensatory changes in relation to jury size and jury majority, given that the verdict that we are proposing to abolish in this legislation amounts to the same as not guilty? I will not repeat what I said earlier, convener, other than to acknowledge that there are some very fine judgments in that. What I have to recognise is that there are, indeed, particular challenges with sexual offences cases. We will no doubt continue to pursue that. I also have to recognise that the evidence as it stands shows that the balance is tilted when you move from three verdicts to two, and that the whole resin detra of Oliver reforms is to absolutely improve access to justice. However, to do so in a way that improves life and the experience for complainers but does not compromise the rights of the accused. I wonder if there is any further detail that you would like to add to Mr Swinney's question. I suppose just to flag up some of the history you referenced. As Lord Matthews said last week, not proven has always been seen as a counterbalance to the safe to the simple majority and that goes back not just years but decades. You can look at, for example, the Thomson committee. By that logic, it follows that if you abolish the not proven verdict, you should at least reconsider the majority for conviction. The logic, as has been touched on by various people throughout the committee, evidence sessions, is not straightforward. Lord Matthews captured that in his comment that whether in sheer logic that is the case may be doubtful but it probably does counterbalance it. The logical case may not necessarily be straightforward but, in effect, that seems to be what is happening. As the cabinet secretary said, it is contested and you have heard views on on on both sides but the data that we do have does support that view as well. Further backed up by the fact that there is not a single other similar legal system in the world that we know of with two verdicts and a simple majority, hence Lord Matthews telling the committee that the simple majority could be possibly conducive to miscarriages of justice. The difficulty that I have got with all of this relates to the fine judgments that the cabinet secretary talked about. The cabinet secretary made clear that there has to be balance and fairness to all parties. When I read the evidence of the Lord Advocate, I am worried that there is, as a consequence of that, the risk of imbalance in relation to complainants compared to where we are today. The whole purpose of the legislation is because none of us are happy about where we are today. I think that the questions of the relationship between that has been constructed in this legislation and I hear some of the background evidence as to why that is the case. However, I think that the Government needs to explore whether there is sufficiently compelling evidence of the need for a compensatory action in relation to jury size and composition given the fact that the not proven verdict amounts to the same as a not guilty verdict. I encourage the Government to consider further whether the evidence exists to substantiate that point. I take that on board, convener. We are not at the end of stage 1 procession. As I have said before, the bill is a marathon as opposed to a sprint. It is important to recognise that, and the jury evidence would show that, the not proven verdict is seen as the compromise verdict in a two-verdic system. Duries, of course, do not have that option. They have to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty. At this point in time, as I said, I am not prejudging the rest of the parliamentary process. It is the view of the Government that we should make a small adjustment, a simple majority in a jury of 12 would be 7 out of 12. We are proposing 8 out of 12, but I am also conscious that there continues to be a live debate, and the Lord Andrews kept touched upon this in and around the role of corroboration across our system. The Lord Andrews spoke very powerfully on the impact of corroboration across all cases, but also on sexual offence cases. Cabinet Secretary, you are quite right to say that all the political parties had manifest a commitment to abolish a not proven verdict. I did not take a view on my comment in the spell, but it is not something that I supported. However, we may have a consensus on abolishing the not proven verdict, but the problem, as you have heard, and the length of questioning is how we get a consensus around the formulation of the change, the size and the majority of the jury. You said that Scotland is an outlier, no other jurisdiction, but with the current proposals, Scotland would still be an outlier because no other jurisdiction has this majority. Is it your position to have understood it? Is the reason for that, going from saying that we do not want to be an outlier, but we are still an outlier? Is that because of the corroboration that we have in the Scots law that you are comfortable with still being an outlier in international? What I am trying to do in this bill is seek as much consensus as possible through our consultation and the other working groups and work that flowed from various research and other work, whether it is Lady Dorian's or other work, that has underpinned the bill. In the interests of our justice system and its standing in our society and in the interests of complainers, as well as accused, is to build as much consensus as possible, and I will try to do that. I suppose that we would consider our position as it stands now as doing our best to reach that consensus. You are right that we are currently an outlier right now in three fronts in terms of the jury system, but also the way that corroboration features in our system makes us different. We have taken on board the research, the views that were expressed through the consultation, and the on-going existence of corroboration, notwithstanding the Lord Advocate's successful reference to the appeal court, has meant that, where we are just now is that qualified majority that instead of the jury convicted on 7 out of 12, it would be 8 out of 12. Does that mean, in answer to my question, that Scotland would still be an outlier but you are comfortable with that because you think that we have other things that other jurisdictions do not have that amount to corroboration? Even with the passing of all aspects of the bill, there will still be parts of our system that could be described as unique. Other jurisdictions have, I suppose— We are always going to be an outlier. Is that what you mean? We are always going to be different. I am not giving a view for ever and ever, because that will be beyond any of us in this table. You could understand why I am asking the question. If the argument for removing not proven is that we are an outlier, we are still an outlier, but I do not particularly have a problem with that because I think that some features of our system are good. Anyway, I just wanted to understand that. Yes, so rather an outlier was not proven. But the evidence to abolish not proven is way beyond the evidence for the abolition. It far exceeds the fact that we are an outlier. I am not giving me that point. I suppose that some people have argued for its retention based on its evidence. I think to be fair—I think that my assessment is—to be fair, even though, to support it, I realise that there is a consensus to move on from it. That is why I am trying to understand how we then get a consensus around other things if we are going to remove it. I am correct to say that you have put on the record that the purpose is not to per se increase conviction rates—that is not the purpose. The part of the bill is neither about increasing or decreasing conviction rates. The research that you referred to—did you say meta-analysis? Yes. I was trying to establish if we were aware of this research and I do not know if we are, because what you said is that research said that it would increase convictions, which is at odds with what the Lord Advocate said last week, where she, as John Swinney had said in his line of questioning, concerned about the Lord Advocate saying that she thinks that it will result in lower convictions. However, your research shows otherwise. The problem that I have is that I would have liked to have put that research to other witnesses. Is that something that we have missed? I do not know what research or evidence that committee has perviewed or looked at. The meta-analysis that I was referring to was published last month. It is an independent bit of research by Jackson at all. It is a quantitative meta-analysis based on data sets from 10 different mock trials. I was pointing to the research, which, if it is helpful, we can share with the committee that the results were unambiguous. There is a statistically significant effect towards lower conviction rates under the Scottish three-verdict system than under an Anglo-American two-verdict system. The effect was found across a range of different offences ranging from death by negligence to physical assault rape homicide. I am not aware that the committee has been made aware of that research. The clerks are just looking at it just now and we will make sure that that is circulated to members. Just lastly on the question that Russell Findlay raises, the Lord Advocate raised with the committee in cases where there is a seven-five majority, so there would be no conviction then, which is what you have legislated for. The question of whether or not the Crown should have the right for a retrial and you said that you might look at the double jeopardy provisions to see if. I just wonder if you are prepared to give some assurances that any stage two amendments, I suppose that is what we might be talking about here, we are taking to consideration that any right of the Crown, if you thought that is the direction that travel you wanted to go down, would be clearly set out in legislation. What I am really getting at is I would not be content, although I think that is a fair point made by the Lord Advocate. We have got to consider that a future Lord Advocate might take a different approach than the current one. This Parliament should not give powers lightly away. If the Parliament does legislate as provided for in the bill, it feels that there should be some allowance for the Crown to retrial, there should not be a wide provision. I would be deeply concerned if the Parliament was not the final say. I cannot divorce it from what we are looking at right now, and I wonder if you could give me some assurance that, if you are looking at it, you would make sure that it was a parliamentary decision? I think that it always has to be a parliamentary decision, because irrespective of the views, merits or otherwise, it is that, in terms of retrial, that would be a significant departure from what we do now. That is not to say that it should not be considered or scrutinised, but it would nonetheless be a significant change that I would contend that it would need to be looked at properly, considered fully. I am trying to assure the committee that we will consider the Lord Advocate's evidence. We have started that process, but we also need to be looking at the detail on all legislation. We would have to think carefully whether stage 2 or stage 3 amendments are appropriate for that. The answer to that might be yes or no, but we are trying to convey to the committee that we really need to be all collectively invested in the understanding and the debate around these very complex difficult decisions. That is helpful, but just so for clarity, what I am really getting at is that we have to be open to that, since the Lord Advocate mentioned it. I am really interested in how, if there is a provision that is wide in scope and gives the courts the power to decide what they would regard, I would have concerns about a provision such as that. However, if the provision was more tightly drawn—this is a criterion, which is the ground—then I would be more comfortable if that was something that you were thinking about. I have to acknowledge that I have heard Ms McNeill in the committee make that point a number of times around scope and the careful decisions that need to be made around powers that are retained or other parts of the system that are given additional powers. I have a couple more members wanting to come in. We are running over time. I think that this is a vitally important discussion, so I am going to bring in Rona Mackay and then Katie Clark. Thank you, convener. I am aware of time, so I will keep my question brief. Conviction rates for rape are the lowest of any crime type. I think that the Lord Advocate said that it is a 20 per cent rate