I'll take that moment to remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. The next item of business is a debate on motion 2553 in the name of Jamie Greene on ending the not proven verdict. I can ask members who wish to participate in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Jamie Greene to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, Mr Greene. I'll be on the front bench. You are quite right, there is no one on the front bench. Oh, thank you. Okay, please begin, Mr Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, I'm very pleased and privileged to use our precious commodity of opposition business to bring forward this debate today. Apologies, may I continue? This is an important debate. I do so in the context that tomorrow I'm also launching the consultations for my own member's bill. The Victims Criminal Justice and Fatal Accident Inquiries Scotland bill, not the catchiest of title, but contained in that bill there are a number of sensible proposals which seek to strengthen the right of victims in Scotland. Victims, to empower them, to empower them in decisions that affect their daily lives to grant them wider access to information, information which they should already be given freely, to make them feel safer by ensuring that dangerous criminals stay away from them, their homes and their families. Also, none of the above should be controversial, none of the above should seem unreasonable to us as a Parliament. I'd go as far as saying that improving the rights of victims of crime should be wholly incontrovertible and not even require a member's bill in the first place, but we are where we are. I would say that when the consultation is published tomorrow I will ask members, the Government, stakeholders and the wider public, to please look carefully at my proposals and respond with their views and opinions, but there is another part to my bill that forms the basis of my motion today. That is our call to end the three verdict outcome in Scottish courts through the removal of the not proven verdict. We do so unapologetically. It is an explicit promise in our manifesto. It is an issue that we have led the way on, and it is an issue that we now want Parliament to finally take a stand on. Frankly, I cannot see why we wouldn't want to. Of course there is opposition to this out there. Change is not always welcome and change is not always easy. That will be the most profound overhaul of the justice system in 300 years, but we are not alone in this position. Every party went into the Scottish election promising action. That is not a new debate either, which makes my very point. We have been having this debate for years, for decades and for centuries. As far back as 1846 when the system was criticised, or as more recently as 2013 when this last Parliament considered a private member's bill to abolish the verdict. Back then, Christine Grahame, who was the then convener of the Justice Committee, nine years ago said that the not proven verdict is often deeply unsatisfactory for victims and is often no better for the accused. Like many members of the committee, I believe that the not proven verdict is on borrowed time. Colleagues, I think that its time has run out and now we must act. More important, and I think that happily. Christine Grahame, I am delighted that you are trolling the archives for my words of wisdom, but also at the time you will recall I oppose the abolition of corroboration because all those things, not proven, corroboration, size of duty, a majority or a unanimous verdict are all interlinked to it. It's a very complex issue. Jamie Greene. I'm glad the member raises that and I'm going to come on to that explicitly in my comments today. I hope that there is consensus in the chamber to act because there is consensus, I think, that the current free verdict system is simply not fit for purpose. No lease for the victims is the sort of crimes that we often talk about in this chamber.  The very people that we so often make promises to, well, we're very good at talking the talk when it comes to those promises, but now it's time to walk the walk. There must be over 60,000 criminal cases in our backlog courts, a number that is growing by the day, more than 70 per cent of trials in the High Court relate to serious sexual offences. We know that the prosecution rate of rape trials is abnormally and unacceptably low. Last year, from where over 2,000 reported incidents, only 130 were successfully prosecuted. We also know that 30 per cent of acquittals in rape trials were down to not proven verdicts compared to just 17 per cent for all crimes and offences. There clearly is an imbalance here which must be addressed. That is my view and that is also the view of the victims of crimes themselves. Many of whom are left utterly confused, perplexed, bewildered and even angry after a not proven verdict. Equally it leaves a cloud, a shadow of doubt, over those who do walk free, those who have been found to neither be guilty nor not guilty. It was put by Professor James Chalmers as a verdict which stigmatises the accused, operated by a nudge in a wink carrying a meaning which no one is willing to articulate. I make the case today that if the accused is not guilty then they deserve to be labelled as such. Our proposition is widely backed by those on the front line helping victims of crimes. Scottish Women's Aid, the Scottish Women's Rights Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland, who publicly stated that there are real worries that the existence of the not proven verdict gives juries and rape trials an easy out and contributes to guilty people walking free. The First Minister herself was very clear on not proven. She said that there was mounting evidence and an increasingly strong arguments that the not proven verdict is part of that low conviction rate. Humza Yousaf, the then justice secretary, said that the research was absolutely clear that the not proven verdict causes confusion for many jurors and causes significant distress. I don't disagree with him, I don't disagree with the First Minister, I don't disagree with Lorna Slater who said that this ambiguous third option is confusing and unfair in both complainers and the accused. It's time does need to end, and that's why I'm asking all of them. It's why I'm asking each member today to demonstrate that we mean what we say. The thing that we promise there are manifestos is that we will deliver on it. Now, I do accept to address the point that not proven in its own right cannot be changed in isolation. The interconnectivity between corroboration, between the size of juries, between majority verdicts, of jurialist trials or dedicated specialist courts, they're all live issues, they're all connected issues and they're all important issues, but neither should they act as barriers to change or reasons to delay. Just because it has always been that way doesn't mean it should always be that way. In my view, the question that we should be asking is what do we need to change in our trials or our courts or our juries to facilitate that move? The what, not the if. In doing so, we should make those voices of dissent part of the solution to the change, not the opposition to it. At the end of the day, Presiding Officer, sometimes we need to make difficult decisions. We often say that this has been rumbling on for years. Well, this has been rumbling on for years. I'm asking members to set aside their prejudices or views on the motion. I'm asking them not to kick this further into the long grass because that's simply not an option. Doing nothing is not an option. Delay is not an option. By voting for my motion, we can and we will send a strong message to those victims of crime that we, as the Parliament, are willing to act, and act now because act we must. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Keith Brown to speak to and move amendment 2553.3 up to six minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to be clear at the start, I move the amendment in my name. I'll be supporting the amendment submitted by the Labour Party also. I will not be supporting the motion from Jamie Greene. I should say as well at the outset, so as he did mention the bill that he intends to bring forward, I will look at that bill genuinely to see if there's further things that we can do. He is right to say that we should continually try to improve how victim-centred the scheme of justice that we have is. It is my view that much of what I know and I don't know at all of the bill are things which we already currently do or maybe replicate some things which are in train, but I will look at that bill in good faith. The Scottish legal system has evolved substantially over the centuries and it's vital that we ensure that the justice system itself develops in response to new evidence and in line with the values of the people of Scotland. Jamie Greene rightly said that he was following through in a manner of Hesto commitment and that's exactly what I'm doing when I say we will consult on this. That's what we said we would do. He is right to have quoted the First Minister who said there's a strong case to look at this again and I reflect and agree with those sentiments, but our commitment is to consult on this. Juris have played a crucial role in the Scottish criminal justice system for hundreds of years and I'm grateful to those who have carried out this important public duty by serving on them. It is