Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. Widening the pool of people who are available for jury service will better represent society and recognise the contribution that those with sensory impairments have to make in all areas of public life, so I am pleased to support amendment 233.

As Ms Adam touched on, it takes forward recommendations made by a judge-led group in 2018. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service convened a working group in 2023 to consider some of those recommendations further, and it recommended that legislation should ensure that different forms of support could be rolled out to jurors in future.

Amendment 233 is consistent with that, allowing the court to decide what kind of communication supporter to appoint, depending on jurors’ needs and on what is operationally feasible. The flexibility also helps to ensure that the provisions are future proofed.

Scottish Government officials have engaged on the issue with stakeholders, including the British Deaf Association, Just Sign, freelance BSL interpreters and Deafblind Scotland, and they are all very supportive. The measure was introduced in England and Wales in 2022, since when 70 jurors in England and Wales have required to use BSL interpreters.

It is in all our interests to pave the way for as many people as possible to serve on juries. I therefore urge the committee to support amendment 233.

Before a trial begins, jurors have the option of either taking an oath, which is religious, or making an affirmation, which is non-religious, to try the accused and give a verdict according to the evidence.

At present, the wording prescribed in existing legislation means that jurors who choose to take the oath may do so collectively and without having to state their names, and jurors who choose to affirm must do so individually and name themselves in court. Amendment 154 will enable jurors who affirm to do so collectively and without having to declare their names in court. That would make the process for jurors making the affirmation consistent with the process for jurors taking the oath. The amendment would apply to all criminal juries.

The Criminal Courts Rules Council highlighted that inconsistency to us. The current wording means that affirmations are procedurally inefficient, and the Humanist Society Scotland has raised concerns that the differences in wording mean that jurors who choose to affirm are treated differently from those who take the oath.

Jurors should be able to expect to be treated with consistency and parity in front of the court, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs. The amendment will create that consistency for all jurors.

I move amendment 154, and urge the committee to support it.

Amendment 154 agreed to.

Forgive me for intervening, but I should say, for clarity, that, although we have changed our position on the size of the jury, we have not at any point changed our position on the qualified majority that would be required. Our position has always been that there should be a two-thirds majority for a conviction.

I will not repeat what I said at length earlier. In short, I remain of the view that the right thing to do is to abolish the not proven verdict and to implement the associated reforms. The amendments in my name are enabling. They seek to remove the legislative barrier to research, rather than specifically providing for the Scottish ministers to undertake research.

That said, we are committed to undertaking research. I have outlined our intentions in that regard in relation to pre-recorded evidence. We will certainly carefully consider commissioning further research, but I hope that the academic community will have considerable interest in carrying out research in the area, to which it would bring diverse perspectives and approaches.

Amendment 152 agreed to.

Amendment 153 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 62, 63, 75, 151 and 269 not moved.

This part of the bill would require a commencement order. I will correct the record if I get my dates wrong, but I am confident that, during stage 1, I provided the committee, either verbally or in writing, with indicative sequencing for the different parts of the bill coming into force. That was on the back of a debate about the pilot; it was in that context that I gave an indicative timetable.

The reforms to verdicts and jury majorities in part 4 are, in essence, stand-alone ones, and our thinking is that they could be made earlier in the overall implementation of the bill. I am not making any rash commitments to do a carte blanche U-turn on that sequencing, but we will reflect further on the matter, although I would be concerned about kicking decisions down the road.

Section 71(2) states:

“The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may, by regulations, appoint”

and so on.

It has been evident in today’s discussion and debate that each and every one of us has been engaging and wrestling with the issue on an intellectual and emotional basis. At the end of the day, we will all have to come to conclusions based on our individual positions and perspectives and come to a collective voice that is informed by all voices.

I remind the committee that part 4 is one of the cornerstones of the bill and that it will make changes that apply to all cases in all courts. It is important to remember that.

I will say a few brief words about research without speaking at length. Overall, we have had the Scottish jury research and our own consultation. There has been substantial engagement with all those with an interest in the bill. I assure Liam Kerr that my officials have met the Law Society of Scotland regularly on the bill. I do my best to meet the many stakeholders in the world of justice, but there is always a limit to that, I am afraid.

International comparisons are also important, whether they are comparisons with our nearest friends and neighbours south of the border, with our European colleagues or with Australia, New Zealand or North America. We cannot cut and paste anybody else’s solutions. We need to look at the experience at home and elsewhere and apply what we learn to a Scottish context.