for single rape complainers, which is clearly quite shocking. You will know that rape crisis is very concerned about the two-third majority in a 12-person jury in the field that it would make it harder to get convictions, which is clearly the last thing that we want. We will be going on to talk about the new sexual offences court. This is quite a left-field question, but I am going to ask it anyway. Do you envisage to the Government ever making a different configuration or criteria for juries in that court when we talk about jury balance and size, to try and balance out their fears relating to corroboration and all the rest of it? Is that something the Government would ever consider, given that we are setting up a new court anyway? That is quite a left-field question, Ms McHife. In terms of our proposition right now is that the jury system operates across all offences. I would think that we would need to give very careful consideration as to whether you could have a different... I am trying to break the impasse between the particular problem with sexual crime convictions compared to the rest. We all understand that rape crisis is concerned that if in their opinion it is going to make it harder to convict because of the jury configuration, then it is not helping them. I understand and entirely accept that there are unique challenges around sexual offences cases. When we look at the system overall, not proven is rarely used. It is 1 per cent in summary cases and 5 per cent in solemn cases, but it is used more frequently in sexual offences. The short answer to Ms McHife's question is that we will reflect on her question accordingly. I think that there would be particular challenges around it, but it is perhaps better for me not to just give an off-the-cuff response. Totally. I totally understand that. Thank you, convener. I am Katie Clark, and then we will move on. You said that the evidence was clear in terms of the impact of removing not proven in terms of the number of convictions. However, the evidence that we have heard is far more mixed. We were not aware of the meta data evidence that you spoke to Pauline McNeill about, but we were aware of the other Scottish mock jury research that has been directed to us. However, the views that we have heard from the various witnesses that have come to speak to us are far more complicated. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware of that. Given that witnesses have also told us that providing a breakdown of jury decisions in terms of unanimous majority and the exact numbers and breakdown in terms of outcomes from juries is not available, would it not be sensible to get that data before we make what are quite significant changes to the Scottish system in terms of jury majorities? We have been told that there is dispute as to whether we can do it legally in Scotland. There has been legislation passed down south to enable that kind of research to take place. Would it not be sensible to have a better understanding of what actually happens now before making what are really significant changes to the system? My understanding, and I will pass to Alasdor Byrd in a moment, is that it is the limitations around the Contemptive Court Act that places real constraints on live, real life research as deliberations happen in a real life sense. What we have been told is that there seems to be different uses to whether that is correct in Scotland, but irrespective of that, in England, to enable them to carry out this research, they changed the law to make it absolutely clear that it would be possible. I wonder why, rather than coming forward with what are quite controversial changes that go way beyond the manifesto commitments of the various political parties to abolish not proven, we are not trying to get our evidence base so that we make evidence-based policy and to enable us to do the collection of data and analysis to make those decisions, and that could be a legal change that could be incorporated presumably into this bill. I suppose that we may have a different understanding of what occurs or the changes that have been made south of the border, and there may be different views on what the legal barriers are to really getting that information, that breakdown. I do not know whether Alasdor or Nicola you want to come in either, if Alasdor starts. I am happy to. I will just rub it in the background. It is not necessary to collect the data of how we split in the current system because the outcome is the same, regardless, as long as the thresholds reach for conviction. It is a conviction if it is not, it is an acquittal, so it does not need to know the fine-grain details of how it splits, so that is why it is not collected now. The reason that I would say is that, firstly, the reason that there is a downside of collecting that I will come into, and also there is a question as to whether it would actually take us any further, which I will then cover. The downside is that the reason in detail on that kind of thing is not collected is for important reasons of public confidence. If a jury split 8.7, for example, as happens in the current system because it is a simple majority, you can imagine how that might be covered in the press and on social media, and what that might do to public confidence, whether it is a narrow conviction or a narrow acquittal. That would not be beneficial to anyone involved in that case in terms of stigma. Secondly, I suppose, and perhaps more importantly, I am not sure that data would ultimately take us that much further forward, because if, for example, you found out that a jury did not reach a two-thirds majority in a particular case, you might suggest that you can infer from that on the new reform system, that would have been acquittal, but I am not sure that you could, because under the current system, they are directed, they need a simple majority. In the new system, they would be directed, if you want a conviction, you need to meet a two-thirds majority. What the jury did in the current system would not be a reliable guide to what they would do if they were directed differently in a different system. It might give you some idea, but I think that we would be a few years down the line, and the same people would be questioning the data saying, well, what does it really tell you, so I am just not sure that it would seal the deal in terms of evidence. Do you think that there is any suggestion that the outcomes would be publicised in individual cases? I think that we are talking about research that would be across the board to begin to understand trends and what actually happens. I know that we have got a shortage of time, and I am not suggesting that. It is surprising that we are not trying to get a firmer evidence base, because I know that the cabinet secretary says that the evidence is clear, but that is not what other witnesses have said to us, and I am sure that she has heard the evidence. I appreciate that, convener, that there are a range of views, but I have pointed to substantive bits of research. On the legalities and the timeshort, convener, we can certainly fall up and right. I wonder if Nicola Sturgeon wanted to add anything. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Certainly, in terms of the Contempts of Court Act, it is unlawful to question jurors or for them to reveal the particulars of deliberations in the particular case, so that they cannot speak about the views that they formed on the evidence that they heard and why they voted in the particular way that they voted. There is that legal restriction. There is not a restriction per se on speaking to people who have served on duties, about their understanding of the system generally, but you have to be very careful that you do not impact on straying into the territory of how they are particularly deliberated in that specific case. My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that, while there is research south of the border in relation to people who have served on a jury, there are still limitations. You cannot ask them about their deliberations on that particular jury. It is quite basic, though. We are just asking for numbers. I hear what the cabinet secretary says. We will have to move on. If there is time at the end, I am happy to come back if members have further questions on part 4. We are now going to move on to part 5, which is the provisions in relation to the creation of a sexual offences court. If I can again open up, cabinet secretary, you will be aware that last week Lord Matthews gave evidence to the committee during which he said in a quote, that the judiciary is broadly speaking in favour of the proposal for a sexual offences court. We agree with the thinking of and conclusions drawn by Lady Dorian's review group for the various reasons that she has set out. Despite a number of statutory interventions over the years and the best efforts of everyone involved, the pace of change has been glacial and we have not been able to affect the cultural change that we think is needed because reform has been piecemeal. We have heard other concerns about the proposal around resourcing, sentencing powers and the ability of the law justice general to remove judges. I wonder if the cabinet secretary has had an opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we have heard and is she able to provide some reassurance specifically around the concerns that have been raised? In terms of the views that are expressed in the law justice general's power to remove judges, we have listened very carefully to those and are looking at potential amendments so that the situation is clear and unambiguous. There is an arrangement in terms of the appointment and removal of temporary judges and it may be that we need to be clear in the bill to introduce provisions that mirror those arrangements. In terms of sentencing powers, I am firmly of the view that the sexual offences court should have unlimited sentencing powers. That is a departure from the original work undertaken by the original review. We absolutely should be gardened against any perception that this court is a downgrade. It is a court with status and should have the same powers as the High Court, given the gravity of some of the offences that it is dealing with. It will be transformative. You have heard lots of evidence in the opportunities when we build something from the ground up. The founding principle of this court is to improve the experience of complainers. Again, there is broad support for the establishment of this court with national jurisdictions and being able to operate in around 40 venues across the country. It is within the gift of us all to shape how this new court is seen. Inevitably, in terms of resources convener, the financial memorandum outlines set-up costs and on-going costs. Inevitably, there are costs and we will be constantly looking at that from now to implementation, because, as we know, costs can, of course, change. In the longer term, there are potential savings around more efficient use of court resources. We have already seen the benefits of really good judicial case management in other courts. We are talking about around 700 cases that are currently within our system, both in terms of sheriff, jury and in the solemn cases in the High Court. It is also about the more effective management of those cases, which was at the heart of Lady Dorian's review that we are now dealing with a huge increase in those cases in comparison to 10 years, so thought needed to be given to the efficient case management of those particularly difficult cases in the interests of justice being served and, of course, in the interests of complainers. I know that we have moved on from the previous part of the bill, but I did find the testimony from Mr Bowden to be quite staggering in respect of the explanation given about not having data on how juries are split. We have a bill in front of us that is going to fundamentally alter that, yet we do not know anything about how they have previously been split. The rationale of the Government appears to be that we do not need to know this, we do not need to know what was described as the fine-grained details and that the public and the media perhaps cannot be trusted to know it. I think that Katie Clark's line of questioning yielded the fact that, if that is the case, why on earth can researchers not get this basic information? I find it mind-blowing, frankly, that we are being asked to radically alter juries and jury sizes and jury ratios when no one within the criminal justice system has sought this information. I will ask one question about part 5. I know that others want to come in in