important that we reflect on the findings of the independent jury research published in 2019, something that was not available during earlier considerations again, which Jamie Greene refers to by this Parliament and by other parties. That was the largest, most realistic of its kind ever undertaken in the UK and it considered the unique Scottish jury system with 15 jurors, three verdicts including not proven and the simple majority and those things are inextricably interlinked. The research highlighted inconsistent views on the meaning and effect of the not proven verdict and how it differs from not guilty. It's also vital that we involve the public and stakeholders in these discussions. That's why after the report's publication we held events across the country with legal professionals, third sector and survivors. I've had a number of conversations myself, which I know Jamie Greene and others have had as well with survivors, where concerns were raised regarding the not proven verdict, such as lack of understanding, perceived stigma and the trauma that the verdict can cause. I'm also aware that more recently the third verdict has been criticised due to the higher rates of not proven acquittals for rape and attempted rape cases and some campaigners have suggested that the existence of the third verdict may contribute to the acquittal of defendants who committed the offence and causes particular trauma to victims. I take the views of survivors very seriously. I've spoken to them directly, as I say. Furthermore, in our programme for government, we have committed to giving serious consideration to the recommendations of the Lord Justice Clark's review on improving the management of sexual offence cases. This report has the potential to drive transformational change across the system beyond sexual offence cases. However, there are complex issues and many other stakeholders have made their views clear that the third verdict should be retained or highlighted the interconnectedness that I have tried to do of the system, emphasising that the three verdicts, simple majority required for conviction and the size of the jury, are so interrelated that it would not be possible to meaningfully assess those factors separately from one another. Others argue that the corroboration rule requiring that there is more than a single source of evidence should also be part of this consideration. At error this year, over 1,000 Scottish-qualified solicitors took part in an online survey in response to the question of what the legal profession thinks about the current three verdict criminal justice system in Scotland. Over 70 per cent of those who responded to the survey said they believed that the not-proven verdict should be retained, primarily due to their view that it provides an important safeguard to prevent wrongful convictions. I will do. Jamie Greene. The cabinet secretary seems to be going to great lengths to excuse the status quo. The cabinet secretary is the fourth justice secretary who has promised action on this. What comfort can he give the victims of crime that this government will finally take that action that it promised them? Cabinet secretary. I think it's really wrong for Jamie Greene to characterise what I've said up to this point is defending the status quo. I'm laying out the reasons why we are consulting on this. And in consulting on it, I'm doing what my party said it would do when we won the election a few months ago. He is right to pursue his manifesto. I'm pursuing mine. It's not a surprise to anybody that we would do it in this way. And it's also my view that I've just mentioned 70 per cent of those lawyers who were polled for retaining it. I think it's right, even if I wasn't to agree with them, that we should consult with the legal profession as we go forward with what he has rightly said is one of the biggest changes to the legal framework in many years. So we are doing what we said we would do. Furthermore, we also have to be mindful that the not-proven verdict affects all cases, not just sexual offences. In 2019-20, there were 1,039 not-proven verdicts, and the majority of those verdicts were for crimes that were not sexual in nature. Presiding Officer, I believe that we can't simply disregard the complexity. I think that the implication of the motion in front of us is that we go straight to abolishing not-proven regardless of the other things that are related to it within the system. And I don't support that. I think that we have to consider those things together. And I think that we also have to take into account the opposing views that some of which have set out just now. I love him very clear that I do have serious concerns with the not-proven verdict, and that is not a justification of the status quo. There is clearly a breadth of informed principal opinion on this matter, and we are all in the justice system to robustly consider and, where appropriate, challenge those views. What's needed is a holistic, evidence-based approach that addresses the whole system, as well as considering wider potential reforms, such as those that I mentioned from the Lord Justice Clarke's review. Rather than rushing to action without pausing to think through the consequences for the rest of the system, that's why, earlier this week, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on these interrelated matters, and I would encourage all those with an interest to consider and respond in due course. As I've said, others argued that the corroboration rule, requiring the one single source of evidence, should also be looked at. And these are important matters which many members, whether it's the law society, whether it's the faculty of advocates, where people have very serious views. And it seems to me only right that, if we want to have a sustainable change, a major change to the system, it's only right that we consult with those that are most directly involved in administering the system, as well as those that are affected by it. For that reason, I would ask the Parliament to support the amendment in my name. Thank you. I now call on Katie Clarke to speak to and move amendment 2553.1, up to five minutes, Ms Clarke. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I warmly welcome this debate and move the amendment put down in the name of Pauline McNeill, which recognises that many survivors of sexual crimes find their experiences of the justice system to be re-traumatising, believes that improving the experience of women and girls requires changes throughout the justice system and recognises that the current backlog of cases disproportionately impacts on women and girls. Whilst, over the last decade, the figures for most crimes in Scotland have fallen, those for sexual offences continue to rise. That might be because more women are reporting offences or it may be that the overall levels of sexual violence are increasing. In the year 2019-20, the last year that we have figures, 44 per cent of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in a not proven verdict. That suggests that there was evidence, but the jury felt that it did not meet the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. Of course, in many cases, many rape cases, it is whether there was consent, which is the main issue at trial. There can be no doubt that society's attitudes towards women and girls impact on the decisions that juries take. Lady Dorian's report looked at this issue and suggested better training and support for juries. Trials without juries have even been suggested as well as a range of other changes, including the introduction of specialist courts. On behalf of the Labour Party, I say that the justice system needs to be more responsive to survivors' experiences, and that includes the police and the courts. There is agreement across the political parties represented in this Parliament about much of what needs to be done, but the policy that is outlined by Government and the authorities is very different from the testimony that we hear from survivors who continue to describe their experiences of a justice system in which they feel fails them, that they find to be traumatic and which does not work for them. The criminal justice committee has met survivors, some of whom still have cases going through the system, and it is clear that they feel that the justice system continues to fail women. We need a justice system where staff dealing with cases in every part of that system are trained in trauma informed approaches and problematic attitudes towards sexual violence need to be addressed in all parts of the justice system, including in the courts and the police service through education and changing the way that we deal with cases. It is clear that a range of measures need to be taken to deliver the justice system that victims of crime often feel that they are denied. The Lord Advocate has said that in cases of sexual violence that make up 70 per cent of the workload of the high court, and that has increased dramatically over the decades. Of that, 70 per cent, 80 to 85 per cent of those cases go to trial, so the current backlog disproportionately involves women and girls as victims of crime. We need to look at how we deal with those cases more quickly and whether there are changes that could be brought in perhaps as pilots, which could speed up how those cases are brought to conclusion as speedily as possible. I welcome the debate that has been brought by the Conservative