Seòmar agus comataidhean

Although, by and large, we do not need legislation to train a workforce, we do need it to helpfully define what we mean by trauma-informed practice and we need legislation that puts duties on courts, the Crown and the police to ensure that trauma-informed practice is woven into their standards of service.

We also need legislation in order to establish a sexual offences court and to establish the rights of complainers when there are applications under section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to ensure that complainers can access their right to be heard and to legal representation.

I suppose that what I am trying to indicate, Mr Findlay, is that there are broad platforms of reform in the bill that need legislation to drive them forward. I would expect the policy memorandum to speak about the more cultural aspects that underpin legislative change and that, of course, involves training staff.

I assume that your question is broadly focused on the bill as opposed to the pilot. Over the years, the committee will have heard that legislation on its own can never be the single bullet. It was not long ago that the Parliament debated the work that is being done around the trauma-informed skills framework for everybody who works in justice services.

However, at the core of Lady Dorrian’s deliberations and recommendations is the need to make seismic, structural, statutory changes, and those can be seen in the statutory changes in the bill, whether that is the sexual offences court, the automatic right to independent legal representation or the automatic right to anonymity.

We can graft on changes, but the process becomes quite iterative and slow, and there is a degree of frustration in the legal sector and in organisations that represent victims that we have been in the same territory for about 40 years on some of the issues that we are discussing in relation to the experience of complainers and the prevalence and power of rape myths. There have been numerous reports pointing to the substantive problems; now we need to move forward and make substantive changes.

I contend that the legislation does have a degree of specificity around trauma-informed practice. We need to recognise the context in which it will be applied. We often discuss in committee debates how much detail the Parliament wants to put in the bill and how much scope we want to leave for those who have to implement the bill in practice.

On the more general point, I contend that victims’ interests are woven throughout the bill. At its core, every part of the bill is about improving victims’ experience when they are in contact with the criminal justice system, because we recognise that people often become involved as complainers at a time of trauma. The bill makes a number of bold but balanced reforms to reflect victims’ experience.

Mr Findlay asked about part 4. I will not reiterate what I said in response to the convener; the jury reforms are not about increasing or decreasing the number of convictions; they are about achieving transparency and commanding the fullest confidence in the administration of justice and all aspects of our justice system.

The substantial independent Scottish jury research, which took place over two years and involved 900 mock jurors, isolated factors so that the researchers could consider our jury system’s unique aspects. The research looked at issues of size and majority and at the impact of moving from three to two verdicts. Unlike many other studies, that study was able to examine the detail of the mock jurors’ deliberations.

It was established that moving from three to two verdicts in isolation could increase the number of convictions so, to ensure the appropriate safeguards and balances in our system, the proposal is to move from a simple majority to a qualified majority, which consultation responses supported.

I have said repeatedly that the reforms to the jury system are not designed to either increase or decrease the number of convictions.

The question about diversity is a fair one. In the interests of balance and fairness, the evidence that the senators of the College of Justice submitted to the committee unsurprisingly includes more than one view. We have known for some time that there is not one view on some of the reforms that have been proposed, particularly in terms of the pilot. For the record, it is important to acknowledge that the submission from the senators narrates that there is support among some senators for that change.

However, the point about diversity is important. The jury research that I referred to earlier demonstrated that the diversity of juries did not overcome the prevalence and power of rape myths. Although Mr Findlay is, of course, right to raise issues about the diversity of the judiciary, nonetheless, the judiciary is a group of professional decision makers who have experience and training, and if they are part of the sexual offences court they will, like everybody else, have to be trained in trauma-informed practice. It is a more easily identifiable group to support with other measures including education and training, which is probably unachievable if you are randomly selecting 12 or 15 people.

It is of no surprise to me that there is a range of views. I have spent the summer engaging with different bar associations and, in particular, criminal defence lawyers. I hope that the committee recognises that I am not a politician who wants only to meet or engage with people who agree with me. From my perspective, that engagement was very helpful in understanding better the nature of their concerns about the pilot and the other stresses and strains that they are currently experiencing in their day-to-day work.

I emphasise that no part of our system is exempt from change, but I recognise that change can be difficult and challenging. Members of the legal profession are entitled to their view—they will be part of that debate—but we have at least a year between the start of stage 1 and stage 3, when we will all vote on the final bill. We need to give one another a bit of time and space, have the debate and try to work together in the interests of our shared common goal. We all want guilty people to be convicted and people who are not guilty to walk free, and we all want complainers’ experience of our court system to be better.

I would describe the journey that we are on as more of a marathon than a sprint.

I will add to that briefly. I hope that this will get us to the nub of Mr Findlay’s question. In the current system, there is no data on what individual jury members opt for as a result of their decision making and there is no other system that has moved from three verdicts to two verdicts, because no other system has three verdicts. That means that some of the hypotheses that Mr Findlay has—understandably—questioned have no data, because we do not have a crystal ball. However, it is the overall balance and integrity of the system that are crucial.

Yes, that is a reasonable summary.

The issue has not turned up in deliberations so far. Mr Swinney is aware that the reforms are built on substantial independent research, but further, intense cross-sector work has also been done to galvanise and build on the experiences of those who work in operational aspects of our justice system.