terms of trauma-informed practice, which is central to part 2 and features in the sexual offences court in part 5. Last November, NHS Education for Scotland gave evidence to the committee that its definition of trauma-informed, which is a five-part definition, was not being used for the bill. Two parts of its five-part definition were omitted, and what they said is that this may also hinder the effective implementation of other elements of the bill. When I asked you, cabinet secretary, whether you would consider the request to think again on this, you said that your door was always open. The question is, have the NHS been through your open door? Have you agreed to the request for the five-part definition to be part of the bill? Or have you now ruled it out? I think that I have laid out today that we have lots of evidence that we have also laid out that there are some ethical and legal considerations about the type of evidence that can be gathered and how. I would always accept the argument that there is always a case to seek more evidence, but we also have to acknowledge that there can be other limits around that and that we can continue to seek evidence for every and a day without ever implementing any of that evidence. However, I accept—in particular, as Ms Clark pointed out—that there is a balance. The very important question around trauma-informed practice is whether there is a difference between the definitions that are required in practice. Of course, what has to be expressed in the context of the law? Let me reassure Mr Finlay that my door is never closed and that we are continuing to engage with a large number of stakeholders. Have they been through your door in respect of this particular request? They have not been through my specific door in my office up to this moment in time. I hope that that is not too much information for you, Mr Finlay. However, the work that was led by NHS and Dr Bruce in terms of the trauma-informed framework is particularly important to us and is particularly valid. Are you going to change the bill? I am looking at it, but with respect I will want to— Sure. It has been about three months since they raised this and this and the business submission to the committee. I put it to you then, and we are three months down the line. I know your impression, but it is on the table or off the table. It is on the table. Is there anything from a more legalistic point of view that you would like to add? I might just come in very briefly to say that it is something that we have been exploring with the justice partners to whom the definition would apply. We really need to understand what it would mean if we changed the definition that we had in the bill to something broader, so it is absolutely something that we are exploring. Are there timescales attached to that? We have a stage 2 timetable and a stage 3 timetable that we will all have to adhere to. Sure, but if you, as a Government, want to change your own bill, you surely have to get on with it. I do. In terms of due process with respect, Mr Finlay, and respect to the committee, before I lay out responses to Parliament and then around our intentions to stage 2 and stage 3, I would like to see the committee's stage 1 report. Can I premise my remarks by saying that the proposal for a specialist court is the most significant proposal in the bill? I have to say that the Government put themselves in danger of losing the consensus over it, so my line of questioning relates to that. My first question is, what is the reason that you did not fully adopt Lady Dorian's suggestion? As you said, Cabinet Secretary, you do not think that this court should be considered to be a lower court, but, in fact, it will be. However, if you adopted Lady Dorian's recommendations for it to be a parallel court, there would be no question over that at all. I have questions in the right of audience in order to illustrate why I think that it will be seen as a lower court. I know that you were not, Cabinet Secretary, when the legislation was drafted. I would be happy to hear whether your officials want to come in and say that it seems extraordinary for Lady Dorian to do that work. Come up with a proposal that everyone thinks is a good one, but dilute it by saying that it is not going to be a parallel court to the high court. I really do not understand it. I am looking at the mountain from a different side here, and I welcome to officials in a moment. While we have taken the spirit and the vast, vast majority of the detail from Lady Dorian's report, I would contend that some of the changes around unlimited sentencing power enhance the status of the court. I am genuinely struggling to see why that would not be seen as a court of status. It is not the high court that we have established that. It is a national court with wider sentencing powers, but, in the hierarchy of the court system, it will not be as high as the high court. Is that right? We are not grafting a new court, a new way of working, a new court that is built from the ground up. We are not grafting it on to existing court systems purely because that will mean that changes will be iterative, as opposed to seismic. Andrew Rennie, you have been in uniform longevity in this issue. I do, yes. I guess that the reason for establishing the court is about managing those cases differently. It is less about status, it is about ensuring that we have a court that improves the experience of victims and continues to do that in a way that is fair for the accused. It is not necessarily about having a parallel court, it is about doing it the right way for victims. That is the rationale and the reasoning that has gone in behind getting to the court and establishing the court and making sure that we do it the right way. Lady Dorian had specifically said that she thought that it should be a parallel court, but you did not go for that. I just wondered why. I hear what you are saying. I told the Government about changing the experience and doing things differently. I am totally in support of that. However, my question is, why did you not adopt Lady Dorian's suggestion that it should be a parallel court? Then we would not be having this argument about whether you have lowered the status of sexual offences or not. Do you see what I mean? I am not sure that she did suggest that it should be a parallel court with respect to that. That was not my reading of the recommendations that was made by Lady Dorian. She suggested that a model of the sexual offences court was shared a number of similarities with the High Court, but she also suggested a number of differences from the High Court in terms of its sensing powers, in terms of its rights of audience, jurisdiction, etc. In the process of developing the court, we have engaged with a variety of stakeholders to look at the model of court, and I guess the differences that have emerged with what Lady Dorian suggested in her review have come out as a process of that engagement with stakeholders. So one of the examples that you have probably heard me ask these questions about rights of audience, and that is shared by the Senators about a change to the rights of audience. Forgive me, because as a layperson, I am trying to fully understand that. Despite the restriction in relation to rape and murder, the types of cases in which a solicitor would be able to represent the accused in the sexual offences court would include ones that are currently prosecuted in the High Court, thus allowing solicitors to represent an accused in a broader range of serious cases. The bill will allow that to change so that a procurator fiscal deputy cannot prosecute at section 476. What has happened here is that, for some offences with rape excluded, murder excluded, there will be a change to the rights of audience. Surely you must see that that will be seen as lowering the status of the court, because we have these rules for a reason. We have had years of differences between solicitor advocates and who can represent an accused person who is facing eight or nine years in jail. Is that something that came about by deliberate provision, accident or jail? I will start off with that in terms of rights of audience. The sexual offences court is a hybrid court in which it can deal with all those High Court solemn cases as well as those serious sheriff and jury cases. In terms of how it is constructed, we have been very clear that there is no diminution in the quality or the status of representation that is available to the accused. There are particular cases in terms of those High Court cases. I am sorry to challenge you on that, but there are cases that went to the High Court that would track rights of audience from advocates and solicitor advocates. The spice briefing is quite clear, because it is not the High Court that it is possible for solicitors who currently cannot represent certain categories of cases. The spice briefing is quite clear about that, and I did not understand why you would have legislated in that way. I think that my point was that, while you and Andrew can keep me right, there is opportunity for solicitors to be dealing with a broader range of cases. However, in terms of those cases that currently go to the High Court, there is no diminution in terms of the representation that is available for the accused. Andrew, if you could answer that, that would be helpful. The rationale behind the rights of audience that we have arrived at is for the court. Again, the Lady Dorian Review has suggested that it should be only those with higher rights of audience, but during the process of engaging with partners on that, there was a concern that, because of the fact that the sexual offence court would be taking both High Court and Sheriff Court cases, that would significantly increase the workload on advocates and solicitor advocates. They would be required to do cases that were previously heard in the Sheriff Court and that a solicitor would have been able to appear in those cases. During the process of engaging with the working group, we came to a conclusion that the way to do it would be to protect rights of audience. It required that solicitor advocates only appear in murder cases and rape cases because they are currently pleased with the Crown and therefore can only be tried in the High Court. I wish to mirror those provisions in the bill in the sexual offences court.  Do you think that that is fair to an accused person that they now would not necessarily, like where they previously would have the right to be? I think that I have understood your question from the wrong angle. The position of the Government is that we did not want solicitor advocates or council cases to be compelled to represent cases that they would not normally be involved in. There is an underlying issue in terms of ensuring that there is the appropriate legal aid available in terms of... Sorry, but I think that Andrew had just said that, if I have understood the reasons of workload, you have allowed for provision for solicitors to represent cases where previously would have been counseled. I understood that. Yes, so it's good to get to that point and I'll ask Lisa to address that. If it's okay just to come in on that. I think that Andrew is absolutely right when he was describing some of the discussions that we had in the working group with representatives across sector to look at this. Because the court is seeking to take the high court caseload as well as the sheriff and jury load caseload, that obviously expands the caseload and the discussions within the group did look at is the current complement of advocates and solicitor advocates able to cope with such an expanded caseload per the recommendation of Lady Dorian. Lady Dorian did, as you say, recommend that the rights of audience should be identical to the high court and we have departed. The reason that we've departed for that is partly because of those workload problems in relation to those sort of sheriff and jury cases that the court will hear. There was some discussion about those cases are currently represented by solicitors in the sheriff and jury courts. Currently presents a development opportunity for solicitors is something that solicitors have. So it's a development opportunity you're giving solicitors to represent accused persons and I think we need clarity because you can understand my concern is. May I continue about that. That's the split that we were trying to recognise in the court because it's bringing together high court cases and sheriff and jury court cases. We weren't satisfied that there was a need to change the rights of audience if you like in terms of the sheriff and jury court