Party and it is looking at the not proven verdict as part of a wide range of changes that need to be made to the legal system. Our legal system should have criminal laws which reflect the values of the society we aim to have. We have a justice system that continues to work in the interests of male perpetrators of violence and against the interests of women and girls. In relation to other cases also, the interests of victims are not in the centre in the way that I believe we would all want. I welcome that we are debating those issues today. I look forward to the debate. There has previously been a private member's bill on this issue. I know that we will be looking at this issue again. I welcome that the Government has come forward with a consultation to look in particular at the not proven verdict so that all voices can be heard before legislation is brought to this chamber. I now call Liam McArthur. Up to four minutes, please. I pay tribute to campaigners, speakers, survivors, Ms Emma and others for the courage, candour and their commitment to deliver the improvements in our justice system in the way that it deals with the heinous crimes of sexual violence and rape against the backdrop of what is happening in the way that Katie Clark just rightly described. That has been the subject of cross-party discussions through the course of the last Parliament and during the early months of this Parliament. I would like to thank colleagues across the Parliament as well as the current and the previous Justice Secretary for the collaborative approach that has been taken on this issue. Those discussions have been informal, they have been behind the scenes and it is right that we have an opportunity now to debate this in a more public sense. I thank Jamie Greene for providing that opportunity. His motion perhaps jumps the gun but it points to the right direction of travel. We will, however, support the Government's amendment as well as Pauline McNeill's amendment on the important argument about the risks of re-traumatising victims. Scottish Liberal Democrats have, I think, for some time now been sympathetic to calls for the not-proven verdict to be dropped. It doesn't really sit well in a modern legal context, not least because there's no fixed legal definition of this verdict which was established through custom and precedent in the Scottish courts in the 17th and 18th centuries. We know from the 2019 research that the Cabinet Secretary referred to that it can be confusing for juries, leading to higher rates of acquittal, as Humza Yousaf had previously acknowledged. It's confusing for the public too, often stigmatising an accused person by appearing not to clear them of charges and it routinely fails to provide closure for victims. The case for change is strong if not compelling. We do a disservice to those campaigning for change, to those tasks within forcing our laws and our legal system itself if we ignore or downplay the complexities or the interconnections that I think have been acknowledged this afternoon. I note the Law Society briefing, for example, points to those concerns raised across the profession, even amongst some of those who are supportive of a move to two verdicts from three. It's important that we understand these concerns, reflect on them and seek as far as possible to address them. I welcome the launch of the consultation over the past few days. It is a chance to consider a range of views, including opponents, but crucially also victims and those with lived experience. It will need to look too, I think, not just at the not proven verdict as Christine Grahame rightly highlighted in her intervention. It needs to look at the size and the make-up of juries as well as the majorities needed to convict. The right for legal anonymity for victims and sexual offensive prosecutions that exist in other parts of the UK does not exist here, notwithstanding the steps that are often taken by courts to protect that anonymity. I look again at corroboration, although I hope that lessons have been learned in the Scottish Government will not seek to re-run battles through the abolition of corroboration. Importantly, more to protect victims from being re-traumatised by the justice system that is supposed to be there to protect them. I think that that was very well picked up in Pauline McNeill's amendment. Lord Carlaw recently stated that cross-examination should not be used as a means of intimidating or humiliating witnesses. He is absolutely right. There is a great deal of common ground in this area. I hope that we can continue in that vein while also having the necessary challenge function as we pursue the improvements that we all believe are required. I thank Jamie Greene again for enabling this debate. If not perhaps for wanting to bypass the consultative process needed before we arrive at an end point, which I sense has a growing inevitability about it. Thank you very much, Andy. We now move to open debate speeches. I call Megan Gallacher to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Three weeks ago, this chamber stood united to condemn violence against women. We remembered women who had their lives cut tragically short and we made a promise to improve the safety and wellbeing of women here in Scotland. During this debate, I mentioned that we need to legislate better to eliminate violence against women. One way of doing this would be to end the not-proven verdict as it is commonly used in sexual crime, particularly in cases of rape. The ending of the not-proven verdict has been supported by several women's rights organisations, including Rape Crisis Scotland, and their position is clear. This court ruling must go. During the SNP's time in government, the number of sexual crimes is more than doubled. The conviction rate for rape currently stands at 46.1%, which is lower than other crimes.  That makes up 44% of acquittal verdicts issued in the 300 cases preceded to court in Scotland. Those statistics prove that women are disproportionately impacted by the not-proven verdict, and it is why the Conservatives are committed to ending this through our victims' law. The Scottish Conservatives first called for the abolition of the not-proven verdict more than a year ago. In 2019, equally safe, Scotland's strategy to eradicate violence against women was published, and it contained a commitment to undertake research into jury decision making to improve understanding of factors that influence jury's decisions in solemn criminal crime cases. That was almost three years ago, yet it was only announced a few days ago that consultation was finally getting under way. Similarly, the Scottish Greens have also called for that to be scrapped within their 2021 manifesto. So why the delay? Should the Scottish Government continue to dither over the scrapping of the not-proven verdict, more women could be continued to be failed by the justice system. I've only got four minutes, sorry, I'd like to make some progress. We can continue to ignore a justice system that favours the perpetrator over the victim. If we do, then the words that we all spoke three weeks ago were for nothing and will have achieved nothing. Today, women and girls are more confident in reporting incidents. Sadly, low conviction rates and the incidents of a not-proven verdict jeopardise the confidence of women and girls and could lead to less attacks being reported to begin with. The conviction must be aligned to support women and girls. We also need to go further than to end the not-proven verdict. We need other laws such as Michelle's law and Suzanne's law to be fully implemented to support victims and their families. The Scottish Conservatives have been pushing for better legislation to support victims and the Scottish Government must realise that the current justice system is not fit for purpose. Looking at the amendments today, it is clear that political parties are not worlds apart when looking at ending the not-proven verdict, but progress has been at a snail's pace. I understand that the justice system is complex and it is an interrelated system and I also realise the Scottish Government's desire for a consultation but I think we need to realise as well that many are frustrated by the length of time it's taken for the Scottish Government to take this seriously. After all, if you are a woman and have been subjected to a heinous crime such as rape, I can understand why at present the me feel that the justice system will not allow for them to have closure free of stigma should the verdict be viewed as not-proven. I look forward to the day where women and girls feel that the justice system works for them, not against them. Ending the not-proven verdict is the right thing to do and it's an important step towards stronger legislation that protects women and girls. I am sure MSPs of all parties in this chamber will support that objective. Thank you. Thank you. I call John Mason to be followed by Martin Whitfield. Thank you very much, and I think like Martin Whitfield I am a substitute to this debate. So we'll see how we get on. We have the three verdicts and the suggestion is that we move to two. That clearly would be simpler and would be more clear-cut than the present system. I very much welcome the consultation by the Government. It is clearly a more complex question than some are suggesting. Amongst other points to be considered, as we have already heard, are the size of the jury, the majority required