On the quantum of research, I know that we have spent a lot of time focusing on the Scottish jury research, but it is worth bearing in mind that the meta-analysis that was published last year considered studies involving almost 1,800 jurors and found statistically significant divergence in the verdicts that jurors delivered in a three-verdict system versus a two-verdict system. The odds of a jury convicting were 40 per cent lower in a three-verdict system. That points to the fact that, if we embark on the historic reform of removing the not proven verdict—I believe that the majority of us want to do that—we have to make decisions.

I support the intention behind amendment 240, which seeks to expand victims’ ability to have their voices heard by the court by making an impact statement about how a crime has affected them physically, emotionally and financially. A previous consultation was carried out on the issue, the findings of which made it clear that there is an appetite for change, such as widening the list of eligible offences and piloting new ways for victim statements to be made. There was also support for moving to a position in which all victims should be able to make a statement in all cases.

Currently, as Mr Greene said, the right to make a statement, which the judge must take into account in considering sentencing, is limited to certain offences in solemn procedure. I am very supportive of moving beyond that position, but there are significant operational and resource considerations, particularly for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which co-ordinates the process of contacting victims and ensuring that the statement is available to the court, and is responsible for ensuring that statements do not contain any inappropriate material. There are also considerations for victim support organisations, as composing a statement can be difficult for victims because it involves asking them to revisit the most traumatic aspects of the crime.

Those considerations were behind the introduction of a new power in March 2021 to enable the piloting of changes to both the range of cases in which statements can be made and the way in which they can be made. Piloting enables those aspects to be tested and resource and operational implications to be better understood. I assure members that an expansion of the victim statement regime is currently under consideration.

I support the ambition of amendment 240 and I agree that we want to move to giving victims the right to make a statement in all cases. However, I do not support making that move in one step at this time, due to the need to ensure that the resource and operational aspects are properly considered. That is particularly the case in relation to summary cases, as the volume of cases and therefore statements would be significantly greater, with associated resource implications.

There are also particular operational issues. For example, in summary cases, it is more likely that an accused can plead guilty and be sentenced at the same hearing. A statement would be sought from the victim only following the guilty plea. To do so beforehand would raise false expectations for the victim and put them through the experience of revisiting the impact of a crime, potentially for no benefit, if there is no plea or the accused is found not guilty. That would also be an inefficient use of resources and would potentially lead to significant delay in such cases, as a statement would be sought and the plea and sentencing could then not happen on the same day.

Those types of issues underlie the necessity of taking a stepped approach to widening the scope of the victim statement regime and considering at each point the variety of issues relating to introducing the measure in practice. Those issues include the resource implications for justice agencies and victim support organisations; the impact on court programming; and, importantly, the impact on victims.

However, I recognise that there is a compelling case for ensuring that the voices of victims are heard and that victims are given the opportunity to advise the court on the impact that an offence has had on them.

I am particularly keen that we take the first step of expanding this right to all solemn cases, where there is an established process in place and where there will therefore be fewer additional operational considerations. There will be some resource implications. However, this is an area that I would be keen to discuss further with Mr Greene with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3 to make that initial change to the legislation.

I am also happy to commit to the committee that we will carry out further engagement with the Crown Office and victims organisations to inform the use of the piloting powers, which would test further expansion.

I acknowledge Mr Greene’s long-standing interest in these issues and, indeed, his commitment to securing improvements for victims and the families of victims, particularly in their interactions with the Parole Board for Scotland. I absolutely share Mr Greene’s ambition for a victim-centred, trauma-informed approach. Although there is much to commend in current practice, I absolutely accept that there is much more that we can do.

However, in embarking on reform, we must do so holistically and in a way that reflects and maximises all the levers that we have for effecting change. That is why I can confirm to the committee that I will be publishing a consultation in August, with work being carried out over the summer, on parole reform in Scotland, building on the changes to the Parole Board rules that were made in 2022. I hope that my committing at the outset to consult on some of the wider issues makes it clear that I am not only open to, but willing to make, the necessary changes to the parole process that will command the confidence of victims and their families.

That is not to say that I do not see a role for the bill in bringing about such change. I have looked constructively across the suite of amendments in the group to identify where I think we can commit to legislative reform that will make a meaningful difference. However, there are some intricacies that I would want to work with Mr Greene on before I could support the amendments. I cannot support them today as drafted, but there are many that I am keen to work with him on ahead of stage 3.