cases, but for high court cases there's no intention for cases that would otherwise have been called in the high court to not have legal aid access to counsel and solicitor advocates. The difficulty in being able to set this out in the bill in terms of rights of audience is because, as you say, only rape and murder are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the high court. The other cases that are heard in the high court in relation to sexual offences are ultimately the discretion of the Lord Advocate and of prosecutors. It's very difficult to be able to reflect that distinction within this hybrid court, but what we are doing is exploring with the Scottish legal aid board how we can make sure that there is the right mechanism in place to allow legal aid for counsel in cases that would otherwise have appeared in the high court. There's no intention to try and change that type of representation. It's simply how it's reflected in the bill because of the hybrid jurisdiction. I would welcome further discussion on this. I know that Katie wants to come in on a supplement. This is really important because this is a significant proposal, which, without resolving this in my opinion, it would give me difficulty in supporting the provisions in the bill to be perfectly truthful with you. I know that I've mentioned this before and I apologise to mention it again, but when we increased the sentencing powers of the share of court in 2004, the legal aid board eventually refused to sanction advocates for cases that previously would have been heard in a higher court. Ask any of the profession so that the problem is that if the less the legal aid board give you assurances, accused persons who would otherwise have been properly represented by senior counsel or junior counsel will no longer, by their own admission, be automatically entitled to that, and if you leave it to the legal aid board, the same will happen as happened in 2005. Serious cases that are indicted in the share of court will no longer attract the higher level of representation, and I have to say that that is throwing the baby out of the bathwater, if we don't close the door on this. The cabinet secretary opened by saying that you don't want this to be seen as a lower court, but it will be if you don't resolve these issues. Sorry, I would be happy. We will, convener, make sure that we are learning all the relevant lessons from history if there is a requirement by committee for us to, to me, write to you in detail in terms of the exchange that officials have had with Ms McNeill. We will do that and we will do it. I would be really grateful, because it's given me quite the cost we're concerned. I'm happy to leave it there, but I don't know if Katie wanted to tell something on my line of questions. I will bring in the other members. I know that you've got a supplementary one. Given everything that Pauline McNeill has said about previous experience, do you not accept that we need clarity in terms of the black letter of the law? It doesn't matter what Pauline McNeill's intentions are, it doesn't matter what assurances or correspondence there is with this committee, what matters is what the law will be. If you are going to set it up this way as a separate court, then there needs to be clear rights. The alternative, of course, would have been to have specialist divisions of the sheriff court and the high court, which many people would argue for. They could be very, very different from the way things are at the moment with their own rules of court, but you've chosen this pathway and if you choose this pathway, surely you must accept that there must be absolute clarity in terms of the black letter of the law that the rights of those involved will not in any way be reduced. Would the cabinet secretary accept that? I would accept that the law needs to be unambiguous and clear as possible. There is always a distinction between what is in the black letter of the law and what may follow through further regulation or guidance, but that need for that clear pathway and that clarity and mutual understanding in terms of what isn't on the record. We will seek to give comfort to members as we proceed with stages 2 and 3. Is there anything else that you would like to add? No, thanks, cabinet secretary. I think that that's a good point. We will continue to explore what mechanism we might be able to look at to give that reassurance and simply just very quickly to pick up on your point, Ms Clark, about the specialist divisions. That was something that the working group did consider and did discount as not providing the change at the scale at which it's needed. I think that you have to accept that politicians will presume that there may be a cost-cutting agenda here because that is the experience in the past, as I think Pauline has outlined, giving one example, but there are other examples. In your response to the convener, you had said that the words build something from the ground in relation to the sexual offences court. In your reply to Pauline McNeill, you had said that it would be a new court built from the ground up. I was wondering if you could tell me what the difference would be between a sexual offences court, which we know is not going to be built from the ground up. It is used in the current estate that we have already got and the current high court, which will be required to accord with trauma-informed practice following the passage of the bill. I was actually paraphrasing Lady Dorian in terms of building this new court and new structures and new rules and new practices and new philosophy. Again, to paraphrase Lady Dorian, it was a clean sheet approach. The advantage of the national jurisdiction aspect is that this court will be able to sit in nearly 4039, so I cannot read more in hand right now, but it will be able to sit in around 40 courts and facilities around the country. It can have a presence and appearance in localities nearer to local justice, so it is 39. The court can appear in 39 locations, whereas a high court can currently appear in 10 locations. I would contend that this court of national jurisdiction, in terms of where it can appear, is in line with trauma-informed practice. Will you be able to put all the adjustments? Obviously, the victims groups that we have heard from are obviously saying that they are voting separate entrances, separate exits, separate areas, so that the accused do not come into contact with the victims. Will you be able to do that in the current estate? The fabric of the court estate is, of course, a fundamental point, and it continues to make improvements in the court estate, which is something that the Government is committed to. Perhaps Ms Dowie is aware that, in terms of the draft budget, there is not only a 9.5 per cent increase in resource funding for courts, but there is also a capital increase of 28 per cent, so that is a significant uplift in recognition that we have to continue to invest in the fabric of our buildings to ensure that all the correct arrangements are made for the safety, security and wellbeing of victims and witnesses. What training would you expect parties involved in the sexual offences court to undertake, and how would that be different from the trauma-informed practice set out in part 2 of the bill? That will be a detail that will be worked through with the experts in sexual offences, the experts in trauma-informed practice, and the courts that have to ensure that whoever appears in the new sexual offences courts has undertaken the requisite training for that. It is an important point in terms of the training for professionals who will be supporting the operation of that. That work in terms of how that work will be developed and, crucially, how we implement that. Of course, the substantial work in terms of what is required was undertaken with the publication of the trauma-informed skills framework for the justice sector as a whole that we debated in Parliament. We know what trauma-informed practice and trauma-informed training should look like and what my officials are engaged with, particularly with our partners in the court, is the mechanisms and how, as part of the implementation process of the court, all of that would be rolled out in advance of the court becoming operational. Those who will be in the sexual offences court will get more training than the part 2 of the bill. I think that that is possible, but there are clear duties in the bill in terms of the participants and agents across the justice system.  It is not really for me to define the content and nature of the courses with respect, but I suppose that it will be a matter for the sexual offences court that there may be a view that there is additional training required. You mentioned the budget earlier on, and that is one of my concerns as well, the financial memorandum and how much money that will cost and will be allocating enough money to it. The Lord Advocate also raised doubts about financing, stating that the Crown Office struggles for finances presently and possibly in the future. Some questions would be, how will the Scottish Government consider how it will finance the Crown Office more appropriately? I am pleased to say again that, as a result of the draft budget that is in place with the Parliament right now for the Parliament's consideration, there is a sizeable uplift for the Crown Office of 11.66 per cent. That equates to £21.2 million. Over the piece, I know that there has been an in excess of a 50 per cent increase into resources put into the Crown Office since the start of the last Parliament. If I share some more recent figures 2019-20, the resource input into the Crown Office was £113 million. In terms of what is in the draft budget, that is now £203 million. That, over the piece, has been a sizeable increase. Obviously, the Crown Office, like me, negotiates with the finance secretary every year that the budget is going forward. However, in terms of looking at past investment, the Crown Office has benefited from significant additional investment that has been put in place, particularly in terms of resource, but also in terms of capital and some other non-cash supports. The overall increase in the past few years from 2019-20, the investment goes from nearly £121 million to the total investment in the draft budget at £223 million. I suppose that my concerns over the budget is whether we are putting the right resources in to achieve the aim that we want and whether it is a real-term increase and whether it covers everything that is going to be required to put all the training in for this bill. One of the statements that we heard from somebody was that if we had better prepared witnesses, we would probably get the outcome at the verdict that we were looking for. However, if we get the verdict, which means that more guilty people are going to go to prison, that will increase the prison population. We already have issues with the prison population just now. Within the budget, even to get people out of prisons for community payback, we have criminal justice social work, which is saying that we have had a flat cash settlement for the past four years. I still have concerns around the whole financial memorandum and whether we are putting the required funding into all the areas of the service that will require it. At the end of the day, and I am not going to go into the prison population issues because, as I said yesterday and reply to Mr Findlay, in the not-too-distant future, I will come back to Parliament and make a statement in and around that and will be, I suppose, refuting some of the remarks that Ms Dowie has made in point to the investment that is in the draft budget on criminal justice social work. I will lay all that to one side just now. At the end of the day, we all want guilty people to be convicted. We all want victims to receive the very best of support so that they can give the very best of evidence. I think that it is always fair to scrutinise resources. It is, of course, fair of me to say that the Government's funding has not kept pace with real terms. In terms of our block grant, funding had a 1.2 per cent real terms reduction, which equates to £1.5 billion. That is even before we get to capital, which will contract by 10 per cent of real terms over the next five years. Nonetheless, in terms of the investment in the Crown Office, both in terms of resources and capital, and our investment in resources and capital in the court system, despite the real terms cuts to what the Government as a whole has to play with, we have a very good settlement in comparison to other areas in the justice budget. There are particular significant