and corroboration as Christine Grahame was pointing out earlier. I would also agree with quite a lot in the conservative motion and in what Jamie Greene himself said, apart from just the last few words of the motion. We want to improve the system. We want to give women who have been victims of rape or other violence a better result. If we are moving from three verdicts to two, what should the two verdicts be? The main suggestion is clearly that we should drop not proven, but I would suggest that that is not the only option. I would just suggest that we should consider that the two options could potentially be proven and not proven. If the choice is whether we keep not guilty or we keep not proven, which is better? Which is the more honest result? As I understand it, the question for the jury is whether the crown has or has not proved or proven its case. Beyond reasonable doubt, as Christine Grahame reminds me. For example, the accused might actually be innocent or the accused might be guilty but the crown has failed to prove its case. In that kind of situation, is it really right or honest to say that that person is not guilty? Or is it actually better and more honest to say that the case is not proven? I understand that there is some support amongst legal professionals for such a proven and not proven a couple of verdicts. I also accept that this is currently a minority view and the trend is to drop not proven. My purpose is really just to ask that all of these options be considered and we do not immediately jump to conclusions as to which verdict should be dropped. Again, I just welcome the consultation and I encourage as many people as possible to take part in it. I hope the Government, I hope Jamie Greene and the Opposition and in fact the whole Parliament will listen to the responses that come in with genuinely open minds. Thank you very much. I call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. I give the speech on behalf of my colleague Claire Baker MSP who is unable to contribute at herself due to technical difficulties and can I take this opportunity to thank you, Presiding Officer and to this chamber for its indulgence. I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate while the motion is focused on the removal of the not proven verdict, the position that I have previously supported by my former colleague Michael McCone pursued a member's bill on this matter. It does allow for some broader reflection on related issues. The arguments brought forward for removing the not proven verdict in 2016 remain today. Rape crisis Scotland state that almost a quarter of trials for rape or attempted rape result in a not proven verdict.  In 2019 to 2020 14% of acquittals in rape or attempted rape were not proven and that is in comparison to 20% for overall crimes. There is evidence that juries find the verdict confusing. There is the misunderstanding that it is in some way different from not guilty that it provides a third verdict. Rape crisis Scotland have described it as an easy out for juries which results in guilty people walking free. This also results in those who have received the verdict still being regarded with suspicion as though they have some way evaded the jury. I welcome the consultation but given it is some five years since the justice committee's work on the previous bill, we can anticipate the debate and positions that are likely to take place. At that time the justice committee described the verdict as living on borrowed time. Conclude the consultation and it also requires leadership and there is a parliamentary consensus and indeed manifesto commitments to deliver on this. But I don't underestimate how difficult it is. The briefing from the law society reminds us of the principles of our system, the presumption of innocence, respecting the rights of all involved, minimising the risk of wrongful convictions, however in cases of rape and attempted rape I would argue there is an imbalance which fails women and girls and indeed denies them justice. In Scotland only 43% of rape and attempted rape result in a conviction compared to the overall conviction rate of 88% a figure which is more than double the level of successful convictions for rape and attempted rape. In 2019 and 20 there were 2,343 rapes and reported rapes reported to the police and we know that this is an under reported crime but there were only 300 prosecutions and just 130 convictions this is surely not acceptable this is a crime which is overwhelmingly committed against women by men a crime which causes extreme distress and trauma which can have long lasting effects on people yet it is so difficult to prosecute and even when it is it is difficult to convict this is a crime which is often not recognized as a crime and is one where for the perpetrator there is a reasonable likelihood of no consequences we have seen cases where women take the case to the civil courts in order to gain justice and have the offence indeed to the crime acknowledged it is not the appropriate route for the severity of this crime I have previously raised concerns following the case of Denise Clair who bravely waved her anonymity to speak about her experience and that the crime would resort to civil courts in 2018 Miss M successfully sued Steven Coxson in a Scottish civil court with the sheriff saying the evidence against Coxson was compelling and persuasive and this was following a not proven verdict in 2016 and is the first time someone has been cleared in a criminal trial but then subsequently sued much is made of the lesser burden of the proof the member is now the member is now overtime and concluding my apologies much is made of the lesser burden of proof in civil cases but if we look at Lady Dorian's report into justice responses into sexual crimes the way in which juries hear rape cases is examined I recognise the arguments made for reforming corroboration in Scots law it presents a barrier to conviction in sexual assault cases but we should recognise 300 cases that did not reach trial in Scotland under the current system there is no evidence to support that more cases going to court will result in a higher conviction more people must experience trauma but achieve no conviction I call Fulton McGregor to be followed by Maggie Chapman I understand why the member has brought us motion here today on behalf of his party he's on the justice committee with me and he's heard first hand witnesses of how they feel they have been failed sometimes even re-traumatised by the justice system in relation to those type of cases however there can also be no doubt that today's motion is nothing more than simple politicking because of that because the member knows, as other members have mentioned the Scottish Government is currently reviewing the not proven verdict he and I both know as members of the justice committee that there's a genuine and cross-party commitment to ensuring that Scotland's justice system is fair transparent and meets the needs of modern society the three verdict legal system which is quite unique to Scotland has long been divisive and we all have our own personal views on it and I likely share the same sentiments as Mr Greene, Ms Gallacher and others who have spoken today in the Tory benches however he also knows that a legal system is very complex and we must think carefully about what to do and not actually make the situation worse for complainers, a fear that's been articulated throughout crisis Scotland the detailed and extensive consultation launched will do that by taking into account all aspects and matters and as members will know it's the consultation opened on Monday and will run until March they're also taking into account issues like the jury size the majority required for conviction and the requirement for corroboration very integrated and important issues as well their complex issues in our Parliament has been here before with corroboration and no changes ultimately came forward so this deserves a thorough period of consultation to get it right and unfortunately it does mean it will take some time however I for one would rather do the job well done then rush through and not fit for purpose legal professionals the third sector and those with lived experiences of the system all need time to give a considered opinion and we cannot reach a decision until we listen to all key stakeholders and have a full understanding of how all the different parts of the system might work together the Scottish Government are committed to ensuring that victims' rights are at the heart of delivering justice in Scotland the programme for government prioritises to put the voices of victims and a trauma informed approach at the heart of Scottish justice this year the Scottish Government will unveil a new funding programme which will ensure that there is practical and emotional support in place for victims, survivors and witnesses of crime across Scotland we will also introduce a new framework specific to the justice system which will give staff the knowledge and skills they need to understand and adopt a trauma informed approach helping them to support victims more compassionately and having worked in the social work justice sector I think this is something that will really overhaul the system and give victims the support they need I think most importantly we will also prepare for the necessary legislative process to point a victims commissioner the commissioner will provide an independent