Turning to the specific amendments in order, I absolutely accept the principle of amendment 246, which seeks to ensure that victims or their families are given the opportunity to attend oral hearings. As Mr Greene has mentioned, I recently met survivors, who talked compellingly about the importance of having that opportunity. Some victims are already afforded such an opportunity in the current system, and what is proposed can be achieved through reform of the Parole Board rules. I fully intend the upcoming consultation to include consideration of whether that aspect of the system is working as it should or whether we need to revise those rules. I therefore ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 246 and to allow the consultation to run, so that we can gather the widest possible range of views on the matter.

I also agree with the principle of the provision of victim statements and written representations as it is set out in amendments 247 and 248. Victims should have their voices heard and should not have to repeat their presentations unnecessarily. I agree that there is more that we ought to do to ensure that processes are effective, and it might be that primary legislation has a role to play in that respect. However, we need to ensure that the amendments have the intended effect. Therefore, I ask Mr Greene not to move them now but, instead, to discuss them with me in advance of stage 3, to see whether we can come to an agreed position.

I hope that, as I go through the group, I can indicate the areas on which we can work ahead of stage 3—that is the progress that we could make in the context of the bill. I think that I am correct in saying that, if we have the consultation in August, any revision of the Parole Board rules would require only a Scottish statutory instrument, which would be less onerous than primary legislation. However, that will obviously depend on the consultation responses.

At the risk of giving a “Mibbes aye, mibbes naw” answer, which I appreciate might be less than desirable, it could be possible, depending on the nature of the responses, for a further revision of the Parole Board rules to take place prior to the 2026 election. However, I do not want to be hard and fast about that until we proceed with the consultation, because some of this should be considered holistically and in the round.

I have considered amendments 252 and 253 very carefully, and, although we have no difficulty with the underlying objective of seeking to reduce delays in oral hearings, these are, ultimately, operational matters that would be most effectively addressed through improvement work rather than through being mandated in legislation. I know that, where possible, the Parole Board already takes steps to prevent delays in hearings taking place, but, to be fair, there will always be circumstances that are outwith the Parole Board’s control and that are difficult to foresee or plan for.

I am also satisfied that every attempt is being made to ensure that all parties have access to the appropriate documentation in advance of parole hearings when that is possible. I find the endless loop that Mr Greene outlined in his opening remarks utterly unacceptable. What victims need from all parties in the justice system is people working together in a spirit of collaboration, and I find it deeply unhelpful when different parts of the system point the finger at other parts. We need to embed a different culture of collaboration, and I am committed to supporting all parties to do that.

All parties in the justice system are working under tremendous stress—I do not want to be interpreted as chastising in my remarks—but it is fair to say that all parts need to do better. We cannot have people passed from pillar to post. We need to clearly articulate the different roles and responsibilities of different agencies and partners in the justice system, and the endless loop of passing folk from pillar to post is just not acceptable.

Mr Greene is right that no statistics on delays are available, and I would be willing to explore whether performance management-type data would give us better information on the matter. Again, I do not see that as an issue for legislation. For those reasons, I ask Jamie Greene not to move amendments 252 and 253. If he does, I ask members to oppose them.

Amendments 254 and 255 seek to ensure that, when a hearing to consider a prisoner’s release is delayed, or when cases are delayed, victims are informed

“of that delay and the reasons for it”.

Again, I broadly support the intention behind those amendments and would like to discuss further with Mr Greene whether anything could and should be done through primary legislation ahead of stage 3 or whether his intention could be achieved though reform of the Parole Board rules. Therefore, I ask Jamie Greene not to move those amendments and to work with me ahead of stage 3.

I acknowledge the on-going need to review and improve the parole system and to help to ensure that it is more trauma informed and inclusive of victims. However, I do not consider a statutory review, which amendment 262 would dictate, to be the most effective way of supporting that, and I think that it could delay existing improvements. In addition, I remind members that part 2 of the bill makes important changes to the reporting requirements for the Parole Board for Scotland. The board already has to report annually on how, and to what extent, the standards of service for victims and witnesses have been met, and the bill will now include reporting in relation to its standard for trauma-informed practice.

To conclude, convener, I ask Mr Greene not to press or move the amendments in this group and to work with me as I have indicated in advance of stage 3. I also ask him to note the upcoming consultation and the on-going improvement work.