increases—11 per cent, 10 per cent and, in some cases, 28 per cent—to budgets. I hope that we will give some comfort to Ms Dowie, and I hope that she will support the budget when we come to that point in our parliamentary timetable. I am sure that we will have more conversations in that. Two more members want to come in, and then we will be having a break, so I will bring in Rona Mackay and their Nossal Finlay. I wanted to ask you about floating trial diets. I think that it is generally accepted that they are not a good thing. They have caused great distress to complainers and uncertainty, and the Lord Advocate has said that she would like to see them disappear. My question is whether the sexual offences court will alleviate the problem of that. Is it at all possible to legislate for the end of them, or is that best left to the independent judiciary? I am very supportive of reducing the use of floating trials. I very much recognise the anxiety and uncertainty that they can cause. I would also have to recognise that delays cause trauma and anxiety to complainers and victims and witnesses. I am conscious that there is a different perspective from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals system to that that has been expressed by the Lord Advocate and other victims groups. I would like to see a reduction in the use of floating trials. In terms of the sexual offences court, they will have the opportunity to set their own rules, so that will be a matter for them. Colleagues will be aware that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals system wrote to committee in the past week, where they put forward evidence that 97 per cent of trials call within the float period. They provided other information that if floating trials were banned altogether, they are saying that that would add 22 weeks to the process. We need to take some care in that area. An outright ban may have other consequences, particularly while the court recovery programme still continues. It is another example of why the use of pre-recorded evidence is also important. I appreciate that it is a very live issue with different views. I did not realise at the beginning of a tangent talking about budgets. I do not have the time to counter some of what was said as much as I would like to, but my question relates to the remit of the sex crimes court. Lady Dorian believes that it should not include crimes such as murder, as do others. Is the Government's position fixed on that that it will do so? It is quite correct—a point of divergence from the original report. Again, it is my understanding. I accept that there were some points raised by the Crown and the Lord Advocate in particular, in and around that, that we have sought to take on board. Ultimately, the discretion in terms of what offence goes where in those cases where there is a murder but there is a sexual element to it would remain ultimately the decision of the prosecutors in terms of where that goes, whether that is the sexual offences court or whether it is the high court. The rationale—I will try to be brief, convener—is that quite often, in a sexualised murder, there will be other surviving witnesses. People who will be called to give evidence on the offence that has been tried—There is a case right now, in fact—so there will be other surviving witnesses who have experienced sexual abuse or a sexual offence. There is also the flexibility in terms of acknowledging the needs of those victims and witnesses. I will come in on that, so I have to interrupt. Therefore, it is going to stay in the bill. But the prosecution has the discretion. My view is that, in my preference—I have not put it this way—my preference is that the Crown should have the discretion in those sexualised murder cases, whether it goes to the sexual offences court or to the high court. I also want to acknowledge and put on record that there are very sound reasons for why such a case could and should go to the sexual offences court, bearing in mind the needs of surviving victims and witnesses. I think that we will now have a comfort break for around about five minutes or so, and so I will suspend this meeting. We will now continue our session and move on to part six, which is the proposals around the jury list trial pilot. I wonder if I can just, as usual, kick off questions. Cabinet Secretary, you will obviously be aware of the concerns that have been raised about the proposed pilot of rape trials without juries. For example, the Faculty of Advocates has indicated that it strongly opposes the pilot, stating that it would compromise the rights of the accused, and the Scottish Listers Bar Association has said that it will not take part in a pilot. I am just interested in your response to the concerns that have been expressed, and whether you have had an opportunity, perhaps, to have any engagement or discussions with some of the bodies that have been particularly opposed to the proposal. Thank you very much, convener. It is very core the proposition around a pilot for a single judge rape trial comes from, as you well know, the work of Lady Dorian. The essence of that is to examine in greater depth via that time-limited pilot to ascertain the effectiveness of such a pilot and how it is perceived by everybody involved. Essentially, to enable the issues to be assessed in a practical rather than a theoretical way and to have an informed debate. My view is that it is an unrivaled opportunity to look at what, if anything, is next bearing in mind the long-standing concerns in and around prevalence of rape myths in our society and in juries and those long-standing concerns about conviction rates. In terms of my discussions with people who have concerns, I assure committee that I have had many discussions with people and organisations who are opposed to the pilot, as proposed by Lady Dorian. My commitment to, whether it is bar associations or the faculty of advocates, is to continue with those discussions while I would strongly refute any suggestion that there is anything in the pilot that undermines the rights of the accused given the rule of written statements and that single judge trials is not a novel experience within our justice system as it stands. Nonetheless, I remain more than willing to that open dialogue in terms of how the criteria are crafted, how the pilot will operate and how it is evaluated to give as much assurance as possible to those who have concerns. That helps me to come in nicely with my follow-up question, which was about what you anticipate the pilot would explore. For example, is it seeking to look at the impact on conviction rates, the experience for survivors, resource implications. I am interested just to get a bit more detail on what the pilot is seeking to do, what questions the pilot might be asking and what it is seeking to evaluate. As I said, the purpose of the pilot is to gather empirical evidence to inform the debate on how our justice system can most effectively respond to rape or attempted rape cases. It is posing the question whether it is not changing the decision maker, whether that improves the complainers' experience and whether that removes barriers to justice. This is one area where there are three working groups that flowed from Lady Dorian's work, and there is a particular working group with respect to the pilot. There are three broad strands to the purpose of the pilot and what it is trying to elicit information on. First, how is it perceived by everyone involved, whether that is the victim, the accused or the lawyers? Secondly, what impact the pilot has on the effectiveness and efficiency of the trial process? In some of my discussions with the members of the legal establishment, they speak to a different atmosphere, a different tone and perhaps a different skill set that is utilised when a case has been made to a judge as opposed to a jury. Would that lead to more focused deliberations? Is it a more efficient process as well as a more victim-centred process? The third strand is what would be the impact on outcomes. I am not going to pre-judge the outcomes in any pilot. The word time-limited is there for a purpose. It is not a pilot that can go on in perpetuity. The pilot would have to be evaluated, a report would have to be laid in Parliament, and then it would be for Parliament to make a decision whether there was no further action or whether there was a continuation of the proposition or whether there was a development of another proposition. It is a proposition for a time-limited pilot. Is the Scottish Government's motivation behind the duralis rape trials to increase conviction rates? It would be wrong of me to portray that as a tool that is like 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 piece conviction rates for attempted rape are 46 per cent in comparison to about 84 per cent for other crimes when you disaggregate different types of rape cases in terms of the so-called acquaintance rape. That conviction rate, according to the Lord Advocate, is around 20-25 per cent. There is a difference in conviction rates between adults and children, where there has been an offence under section 18, the sexual offences act has a higher conviction rate of over 70 per cent. For adults, where the offence has been prosecuted under section 18, one of the sexual offences acts is about 35 per cent from memory. I cannot not be concerned about that. I have to respect the independence of the courts and judiciary, and I need them under an illegal obligation to do so. However, I want to find the right way, and I want to look at the evidence without prejudging, because we cannot ignore these conviction rates. That is one of the reasons for that. It is not just my concern that is across a number of well-respected legal people and victims and witnesses groups, but much of the bill, including the pilot, comes from that place of concern about the consistently lower conviction rates for offences such as rape and attempted rape. We have heard evidence about how the pilot will be assessed, and apparently the only measure of assessment will be conviction rate. No, I do not know where you get that impression. How is the evidence that we heard yesterday to that effect? Oh, not from you. No, not from you, but I am just saying this. The Scottish Listers Bar Association believes that the only measure— Well, I am deeply surprised at that. As you have heard me just a few moments ago, I will probably speak at length to the convener and outline in admittedly very broad terms what the evaluation would look like. Yes, it would look at outcomes, whether there is a conviction or acquittal, but there is so much more to the pilot.  I am not opposed, I am not anti-dury, there is a real value to do this. I am just amazed that this work has not been done in respect of existing trials, that is perhaps what is surprising as well. Well, I mean, we have already addressed that earlier today. There has been talk of a boycott. If that came to pass, are you confident that the courts would still be able to function, the proposed new court? Well, let me be clear. I come from a place that is absolutely determined to do better by victims and witnesses, but I also come from a place that deeply recognises and respects and would seek to uphold the rights of the accused. There is no doubt about how people need representation. Absolutely any pilot would need solicitors to represent their clients. What I am not going to do, bearing in mind that we have still got a long way to go in terms of this bill, is that I am not going to turn the volume up on the debate. I am not seeking to inflate in the debate. I am just trying to assess what the Government's position is in terms of confidence. You have heard evidence yesterday from the Scottish List of Bar Association and from others previously of a boycott. Just in terms of confidence about whether the proposed new court, which will be introduced at great costs and great effort, will be able to function. The proposed new sexual offences court is a separate establishment to the pilot. We will still have to make a decision about whether the pilot takes place in the sexual offences court or whether it takes place in the High Court. If time permits, I can talk to people about some thinking. I deeply regret that some criminal defence lawyers feel so strongly that, at this point in time, they are talking about a boycott. From my purpose, I will continue to seek to engage as much as possible. I will seek to work with people on the detail. There is a parliamentary process going on here, which, in my view, should be respected. There is a process here of inquiry and scrutiny. I am not going to either