voice for victims, champion their views and encourage policy makers to put victims' rights at the heart of justice we also know that serious consideration will be given to the recommendations of the Dorian review including the introduction of specialist courts and allowing victims to pre-record their evidence aspects of this at the cabinet secretary himself talked about at the justice committee this morning which I think was a very useful session and I want to thank him for that I feel very much billed upon important work in the last session that was done such as around the vulnerable witnesses bill which was passed I think it is clear, Presiding Officer, in conclusion that we are committed to supporting victims and the three verdict legal system is undergoing the review that has been called for and is needed If something can be done that will make the system fairer and more trauma informed for complainers and victims then we will do it but will not make matters worse and so we must do this with careful consideration and I believe this is exactly what this Government will do Thank you I call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Sharon Dewey Thank you, Presiding Officer Before I begin I refer members to my register of interests The Scottish legal system takes great pride in its reputation specifically elements that market out is different the not proven verdict and corroboration these are held up as iconic elements of a historic system and according to some are worthy of protection Not everyone shares this view however and it is often those that the system has held up for years from least but should be designed to protect that argue most ardently for reform That is exactly the case with the not proven verdict This historical accident remains in our system as a legacy from when juries adjudicated specific facts rather than assessing guilt or innocence and yet organisations that support the complainers victims and survivors of crime and the victims and survivors themselves have been telling us for years that not proven is deeply problematic This not proven verdict has reached disproportionately in rape and attempted rape cases In 2019-20 the overall incidence of not proven verdict was 1% Among jury trials 5% but in rape or attempted rape trials it was 25% and we know that it accounts for nearly double the number of acquittals for rape and attempted rape cases compared to acquittals for all crimes and offences So why does this matter? The not proven verdict has the exact same impact as a not guilty verdict and can be as distressing if not more so for the complainer as a not guilty verdict There are no legal consequences for the accused of a not proven verdict It has reached disproportionately in serious sexual offences offence cases Given the already woeful prosecution rates for such offences it is women who tend to bear the brunt of such verdicts There is clear evidence from independent jury research that shows juries do not understand it and don't really know what it means It is not defined in law or practice nor is the difference between it and not guilty Indeed the appeal court has instructed judges not to attempt to describe the difference calling it highly dangerous to do so This means it is not only well understood but because of poor understanding is reached inconsistently and when it is reached there is a clear mismatch between the messages sent by the jury in reaching this verdict and those received by the public No one knows what it means In 2019-20 43% of solemn sexual offence cases led to convictions compared to 77% as a whole This says much about society's attitudes to victims and survivors of rape and it is clearly bound up in patriarchal structures that victim blame and do not believe women But whatever the reasons low conviction rates for rape indicate an unwillingness to convict there is evidence to suggest that the not proven verdict is reached as a soft acquittal option There are real worries that the existence of this verdict gives juries in rape trials an easy out and contributes to guilty people walking free Not proven enables rape myths and the stigma attached to it to be propagated and complainers in such cases say that it does nothing to encourage them or others who have suffered gender based violence to have faith in the criminal justice system None of this helps complainers victims and survivors of sexual crimes and none of this aids the work that we must do to ensure that our justice system is able to tackle the imbalances and inequalities of power in our society Presiding officer, I want to close with the words of a survivor who has campaigned passionately for the abolition of not proven Get rid of the not proven verdict as it's degrading, heartbreaking and they all laugh in our face because in my eyes they got away with disgusting acts of abuse and as always told me no one will believe you if you tell that is exactly how it feels The not proven verdict perhaps the most unique aspect of Scots criminal law has split opinion through the centuries it's easy to see how controversial the verdict is from its many names the convenient verdict the sophisticated or ungracious verdict or the second class acquittal that is characterised as both ambiguous and indefensible Sir Walter Scott perhaps Scotland's most famous lawyer even referred to it as that bastard verdict adding one who is not proved guilty is innocent in the eyes of the law this is a view that many share it is the reason we are gathered here today just as elected representatives and judges in Scotland have gathered to debate this issue not just in 2016 but in 1994, 1975 and even before 1728 when a Scottish jury declared its ancient right to pass a judgment of not guilty rather than use the term not proven a historical accident is how some have described the verdict numerous legal academics support this theory noting that there was no set form to verdicts used by early juries with a wide range of terms being used instead not proven was just one verdict amongst many with those found guilty sometimes being found filed, culpable and convict while those who were not guilty were clean, innocent and acquit not proven is the product of a messy legal system a wringol from a different time that has never quite been ironed out and one that is now having severe repercussions in the 21st century we hear it from all corners of society from the families of murder victims victims of domestic abuse or from women's rights organisations rape crisis Scotland Scottish women's aid and the Scottish women's rights centre have all campaigned to abolish the verdict not proven is not justice they say and they're right the role of not proven in cases of sexual violence is evidence enough for the verdicts removal rape convictions are much lower than for any other crime the removal of the not proven verdict would strengthen the law here and introduce an element of black and white to these cases rather than the unsatisfying ambiguity that a not proven decision leaves behind what's more if the verdict was a satisfactory way to resolve cases then we would be seeing it used in courts around the world instead we find that only 0.06% of the world's population live in jurisdictions that use this verdict that should say it all Presiding Officer it's time for a little housekeeping in the Scottish legal system we've heard many statistics case studies and arguments made by my Scottish Conservative colleagues calling for the abolition of this ancient verdict they're right as history has also shown time and time again not proven has no place in our legal system today no more than a horse and cart has on the motorway on my last sentence so I urge you to support the motion today and abolish this out of date verdict for good thank you thank you I will collect Stevenson, the last speaker in the open debate Presiding Officer everyone in this chamber is agreed that we need a fair, transparent justice system that works for the victims of crime and in particular one that supports survivors of gender based violence, rape and attempted rape and domestic abuse and Monday as the Tories know the Cabinet Secretary confirmed the launch of a consultation on the three verdict system and related reforms it's right that people including survivors get to have their say and I would encourage as many people as possible to participate I know the Scottish Government will listen carefully to survivors the third sector the police, legal experts and other stakeholders on this matter and take a reasoned position Reform of the justice system is a complex matter there are many facets to ensuring better outcomes for survivors of crime abolition of the not proven verdict on its own doesn't necessarily guarantee this the mock jury evidence shows this and it's also been highlighted by the law society of Scotland in terms of tackling these crimes right now the focus must be on supporting all sectors of the criminal justice system to function well and recover from the effects of the pandemic the Scottish Government will increase investment in justice by 7% next year and that is very welcome the Scottish Courts and Tribunials Service budget will be increased and an investment of 26.5 million through the justice recovery fund will help tackle the backlog of cases this is paramount so that many people particularly survivors of sexual crime can get justice rightly the Scottish Government's work is wide-ranging and much of its approach focuses