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 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.

I will start with my amendments 141 to 144. The bill deems a person to be vulnerable in a civil case if they have a civil protection order against another party to the case. Amendment 141 adds lawburrows to the list of relevant orders. That is an order that can be made to protect against violence by a particular person. The amendment makes it clear that interim remedies and measures are included. It is, for example, common for a person to obtain an interim interdict.

In addition, amendment 141 provides that a person is to be deemed to be vulnerable if they are applying for a civil protection order or have brought an action for damages following sexual abuse, harassment or assault.

Amendment 143 will amend section 15 of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which makes provision on vulnerable witnesses and on taking into account the views of a vulnerable child witness in relation to special measures. As it stands, section 15 includes a presumption that a child aged 12 or older is of sufficient age and maturity to form a view. The amendment will replace that presumption with a new one, which is that the child is able to express their views

“unless the contrary is shown”.

Amendment 142 is a related technical amendment.

Amendment 144 will amend section 33 of the bill, which makes provision on special measures in non-evidential hearings. It relates to when a party to the case has not been deemed to be vulnerable but the court considers that the party might nevertheless benefit from special measures. The amendment will provide that, when making an order in those circumstances, the court must take into account the party’s views and, if the party is a child, the views of the child’s parent. It will also provide that the court must

“have regard to the best interests of the party”.

On Liam Kerr’s amendments, I am pleased to be able to support amendments 122, 124 and 126 to 128, but I cannot support amendments 123 and 125.

I do not want to speak for Mr Kerr on his amendments, but I note that, in 2021, the Scottish Government consulted on the planned register of solicitors that was provided for under the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 for certain family proceedings. The bill will extend the 2020 act’s provisions to civil cases more generally.

I am happy that amendments 122 and 124 would require the Scottish ministers to set in regulations the level of remuneration for solicitors on the register, as opposed to the current position whereby that is optional.

I support amendments 126 and 127, which would require the Scottish ministers to

“prepare and publish a report on the consultation”

that we need to have with the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland before making regulations on the register. I also support amendment 128, which sets out some details on what the report should cover.

However, I cannot support amendments 123 and 125, as they would not be workable. Amendment 123 would require that the Scottish ministers must

“confer the duty of maintaining the register on a person”,

as opposed to that being an option in the bill. At the moment, our intention is that the duty to maintain the register will remain with the Scottish ministers, with the day-to-day administration to be carried out by a contractor. It would therefore not be appropriate for there to be a requirement to confer the duty of maintaining the register on another person. The Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service have both told us they do not want that duty, and I do not want to confer—or perhaps foist—the duty on a body that does not want it, so it is better to proceed as we have proposed.

I therefore ask the committee to oppose amendments 123 and 125 if they are moved and to support the remaining amendments in the group.

I move amendment 141.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 141 agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31 agreed to.

Section 32—Register of solicitors for section 22B of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004

Amendment 122 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to.

Amendments 123 not moved.

Amendment 124 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to.

Amendment 125 not moved.

Amendments 126 to 128 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

Section 33—Vulnerable parties

Amendments 142 to 144 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

After section 33