box myself or anybody else into a corner of the stage. In terms of my last question, I did slightly conflate the non-dury trial with the sexual offences court, but in respect of the dury list rape trial pilot, will accused people be compelled to take part? Will they be given any right to object her? In my view and the view of the Government and in terms of the stakeholders, notwithstanding various views on the working group, is that no accused and no victim decides which procedure they appear under. There may be criteria. When you set the criteria of the type of offence, for example, if the criteria was focused on the single complainer, single accused, single act, so-called acquaintance rape, it might be that someone might dispute whether their offence meets the category. There was certainly some discussion of that, but nobody gets it. The position was there, so no accused and indeed no complainer can choose their court, whether that is the pilot or not. We heard from rape victims who, perhaps some people's surprise said that they would have preferred and did prefer having a jury. In that case, given the trauma-informed ethos of the entire legislation, would their views be taken into account? In terms of the pilot, there would be no option for the accused to choose whether they participate or not. That would be clearly defined in the criteria. The question is, you know, does the crime that someone is accused of fit the criteria for that pilot? I think that it was only in terms of victims and witnesses. I was just reflecting that across the piece right now, no-one decides which court or procedure. The point that you are touching upon is that, invariably, we cannot pigeonhole or assume that victims and survivors are one homogenous group that has one homogenous view. I would never assume that. I understand that there can be different views, but in terms of the work that we have done in terms of the consultation around our proposals and our engagement with victims and witnesses in groups that represent them, you have heard a lot of evidence. I would point to that, although there is no unanimous support for that proposition, there is good support for it. Just to clarify, the accused in the bill that was drafted cannot have any say in whether or not they take part in this pilot. Neither can the complainer, but that is open to some form of consideration. Is that fair? No, I am sorry, convener. That would be for the Lord Aberclyff to decide. It is a bit pertinent to the bill, isn't it? The point is that I am reflecting that, right now, no-one chooses their procedure or the court that they appear in. That decision is taken elsewhere. I want to examine how the single judge trial would operate. You have had questions on the convener and Russell Findlay about how the pilot will be assessed. Will you publish what you are looking for here? There is some confusion. We have had three witnesses at least, including Professor James Chalmers, who seem to think that you are going to measure conviction rates. It is not just the Scottish Criminal War Association that thinks that one of the assessment criteria will be conviction rates, which I have clearly said that it would not be. There is confusion around that. Will you publish? Sorry, there really is confusion. I think that what I said to the convener is that the evaluation would include outcomes, which, of course, would be an outcome of a trial. You would evaluate conviction rates then. You would record it. You would gather that information. That is where the confusion is coming from. You would gather that information. There would be information available in depth around the written statements. I think that what I was refuting, Ms McNeill, was the suggestion that the only thing that would be looped at an isolation was conviction rates. You will look at conviction rates as part—it will be a criteria. The witnesses are quite correct. It is one of many criteria, but it is not the only thing that we are looking at. Why would you include that when you have previously said that? What was the purpose of including that? You will want to look at the wide range of empirical evidence that is available. I suppose that I am thinking why would you not? It is confusing, because you have previously said that you are not trying to alter the rate of conviction. What you are trying to do is to change experiences and see if those experiences would be—I always understood it to be—so you would have thought. Since we do not have any criteria—we have not been given a correctness in this, or could you re-publish it? I do not know what the criteria for assessing the single-judge pilot is. There are two points to your question. In terms of what would be evaluated in terms of the empirical information or evidence that is gathered—yes, that is about efficiency and effectiveness, yes, it is about experience and yes, it is about what was the outcome of the trial. Is there more detailed information that we can publish in and around that? The short answer would be yes. We can do that. Indeed, that was information that was worked on with the working group. I will check in a moment in terms of what we have and have not published. We did publish a fact sheet in and around that, but I will ask Heather to remind me about the detail. What would be useful, Heather, is to summarise that for the committee. Well, the fact sheet did that. Right, okay. But if there is more detail—I think that I am hearing that—that people want more detail to be made available, the provisal being that there is still no definitive— Will you want to understand what the assessment process is? I am trying to answer your question very hard. I assure you. We can share, whether it is new information or reshare information that has already been in the public domain, but that is not a problem. If that aids discussions and deliberations, the proviso is that there are still decisions to be made in and around the criteria. Time-limited is that a year or two years, some of the processes around evaluation. While I have emerging views around a lot of that, what should be in legislation, because I think there is more detail around a pilot that could be put in legislation. Forgive me that I am keen also to understand the committee's deliberation in the stage 1 report. I can share more information now. I am just highlighting that there are some decisions that are not absolutely made yet. Because there is further engagement, still I hope that there will be people who have fundamental objections to the pilot. However, I am absolutely open to the fact that, if there is more need for more detail, perhaps on the face of the bill, as opposed to leaving all the detail to regulations, which was the original plan that would be anchored in the bill, we would come back to Parliament with more detailed regulations. However, that will not happen without secondary legislation. However, if there is more information that can be anchored in the bill and more information that we can make publicly, and we will, before the bill passes before we get to either stage 2 or 3, have made more definitive decisions on the back of further consultation about the shaping of the bill. Just to build on what the cabinet secretary said, she mentioned that the working group had set out three broad objectives for evaluation, so looking at how the process of conducting single-judge trials was perceived by everyone involved in the process, exploring the impact on effectiveness and efficiency, and considering the impact on outcomes. Outcomes do not just mean that the conviction rate also looks at things like early pleas and what point in the process that might have happened. The working group was quite clear that they felt that that first objective should have the most weight given to it, because actually it was their primary interest was in whether this improves complainers' experiences, so that was where they felt the focus should be. In terms of additional information, they did publish as an annex to their report quite a detailed list of questions that they suggested could be used in evaluating the pilot. We can certainly make sure that the committee has a copy of that. That goes through possible research questions and methodologies for each of those three strands of investigation. As the cabinet secretary has set out, there is obviously a balance between what is in legislation and what is not in legislation. For a research project, the typical approach would be that that was not encoded in legislation, but that as part of or alongside developing the regulations that we would work with stakeholders on developing a specification for the research, but that list of questions hopefully gives a good indication of the kind of issues that could be explored as part of evaluation, how you might look at each of those three strands and what sort of questions you might use to try and evaluate the pilot. My next question is, is the Scottish Government confident that when you decide to run the pilot and for how long and all that has been dealt with, are you absolutely certain that an accused person who is convicted in a single judge under a pilot—which I do not think is a great word, I think it has been mentioned by other witnesses because these are real cases, so it is not really a pilot as per say, but are you confident that these cases will not be appealed on some human rights grounds that say that the period was a year? Either side of that year, other people will be tried for the same crimes with the jury? I am confident that a pilot is lawful. I am confident that, as a Government, we will comply with ECHR. People have a right to a fair trial, they do not have a right to a jury trial—I know that people are of a different view—and bearing in mind that a single judge's trial is not unique in her current system. You may have heard me talk about one of the strengths of a pilot is that written reasons are produced and, under the current jury system, written reasons are not produced by a jury. I know from my engagement with other jurisdictions that there is a real value in written decisions. It gives us not just an insight and understanding of what has led to conviction or acquittal, but there is a real transparency for both the complainer and the accused. I would argue that written reasons potentially enhance the rights of the accused. Whether it leads to more appeals from the accused, that is not something that I could protect, but I would point to the fact that there is a real value in written decisions. They take place elsewhere in other jurisdictions, and I think that they are very valuable indeed. I am trying to piece the different legal forms together, because they do connect quite a bit. I take it then, cabinet secretary. It is possible, if you set up a specialist court, that the single judge would be sitting alone in a specialist court without a jury with two verdicts. We have still to make a decision as to whether the pilot takes place in the sexual offences court or in the high court. Let me run through the pros and cons of both. You could do, if you wanted the pilot to compare actually more about the current system, how it operates under the high court. You could do that comparatively quickly in the implementation process, but there are advantages to the pilot taking place in the sexual offences court. We will have to, given the wide nature of the reforms in the bill, that the sequencing of the reforms is very important. It is also important to consider that, when the pilot is evaluated, we want it to be a clear evaluation of the added value or not of the pilot, as opposed to findings perhaps being more related to other reforms. The phasing and the sequencing of the different reforms are particularly important. Again, no final decisions have been made, but you could, for example, do the jury reforms and the abolition of not proven. That could be the place to start. The introduction of lifelong anonymity is fairly straightforward.  