on prevention over the SNP's term in office crime including violent crime has fallen and most people do not experience it the Scottish Government is continuing its work to reduce crime build safe communities and put victims and witnesses at the heart of the justice system that key aim of continuing to cut crime and re-offending as has been done means there are fewer victims however until the day comes where we have eradicated crime particularly those we are considered today such as domestic abuse and sexual crimes then it is incumbent on the Government to ensure the justice system is fair and transparent and that it meets the needs of modern society rape crisis Scotland has published work showing that most rape and attempted rape cases don't even make it to court for those cases that do only 43% ended in a conviction in 2019-20 around a quarter of prosecuted cases resulted in a not proven verdict along with colleagues on the criminal justice committee I have heard first hand from survivors of gender based violence about their views and experience of the justice system it is essential that we listen to them we also welcome the lord justice clerks review on the management of sexual offence cases and regardless of the consultation results on the three verdict system I think that a specialist trauma informed court for sexual offences could work well to conclude we all want a fair justice system that supports victims and witnesses let's encourage people to engage with the consultation on justice reform so that any reforms are done for a purpose and that our justice system meets the needs of 21st century Scotland thank you thank you we now move to winding up speeches and I call on Rhoda Grant up to four minutes please thank you and it's been a very interesting debate but this issue has been debated for a long time and it's a bit disappointing today that the government are therefore hiding behind the need for further consultation rather than providing leadership on this issue we support the abolition of the not proven verdict but we also recognise that it's not a resolution in itself the victims will still be let down if a not proven verdict simply becomes a not guilty verdict we need a justice system that protects victims and brings perpetrators to justice we see an increase in sexual violence and Katie Clark and others talked about the fact that 70% of the workload of the High Court is sexual offences is this because we're not prosecuting those offences properly and offenders get off and why is there an attitude in society that this type of offence is on the increase is it because young people are getting their sex education for pornography or that we live in a society where attitudes to sexual violence are strange where victim blaming is common so Ms Grant could you just give me a second please can I ask colleagues please to desist from conversations across the chamber thank you Katie Clark said our justice system works for male perpetrators rather than female victims and as a society we have to share the blame for that Martin Whitfield talked about 43% of rape and attempted rape cases reaching convictions and compared that to 80% 88% of other cases that's a huge gap shows us what is wrong with our system it's a wake up call to all of us that the system is not working and he also spoke about the large number of cases that actually never reached a court Katie Clark talked about the impact of the backlog in our courts on victims and again we see that 70% of high court cases are to do with sexual violence that is having a disproportionate impact on women it's very difficult for those victims because they're waiting for an outcome and that outcome is not coming and then when they reach court 44% of rape or attempted rape cases end up in a not proven verdict compared with 20% of others another wake up call for us surely we can all see the difference Katie Clark also talked about Lady Dorian's review and she talked about training for juries and I think that is right because Martin Whitfield talked about how easy it was for juries to use this as an opt-out and Maggie Chapman talked about the lack of understanding that juries have about this verdict and prosecutors being discouraged from actually explaining it to them and we all know that cases are really difficult Liam McArthur talked about cross-examination in sexual violence cases how it re-traumatises victims at belittles victims it actually trashes their characters making them out to be liars because those cases come down from one person's word against another so we need to make a justice system safe for victims and if we do that we'll get greater reporting the justice system should be there for victims and not just for the sake of the justice system itself we support the motion but we also believe that we need to make a huge big difference to the justice system so that trials are conducted properly we need a step change in how they are prosecuted it's wrong that trials re-traumatise victims rather than promote closure Presiding Officer we all have a duty to put that right thank you and I'll call on Keith Brown up to five minutes, cabinet secretary thank you, Presiding Officer as I said in opening words the Scottish legal system has evolved substantially over the centuries and it's vital that we ensure that the justice system develops and responds to new evidence and it's in line with the values of the people of Scotland a point I think made by other speakers I would just say that Liam McArthur's contribution was measured into the issue of anonymity we intend to proceed in relation to that as we laid out in a manifesto it's complicated of course by making sure you can cope with the online age but we intend to address that issue in the 21st century our justice system has to be person-centred transparent, accessible and fair to all satisfying public confidence by reflecting the needs and views of those who directly participate in it and whose lives are impacted by it and it's for that reason we think that the consultation I am surprised, I didn't realise Labour Party's position was to say that the consultation was an exercise that we could hide behind I think it's a genuine attempt to engage with those that are most directly affected by this and I would certainly disagree with the Tory position that this is well first of all Jamie Greene said this is one of the biggest changes in Scots law that would take place if we were to agree this and I agree with that, it is not a wrinkle to be ironed out and neither is it a piece of housekeeping it's a very serious piece of reform to the justice system if that's what we agree to do I'll take Liam McArthur Liam McArthur Thank you very much I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said earlier I think it may be helpful but the consultation I believe is the right approach to take but a commitment from the Government to bring forward leds of changes within the course of this session of Parliament I think would offer some reassurance that this won't drift into a future session of Parliament and provide some of that reassurance that I think all members are seeking to get here Cabinet Secretary What I said to Liam McArthur is that I think and I said this to the Justice Committee this morning which I appreciate he wouldn't have heard is that the Lady Dorian's numerous recommendations which are made also require a legislative change and so once we've been through this consultation process and also we get a view on the interrelated matters during the size and so on then it's possible to move forward at that stage with hopefully a suite of measures which will address some of the points which have been addressed but we have a commitment just to go back to the previous point of view of anonymity on its own merits so I can't I'm the only person that's taken any interventions in this debate and I don't have much time left so apologies for that of course these are not straightforward matters so surely it's right that we engage properly on these complex matters before we take decisive action and how else could we ensure such reforms are effective and free from unintended consequences without having a full consultation process I listened with some disbelief to the Conservatives who proclaim themselves to be the party of law and order suggesting today that we disregard the views of the legal profession when it comes to what is a very complex legal matter in September 2021 in a written submission to the criminal justice committee the faculty of advocates set out their opposition to the removal of the not-proven verdict which in their views is a safeguard which is necessary in a system with a simple majority if not problem was to be removed they argued that this should not be done in isolation and discussion consultation would be required if that was the view of the faculty of advocates to identify the changes in our criminal justice system that would be required in order to accommodate such a significant change not a tidying up, not a wrinkle without jeopardising reliable justice I've been clear that I have serious concerns with the not-proven verdict and just because the consultation is rightly an holistic one that is not to say that one aspect of course it could be reformed without corresponding changes to the others I don't think it should be reformed without considering what possible changes surely regardless of what reform if any is ultimately taken forward the opinions