You probably want to phase that in with, perhaps, as the court recovery programme comes to an end, the establishment of a court remedy take approximately 18 months. If you were having the pilot and the sexual offences court, there are advantages to introducing the pilot at that point. Given what you said about a whole lot of change here and you want to compare and assess, would it not make sense if you were running the pilot just to run it in the high court, where you already know how it operates? If you run the pilot in the specialised court, you have just set up which you hope need to get that right, but would it not make sense for the pilot to run in the high court and you do not have to worry about the vagaries of a new system? There are pros and cons, and that is probably the shortest way of putting it. The other option bearing in mind is that there are many reforms. The advantage of doing it in the sexual offences court gives us some other options in terms of the nature of the pilot. If the pilot was to go and take place in the high court, it would be a single-judge pilot. If it took place in the sexual offences court, we might have other options to look at a panel of decision makers. My first question was going to be very similar to that asked by Pauline McNeill. I can maybe pick up where Pauline left off because I was going to ask about how you evaluate a pilot with so little base data and how that relates to the many massive changes that are being proposed in the bill. As you know, one of the criticisms of the bill is a range of very big changes, potentially all at the same time. You have outlined that some of those decisions have still got to be made in terms of whether a pilot would take place in the new courts, perhaps with some cases within the pilot, some outside the pilot or whether it would happen after the abolition of the not-proven verdict and the changes in majority, and whether you would be comparing, if you like, concurrent cases with each other as opposed to cases within the pilot to historic cases and any data that we do have. We understand that there is very little data, but we do have some data, for example, about conviction rates in terms of what has happened over recent decades. I appreciate that you are still thinking through much of that, but do not you think that it is right that Parliament knows which of those options are going to go forward? Do not you think that those decisions need to be made during the course of the bill and that Parliament needs to be very clear, given the significance of many of those changes, which proposal is going to go forward? I do, and it has always been my intention that, as we progress, my intention has been committee's deliberation. There is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario here, it is appropriate that I have canvassed full range of views and insights, but there are fundamental decisions in and around how the pilot will operate, which will have to be made in the not-too-distant future, most certainly before stage 3, but I would hope to be in a position, perhaps in advance of stage 2, to at least be able to give more definitive detail on thinking and direction of travel, as opposed to options. Based on her research, Professor Thomas told us that the jury conviction rates for rate cases in England and Wales ranged from 65 per cent to 91 per cent, depending on the age and sex of the complainant, whether the offence was historical and no range of other factors. Yesterday, the Scottish Solicitor's Bar Association was saying very clearly that they did not feel that the many issues relating to rate cases were necessarily relating to juries. I have to say that juries have not been one of the issues that have been raised with us by survivors in rate cases. I realise that there is not one view, I appreciate that in terms of different people with different experiences, but the main issues that rape victims repeatedly raise when they talk about the retraumatisation of the process relate to how they are treated and delaying the system, which is a massive problem. It also partly relates to the floating diet issue and outcomes, whether there is a conviction at the end of the day and indeed sentencing. Do you accept that juries do not seem to be a feature that survivors, victims and complainers have raised as a significant problem? Some of those other issues seem to be far more dominant in terms of the concerns that are repeatedly raised. In terms of conviction or acquittal or indeed a not proven verdict, juries are at the core of that. You, like I, will have heard victims' testimony in and around conviction rates, yes, other matters. You will have heard views, very strong views, from victims and victims organisations about not proven. The role of juries are integral to that. I suppose that I would not accept that the narration that juries are removed from the picture. I accept that, when it comes to responding to low conviction rates or the support and experience of victims, that that has to be the whole systems approach. It is of course that end-to-end justice journey. I have never argued against that. There are, of course, changes that the police have made in terms of how they investigate. No one is suggesting that anybody's journey in this regard is over. We have specialism and prosecuting. Again, the journey is never over. My challenge has always been that what we have to avoid as parliamentarians is part of the justice system that says that the problems do not rest with us, the rest elsewhere, and that the problems exist throughout the system. In terms of what you said about conviction rates at the start of your question, I think that all of our great frustration comparing conviction rates from one jurisdiction to another is deeply problematic. Data is recorded differently and conviction rates are measured differently. The point that I will end on is that there is an excellent report done by the UK Government in 2021. It did that end-to-end review of rape cases. We have actually apologised to victims and witnesses for their experience. One of the things that has a huge bearing on conviction rates is, of course, the number of cases and the quality of cases that actually gets to court. What we have seen in England and Wales is nearly a 60 per cent drop in charges and prosecutions and the debate south of the border. I am not passing a comment, but I am just narrating that there is cherry picking on prosecutors. I am pointing out the fact that we need this whole system approach. What we are focused on right now is this part of the system. I understand that there are different criteria to taking cases forward in England and Wales and in Scotland. It is whether there is a sufficiency of evidence. Do you not think that, given that we know that conviction rates are low in Scotland compared with other crimes and notwithstanding what the Scottish Solicitor's Bar Association was saying yesterday in relation to, for example, murder cases, the view is that rape conviction levels are too low, if you like. They are an outlier compared with other offences. You have said very clearly that the abolition of the not proven verdict is not to increase conviction levels. You are trying to fix the system so that it does not have any impacts on conviction levels by changing jury size. Surely we should be looking for a system where there is a higher conviction rate in rape cases, given that there is sufficient evidence to convict. Those cases have been marked in the same way as any other case on the basis that the Crown believes that there is sufficient evidence to convict. I most certainly believe that we cannot walk away and ignore conviction rates. We need to have a system that we can all have absolute confidence in and that the consistently comparatively low conviction rates for particular sexual offences, particularly in relation to where the victim is a woman, should cause us all great concern and is a dent in the confidence that we can have in the system. As I said earlier, there is no quick button to press or lever. Nobody here wants to interfere with the independence of the courts and the decision makers. However, we have legitimate grounds for inquiry. In relation to the pilot, there are other reforms in the bill that are highly germane to give confidence to the system to give confidence to victims and witnesses to come forward. However, in relation to the pilot, we have very legitimate grounds for further inquiry. That is what the pilot is about.  There is a fundamental question about access to justice here for women. Why would we not invest ourselves in further inquiry and that process when the case has been made for further inquiry? Would you see success or a major factor of a success being higher conviction rates and rape success for the pilot? If it led to higher conviction rates, would you see that as being a successful outcome? It is not the only outcome. I am sure that I am not alone here in wanting to improve access to justice for women and girls and victims of the most heinous offences that have lifelong consequences. We all share that. Would the pilot be seen as a failure for lower convictions? I am quite happy to have a yes or no answer. What do you see as success and failure? It is not binary, and I think that it would be an understanding of your pressing me on this. It is not binary. Of course, I want more women to have the justice that they deserve. If it led to lower conviction rates, I would see that as a failure, so I wonder if you would agree with me on that. We do not want to be turning the clock backwards. I want to see more justice for more women. If I can swiftly bring in John Swinney, followed by Fulton MacGregor. To go back to one of the points that Katie Clark was raising, she referred to a number of issues that were raised with us during the course of our evidence taking by victims about the conduct of trials. One of the points that Katie Clark did not refer to, which I certainly want to, was the conduct of the defence. One of the interesting points of evidence that I thought we heard from Simon Dorol was that, in a situation where there was a judge only presiding and no jury, Mr Dorol believed that the tone in the atmosphere of the court becomes, let's say, less prone to theatrics and more a considered focus on the evidence. I wonder if the cabinet secretary believes that that is an important consideration about trying to ensure that, in addressing the experiences of complainants, they are able to have confidence that the conduct of a trial will most definitely be trauma-informed in a judge-only pilot, but also that that perhaps provides more opportunity to consider dispassionally the evidence that is put in front of the court? I very much agree with that, Mr Swinney, in terms of the benefits of a more inquisitorial approach, as opposed to an adversarial approach. As I alluded to earlier in this morning's proceedings, I have spent some time engaging with other jurisdictions. I am not, for a minute, suggesting that you can do a shift and lift from one jurisdiction to the other, but I always think that there is valuable learning and reflection from the experience elsewhere. Many comparable jurisdictions have a more inquisitorial, as opposed to anversarial approach. Given that those cases can be evidentially challenging, I think that they need a particular approach. What the pilot is trying to ascertain is that will changing the decision maker lead to better outcomes? Will more women get more justice? Will it be a fairer process for all involved, including the accused as well as victims and witnesses? Will it be a better way of conducting affairs? Will it use resources more effectively? I have always been persuaded that a more inquisitorial approach, particularly in the sensitive, complex, evidentially challenging cases, is most certainly worthy of consideration. I also have to recognise—this has come through my engagement with criminal defence lawyers—that it is a big change for people. If you have spent all of your career presenting evidence to persuade a jury that that may well be quite difficult to me, I have heard Simon Daryl talk about a different skill set involved to persuading either a single judge or a panel of judges. I acknowledge that change can be difficult, but I stress that this is a pilot that we need to have engaging minds on. We are failing people collectively, and we are failing primarily women and girls. I think that we are all agreed that we need to want to do better. We need to find a way—I acknowledge—to bring as many people on board with the proposition of a pilot. Whatever we can do to provide more detail, to give clarity on key decisions at an earlier stage, I can give committee that absolute assurance. To what significance does the cabinet secretary attach to the provisions in section 655 of the bill that specify the necessity for written reasons to be provided by a presiding judge in such circumstances? It strikes me that that provision provides some of the foundations for long-term developments in the approach to prosecution of sexual crime. For everybody concerned, there will be a greater distillation of the analysis of the case and the evidence that will be able to be scrutinised as a consequence of the production of written reasons by a presiding judge in those circumstances. I think that there is a huge value in having written reasons. For the reasons that I outlined to Ms McNeill earlier, it will provide a quality of deliberative information that will be unparalleled. The provision of written reasons as well as transparency to victims and safeguarding the rights of the accused, is the reason why the pilot gives us an unrivalled opportunity to gather better evidence about what the real issues are, what the real deliberations are and what the challenges are. It will give us information that we are the bestwill in the world that we cannot gather in any other fashion. Apologies in advance, cabinet secretary, because the fullness of your answers already in this session I do run the risk of asking you questions that might mean you repeating yourself. One of the things that I wanted to ask is that you have talked a lot about those various opinions on the jurilist trials throughout, but one of the places that we have seen a variety of opinions as well was in people who victims who had experienced the court process. I just wondered when you are assessing the pilot, assuming that it goes ahead, what weight you will give to the sort of questions around that, or will obviously people doing the pilot, they will not have had experience of doing a jury, if you like, but will you try to make some comparisons between that to identify where victims and witnesses fell, you know, what one system was better than the other. The reason why I ask that is because one of the victims in particular actually said that they would have rather a number of people were involved in their case as opposed to just one. So I am wondering how that will be filtered into the review of the pilot. A major part of the evaluation is looking at the experiences of everybody involved, whether that is the lawyers, whether it is the victims, whether it is accused, I am sure that the judiciary will have reflections as well. It is important that we are gathering the views and the experiences of everybody involved, and I think that it is imperative that we do it in that rounded way. I hope that that is answered. In terms of any pilot, I know that you might not be able to answer this, but how close do you feel or do the Government feel that a pilot is to actually beginning from when the bill is passed, as the bill is currently drafted? What is in the Government's mind about that? Is there any date or timeframes that you are considering? As I said, I would hope to come back to committee in Parliament with further clarity in terms of implementation, in terms of sequencing. In terms of right now, my preference on balance—again, I am not close to other representations—is for the pilot to take place in the context of the sexual offences court. That, in part, is because it may give us some further options to have a panel of decision makers as opposed to a single judge. If I may convener, I will reflect on some of my European engagement. I visited the Netherlands and Germany, and in the not-too-distant future I will go to Norway, and I stress that we cannot do a shift and lift from other people's jurisdictions. However, in the Lady Dorian review, one of the reasons that they focused on a single judge pilot was that, one, it is not novel to our system. The way that our system works is quite hierarchical. There is not an endless supply of judges. When you visit other jurisdictions, they have flatter systems and they will have many more judges. For example, when I went to the Netherlands, their judges are—I hope that my Lords and the Ladies will not mind—a lot of younger judges. The diversity issue that they have in the Netherlands is that it is 75 per cent women, but they have a bigger judicial resource because their structures are flatter. However, when I was meeting with judges in the Netherlands, and yes, they have single judge trials, but for the most serious cases, they have a panel of three judges. That would be challenging in Scotland because we do not have an endless supply of judges. Other countries have mixed panels, judiciary and lay representation. However, when I was engaging with the judges from the Netherlands, they spoke to the value of having peers and colleagues in terms of that process of deliberation and writing up written judgments. I am in favour and in support of a time-limited single judge pilot. However, if it was in the sex offences court where there are judges, temporary judges, principal sheriffs, it would perhaps give us an option to have a pilot that contains more than one decision maker. I hope that I have not preempted some of my thinking because our own conclusions are still to be completed with any proposition. There can be things that you have to properly work through. Just to make it clear that I am absolutely in favour of a single judge pilot. However, there may be other options that we could explore. Given that there is more work to be done around the model of the pilot, which I think you have articulated well, and all the various factors of the pilot, do you think that there is an opportunity there that there will be an opportunity upon passing if the bill is assuming that it is passed? For all the stakeholders, those who are supportive and those who express concern to come together to find a pilot that at least tries to meet some of those concerns, and do you think that there is anything that can be put in the face of the bill or through an amendment or whatever to make that point so that it is maybe easing some of the concerns? That is one of the proposals that seems to have a sort of 50-50 split, even in Lady Dorian's group. It feels like it is something that could work and something that could be good, but even if that period between the bills passing and the implementation of the pilot is seen as some sort of opportunity to bring people together and actually the bill just now says that and you are in the defence, the other folk have raised concerns, get an opportunity to engage at that point, is that something that you thought about or could be done? I want to build as much consensus as possible. That is in the interests of our justice system, it is in the interests of victims with the seas and the accused. I think that I have probably spoken at that point at length, convener. Thanks, just one more question if that is okay. I will bring in Sharon Downey, if we have time. No problem. I think that Sharon, would you like to come back? I will give your previous comments.  I have also got the Lord Advocate's recent reference and I have not been able to assess the impact that that has had or the outcomes yet we do not have any details on that. We are now proposing huge changes to the judiciary. Again, it is going to be a long time before we manage to assess the impact and outcomes and all those changes as well. Given that there is a lot of lack of clarity on the pilot, which we have already said is not really a pilot because it is real lives, real cases and real outcomes, it would be no better to take this part of the bill out, take section 6 out at the moment and wait until we have done a full assessment of all the other outcomes of all the other things that we have implemented with the bill and then bring it back with clear legislation rather than bringing it in through secondary legislation? We are and will bring forward clear legislation. Obviously, this bill is currently stage 1, it is still at stage 2 and stage 3 to commence. I suppose that I would dispute aspects of Ms Dowie's proposition, but what I am not about is I am not about copping out. You have heard the phrase now is the time, now is the hour, we have decisions to make and I do not think that we should be kicking difficult decisions continuously down the line. There is evidence in and around the prevalence of rate myths in our society and how that impacts on juries. We have discussed at length lower conviction rates. We have discussed that there is entirely legitimate and pressing need for further examination. Why would we kick that further down the line? There is always work to be done and work through the detail, but I am not prepared to kick things down the line. We have an opportunity here and now to make seismic change on the bill as a whole. The pilot, yes, is one part of it, but the pilot says that we are not about to walk away from difficult issues. We are not prejudging the pilot, but we are prepared to invest the time, the work, the resource to tackle difficult issues that we are not anywhere near to resolving. We should not be walking away from victims or difficult issues. We need to be focused on that. That is what I am focused on, the Government is focused on and I think that I am quite sure that committees are focused on what we need to do now. I do not see it as kicking it down the line. I see it as making sure that you have got all the evidence there that you need to make the right decision and no putting in bad legislation, so we all want what is best for victims. We do not want any miscarriages of justice, but a lot of the evidence that we have already heard can be contradictory, depending on who has given us the evidence. We are here in both sides of a story, so we do not want to put something in that is going to affect somebody's life. This is real results that we are going to get. It is a real verdict that somebody could be found guilty, not guilty, depending on a pilot. Whereas some of the other things that the jury one would have done, it was mock trials, we did not do it in real life. Some of the evidence that we have been looking for in real trials on the decisions of not proven, guilty, not guilty, we do not have any of that evidence. Rather than making a poor decision just now, where we do not seem to have the backing of a lot of the judiciary and even victims are saying that they are not in support of it. It is just to make sure that we make the right decision. Why did the Scottish Government put it in and it is not in the face of the bill, why they bring it in through secondary legislation? To me, that means that it is getting rushed to be included in this bill. It is a massive bill that could have been broken down into smaller childs. The issues that we are wrestling with that the hearing now have been around at least 40 years. If we do not grasp the difficult issues, we will be kicking the can another 10, 20, 30, 40 years around. That is not a position that I am content with. In terms of secondary legislation, it is not unusual for a detailed research proposition or something very specific to come at a later stage through regulation. Regulation often allows for further more in-depth consultation and analysis. I have been very transparent. I have probably perhaps been fairly overly transparent. Some people may accuse me of later on where my thinking is and the direction of travel in terms of doing more in terms of amendments and putting more information, particularly on the pilot, on the face of the bill. In terms of research and evidence, we have overwhelming evidence that rape myths is a factor that influences decision making. I know that there are not unanimous views, but I would never expect there to be unanimous views among academics in the same way. I would never expect unanimous views either among the legal profession or politicians. That is what we as legislators are meant to be about. We take it all in the round. When we look at the evidence in the round—I am not going to cherry-pick or play one piece of evidence off against another—we have vast and overwhelming evidence, much of it in the past 20 years that rape myths can be featured in jury trials. We should not be ignoring that. There will be more than one solution to that, but we have a duty to explore the benefits of all the tools that are available to us. If we are not going to pause to take into account the effect of all the other things that we have implemented, why have we not got all the details of the pilot on the face of the bill and why is it coming in in secondary legislation? I have answered that with respect in that it is not uncommon for secondary legislation to flow from any piece of primary legislation, but I have already given a commitment in response to what I have heard not just from the committee but elsewhere that people would like the reassurance of more detail on the face of the bill. Would that not be seen as being rushed or trying to avoid scrutiny? No, I do not think that it is avoiding scrutiny. I would like to scrutinise the detail of what the pilot is going to be, but we do not have all that detail. I have outlined lots of detail today with respect, notwithstanding that people are seeking further information. We have published a lot of informa