of legal profession and those most directly impacted by this verdict should be listened to and of course the right place to do that listening is in a full consultation exercise which is exactly what we are doing and of course it's not just the views of the legal sector we should be listening to we will continue to take the open and consultative approach that we have used today seeking to capture the views of a broad range of stakeholders including the third sector people with lived experience of the justice system including of course those that the justice committee themselves have listened to some of whom I have listened to and spoken with directly myself and that includes survivors and victims of crime and some of the discussions that have most shaped my thinking have been with survivors and I'm eager to hear their views on the consultation as I noted initially we must be mindful that the not-proven verdict affects all cases not just sexual offences so any reform must take an holistic view that considers potential impacts across the Peth and although many of us value the distinctive features of the existing Scottish criminal justice system I don't believe that in itself is a bad thing but I do take Maggie Chapman's point about the fact that they cannot just be venerated for their own sake and we should make sure the system reflects our current values that should not present it, prevent us from asking questions or seeking new perspectives to drive further improvements particularly those with direct experience of the criminal justice system to ensure the system remains relevant the incredible efforts of justice partners third sector organisations judiciary and the defence community during the Covid pandemic has made clear there's still tremendous potential for the justice system to benefit from collaboration, innovation and new ways of working I trust that many of these stakeholders will contribute their thoughtful and considerate opinions I look forward to considering the full range of views received and I want to listen to what the consultees tell us before we weigh all evidence and reach a conclusion Thank you And I'll call on Russell Finlay to wind up the debate up to six minutes please Thank you, Presiding Officer In 1846 the British Parliament voted to repeal the Corn Laws, the Liberty Bell cracked while being rung for George Washington's birthday and the planet of Neptune was discovered It was also the year in which the debate about Scotland's not proven verdict began in earnest Lord Coburn, a former Solicitor General that not proven was incompatible with the presumption of innocence and also stigmatised and accused He added and I quote that it's temps, duriman, not to look steadily at the evidence and to give it its correct result but to speculate about the possibility of soothing their consciousness or their feelings by neither convicting nor acquitting but steering between the two While his Lordship's language may sound the essential arguments against not proven have barely changed in the 175 years since I'm firmly of the view that not proven as Sharon Dowey rightly pointed out is known by some as the bastard verdict is long past its sell by date It not only serves no legitimate purpose but actually corrodes public faith injustice It is commendable that my party and my colleague Jamie Greene are leading this debate and seeking to abolish not proven as part of a broader range of measures in our proposed victims law In trusting jurors with the clearly understood two verdict choice between guilty and not guilty we'd bring Scotland into line with virtually every other comparable criminal justice system around the world A trio of professors James Chalmers and Fiona Leverick of Glasgow University and Vanessa Monroe of Warwick University have produced significant research on the subject In a submission to the Parliament's criminal justice committee which I would recommend to all members they explained that not proven is a historical accident and not a matter of conscious design As Jamie Greene has already said they also said that stigma that attaches to the verdict is used by a nudge and a wink carrying a meaning which no one is willing to articulate and which, if they were prepared to articulate would be seen as unjust and improper They also point to evidence of jurors using not proven as a compromise and in order to bring deliberations to an end rather than engaging in more rigorous discussions We're forbidden from knowing what goes on behind the jury rooms door but the perception of not proven by a convenient cop-out has often been suspected Yesterday I spoke with Maria Kearney whose 24-year-old son Craig was killed in East Kilbride in 2017 Craig's family already suffering unimaginable grief were further devastated when the accused walked free the murder charge not proven The Kearney family will never know but just as Lord Coburn expressed they worry about how this was arrived at One of the benefits of closing the debate on my colleague Jamie Greene's motion is having the benefit of hearing contributions from across the chamber Maggie Chapman, Katie Clark, Megan Gallacher and the late substitute Martin Whitfield have already spoken about how the verdict is disproportionately used in sexual crimes particularly those of rape for which the conviction rate remains shockingly low I commend the work of Rape Crisis Scotland and its end not proven campaign Crime victims have long campaign for not proven to be scrapped It has caused and will continue to cause immeasurable harm 9 years ago in 2012 an SNP justice secretary consulted on scrapping not proven A year later in 2013 he kicked it further into the long grass with a two year review This concluded with a second SNP justice secretary opting to keep not proven while saying that yet more research was needed Fast forward to 2019 Yes I will I wonder if the member wants to comment on the decades of Tory do when nothing was done about this and also just to clarify if he would the Tory position which is to scrap not proven to scrap the consultation and immediately move to legislation without listening to the people that are most involved in this or to the victims and other organisations Is that the Tory position? Russell Findlay Thank you, I don't know about what purpose any what about it will serve but in respect of the timeline as I was trying to explain to you about what your predecessors have been doing In 2019 a study revealed that not proven may push jurors towards a quiddle before they even discussed the evidence A third SNP justice secretary said it was time to consider not proven subject of course to yet further consultation During this year's election campaign that justice secretary then pledged to consult and abolishing not proven I'm sure the rape victims and murder victims families were as deflated and indeed cynical as I was in Monday when a fourth SNP justice secretary Keith Brown revealed that he is to launch yet another talking shop but not proven Mr Brown we've been talking about it for 175 years your government's been talking about it for 10 years we know the arguments we know what is right, the time for dithering and talking is over I disagree with Mr MacArthur that we are jumping the gun and I also disagree with Mr McGregor's assertion of politicking I think it's appropriate to say the last word for Maria Cairney who said no one wants to know there's no justice we're worried that the government is going to just keep dragging it out and nothing's going to get done about it Thank you That concludes the debate on ending the not proven verdict and I'd just like to take an opportunity to before we move on to the next item of business to provide members with a further update in relation to the issues experienced earlier today that impacted on blue jeans there was a worldwide outage of Amazon web services that resulted in the loss of the blue jeans service unfortunately and members will appreciate these circumstances are beyond our control we weren't able to confirm that stable access could be restored to allow those members who would have been speaking remotely today to take part in this afternoon's debates and other items so my apologies to those members who were unable to do so those members are Willie Rennie Julian Martin, Pauline McNeill, Rona Mackay and Claire Baker and I understand that Arianne Burgess and Carol Mocken will be unable to take part in members' business for the same reason this evening business managers have agreed that decisions due to be taken today will be deferred to a future point and I'll shortly invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move a motion without notice seeking a Parliament's agreement to this and I will discuss with business managers when we will take any deferred decisions and members will be updated ahead of business tomorrow to confirm whether online services have been restored that will allow for normal participation remotely so without further ado I'd like to invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move a motion without notice under rule 11.2.5 that the decisions due to be taken today be deferred to a future meeting are we all agreed thank you yes we now move on to members' business there'll be a short pause


It is mid-November 1985 and rescue workers are searching a town for survivors. It has been hit by a deadly mud flow caused by volcanic eruption. The town's inhabitants were caught by the tragedy by surprise. Many were unaware of the danger they were in until the very last minute. Bizarrely the nearby volcanic eruption had been predicted and government officials knew of the town's potential for being wiped off the map. However information to the people was sparse and evacuation was a bit of an afterthought. As bodies are recovered and the true loss of life is calculated quickly it becomes apparent that November the 13th 1985 will go down in history as the second deadliest volcanic eruption of the 20th century. Today I'm looking at the Armero Columbia tragedy. My name is John and welcome to Plainly Difficult, Columbia's White City. Our story starts in the town of Armero built upon an alluvial fan. The settlement over its history was a hub of significant portions of the country's rice and cotton production. That's why it's called the White City. I know you thought I was going to mention something a little bit more illicit. The town owes its agricultural prosperity to the Nevada del Ruiz volcano that sits above it as previous eruptions had made the soil fertile. The town was also not a stranger to volcanic activity with two disasters occurring in 1595 and 1845 where the main cause of destruction was from La Haze. That is a violent mud or debris flow consisting of a slurry of pyroclastic material mud and water. These things are deadly and usually follow the flow of a river. Any who's after the disaster in 1845 the volcano would erupt again some 71 years later in 1916. The Ruiz would once again go quiet, lulling the residents of Armero into a false sense of security. The town continued on but some warnings of Ruiz awakening were upon the horizon. It is December 1984 and scientists have been watching the 17716 foot Nevada del Ruiz. She, wait do we call the mountain she or do we even anthropomorphize volcanoes? Who knows and probably who cares? Well she is giving some hints of eruption. Seismic activity and steam releases were seen. Now this might sound worrying but is apparently normal as said in a contemporary LA Times interview with US Geological Survey official David Norris. But the activity would continue to increase. Higher sulfur deposits were found on the volcano's peak and minor phreatic eruptions were noted. Activity continued into 1985 and in September a large phreatic eruption occurred shooting a massive plume of steam into the air. The government began to plan for an evacuation and started compiling a hazard map. A mudflow between 60 and 70 feet wide travelled about 20 miles down the Acufredo river valley. It caused not a lot of damage but officials closed off parts of the mountain nevertheless. A report for government officials was published by an Italian volcanologist team on the 22nd of October 1985. It was rather worrying that the scientists had determined that the risk of lahars was unusually high, leading officials to predict a 67% chance that an eruption was imminent. The hazard map by now was completed. It was to be distributed to the areas most affected and highlighted the risks of rock debris, pyroclastic flows, and lahars. But there was a bit of an issue. Distribution wasn't great. The idea was to print the hazard map in newspapers and magazines. Although printed, they didn't reach most of the at-risk areas and the ones that did, most notably the one in El Espectador newspaper in Bogota, had some glaring flaws. The scale was all messed up and parts of the map were cut off, not properly showing the edges of the danger zones. There was colour, which was pretty good, but the zones of blue, red and green and yellow ink had no key. So made it virtually useless for working out what was expected where. And as a spoiler, green and blue didn't actually mean the area was safe. Also the maps weren't particularly well distributed due to the fear of economic issues that, you know, evacuating people in an area would create. There was a reason for the poor distribution, as the government was also fighting guerrilla forces. The government also wrongly thought that evacuation would have plenty of time because mud flows slowly, right? As such, Armero went pretty unnoticed in terms of solid evacuation and warning plans. Because of this, most stayed put in Armero, but Ruiz was screaming I'm going to blow by late October, with multiple small earthquakes near the mountain and lava beginning to appear at the top. But the people continued on as normal, all the way into November. Size-wick activity continued, but to a lesser level than what was seen a couple of months earlier in September. The eruption. It is the morning of the 13th of November, 1985, and it didn't seem too different for the people living under Ruiz. At roughly three in the afternoon, Nevada del Ruiz began to erupt, shooting ash into the air. The local civil defence conducted in Gio Minas, Colombia's geological survey, and explained the situation. Local officials were advised to begin evacuation of the surrounding areas. The Armero civil defence director was then told to contact the civil defence directors in Bogotá and Tolima. By now, the ice cap on the mountain was melting from the heat of the eruption. But down in Armero, Mariquita and Honda, the ash had slowed down. This was around 5pm. Residents were instructed to stay home and stay calm. In Armero, a local emergency committee meeting was arranged. It would last until 7pm, after which the Red Cross was contacted. A storm was building up as the evening drew in, cutting Armero off from lines of communication. Civil defence officials from other areas tried to order an evacuation of Armero, but in the heavy wind and rain, the messages were not received. Electrical issues persisted, hindering radio communications and lighting. At around 9.45pm, rumbling could be heard from up in the mountain. Pyroclastic flows melted more ice and gathered up ash, mud and water into a deadly slurry. It began to run down the sides of the top of the volcano, destroying a volcanic lake consisting of salty water, which in turn melted even more snow and ice. The overflow of mud and material rumbled down the mountains, 11 flank valleys, at speeds of up to 35km an hour. The lahars engulfed in China, killing an estimated 1,000 people, but the worst was yet to come. The mudflow was speeding down the slopes to Armero, reaching speeds up to 50km an hour. Batan was hit by lahars at approximately 11.30pm. Many residents were still inside obeying the orders from earlier on in the evening. In an instant, the lahar swept through Armero, smashing into buildings, sweeping up cars and pushing people along with the deadly mudflow. There were roughly 28,700 people in Armero and 3 quarters would be gone. After the first lahar would hit and last 30 minutes, by now 85% of the town was under mud and debris. Another lahar followed yet again, albeit slower, but this time lasting for over 2 hours. Buildings collapsed, trapping their occupants. The lahars carried very small sharp pieces of rock, and if caught in, it would cause hundreds of cuts to the skin. The mud also caused suffocation, which pretty much is stuff of nightmares. In total, at least 23,000 people were killed, approximately 5,000 were injured and 5,000 homes were destroyed throughout the 13 affected villages. The region was decimated. By the time rescue efforts began the next day, Armero was a mix of eerie, quiet, interrupted with screaming and moaning from the trapped. The aftermath. Relief workers struggled to help the trapped. And this was hindered by the mud, difficult terrain and limited working infrastructure and power. The mud had a depth of over 4.5 meters or 15 feet in some places, and those who ventured walking in it could sink. Several bridges had collapsed in the lahars, rendering road travel almost impossible. Armero's hospital had been destroyed. As a result, helicopter was the only viable method for extraction of the wounded. As such, many treatable injured people died before help could reach them. Even a week after the eruption, relief workers were digging through the rubble, but sadly they were only finding bodies. There were many tragedies. One world famous one was of Armero Sanchez-Gazon, a 13 year old girl trapped among the rubble. The picture taken of her trapped would illustrate to the world the sadness the eruption had caused. Guerrilla fighters called off attacks and the government's presidential election was called off, but the lull in the bloodshed wouldn't remain forever. The disaster caused economic hardship for the country, with the cost running up as much as a fifth of Colombia's gross national product at roughly $1 billion, and that was in 1985. The event generated a lot of anger towards the government, with many blaming them more than the volcano. I mean it's understandable. Local officials had on multiple occasions tried to warn their higher ups of issues with lack of proper evacuation plans. So Armero wouldn't be rebuilt. The surviving residents were moved to Gaya Yabeo and Liriida, leaving the remains of what would be a ghost town. Nevada del Ruiz is still a risk to some 500,000 people in the region, and that means Armero may repeat itself in the future. Check them out if you want to see extra odds and sods I post up. I also have a second channel called Made by Jon, and I'd also like to thank my Patrons and YouTube members for your financial support, as well as the rest of you for tuning in every week to watch my videos. All that's left to say is thank you for watching and MrMusic, place out please.