Seòmar agus comataidhean

Notwithstanding that it will need some public funding, I put this proposal because it is my understanding that the total of the local government pension scheme fund in Scotland amounts to almost £60 billion, which is 140 per cent of what is required to service the pensions. Does the minister agree that that 40 per cent surplus—which, at the very least, is just under £20 billion—could be invested in building social housing for rent, which would be an ethical investment of local government pension funds and, importantly, would contribute to reducing council waiting lists for housing?

Is not the real story here the increase in national insurance contributions for employers? As an example—I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals—that increase will cost the Scottish SPCA £400,000 extra every year. Is that not the real story of why charities are in such difficulties?

I congratulate all who are engaged in the bill, but I also consider that to allocate just over one hour to debate these radical changes to the delivery and pursuit of our criminal law is misplaced.

I shall make just a few remarks. Steps to better steer witnesses through the court process with compassion must be welcomed. I am not convinced of the need for specialist sexual offences courts. I pose this question. An individual is indicted for robbery, assault with a threat to life and sexual assault, and there are three different victims—in which court should that case be held?

The changes in the majority required and in the size of juries seem to me untried. The removal of the not proven verdict may make convictions more difficult, whether before a sheriff sitting alone or before a jury. The test that is applicable across summary and solemn proceedings is still that the Crown has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The onus is on the Crown. Not proven meant that there was still a reasonable doubt, but that now transfers seamlessly to not guilty considerations. Some campaigning organisations may believe that that, together with the change to jury size, makes convictions more likely, and I understand why, but in my view, it will not, and at best it may be neutral.

As the not proven verdict is consigned to history, I have marked down my reservations, and I sincerely hope that my concerns about unintended consequences do not come to pass. Despite those concerns and reservations, I will support the bill at decision time, but I will watch how it works in practice.

Thank you for taking an intervention; I know that your time is constricted. Is there a place in our education system—in schools—for education on the general legal process and juries, including what a jury is and is not?

I will not fight a battle that has been lost, as it is a waste of my energy. I am just presenting the case that a crime being found not proven was not always bad news from the victim’s point of view. The sword of Damocles went over the head of that gentleman, and he has stopped his misbehaviour—so far.

While we will just have the two verdicts, let us please not presume that that will lead to more convictions. It may very well be neutral at best.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I thank Pauline McNeill for lodging amendment 157, because we are faced with one of the most radical parts of the bill and, as she has, rightly, said, because it is not subject to an amendment, we would have had no opportunity to discuss it. We are changing the not proven verdict, removing it from most criminal proceedings, both solemn and summary.

My concern is that there appears to be a presumption that abolishing the not proven verdict, with changes to the jury majority—we do not quite know how those will interact—will lead to more convictions. I am not saying that that is the purpose, but there is a presumption that it will happen.

I do not think that that presumption can be made. I am teaching my granny to suck eggs, but “not proven” means that the Crown has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—the onus being on the Crown, with its evidence, to establish its case. To me, it follows that “not guilty” meets the same test—that the Crown’s case is not beyond reasonable doubt. Doubt in the mind of a sufficient number of jurors must lead, rightly, to a not guilty verdict. I therefore do not necessarily see an increase in convictions—bearing in mind, too, that, although much of the bill rightly focuses on sexual offences, those radical changes will apply across most crimes and whether there is a jury or a sheriff sitting alone.

I hope that abolishing the not proven verdict will not disappoint victims—especially those against whom there have been serious crimes and who may think that a conviction is more likely. I do not think that that necessarily follows.

Controversially, too, the not proven verdict has been described as being unjust to the accused and to victims. My story is that I was a victim and the main witness in a summary trial in which the Crown pursued a conviction against a constituent who had intimidated and harassed me for years. In my view, there was sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, but, to my astonishment, the verdict was “not proven”. At first, I was furious. However, on reflection, I must say that I prefer that to “not guilty”.

I have lost the argument on not proven, not guilty and guilty—the three verdicts have gone.

That sounded like resignation.

Does the cabinet secretary consider that the change may lead to more convictions?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am in the same position: my app would not refresh. I would have voted no.

Despite the unexpectedly miserable contributions of Sandesh Gulhane and Douglas Lumsden, I have something in common with Douglas Lumsden. I, too, am a railway geek. I prefer to let the train take the strain.

Today, I shall concentrate on the success of Borders railway, because today marks exactly 10 years since its formal reopening. Viewing a map of the pre-Beeching rail network in Scotland is eye opening. The first Beeching report identified more than 2,000 stations and 5,000 miles of railway line for closure—55 per cent of stations and 30 per cent of route miles. On 5 January 1969, the Waverley line was one victim of those cuts. Those cuts did not stem losses and at that time, no account was taken of the wider social and economic impact of railways. Today, we take account of that impact and—crucially—the reduction of the emissions that are so damaging to this planet. Electrification was part of the future proofing of the Borders railway and it is now on the cards, as is new rolling stock.

The project to return the Borders railway took root with a 17,000-signature petition to the Scottish Parliament in the name of Petra Biberbach. I met her by chance on Gala high street just after my election in 1999. As a member of the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, I advised her that that petition should be presented to the committee. It was. In 1999, the campaign for Borders rail was also established, and I set up the parliamentary cross-party group for Borders rail here. However, it was not an easy parliamentary route. Sarah Boyack will understand, because she went through it with me.

A feasibility study, the Scott Wilson report, stated that patronage projections for a new line were not encouraging and that none of the route options that were examined produced a positive cost benefit value. How wrong was that?

The economic case was built on projected housing developments: 700 in the Borders and 1,100 in Midlothian. Unbelievably, that led to an anti-rail backlash from the breakaway local Borders Party, which described the proposal as

“a colossal waste of money”.

The Tories also called at the time for the money not to be used for the project, but to be used instead for dualling the A7—although, thankfully, they later recanted.

In time, the petition received the unanimous support of the Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee and, on 14 June 2006, the bill to restore the line was almost unanimously passed. In 2007 the SNP Government committed to build the line, and build it it did.

I reprise that, because the predictions were way off course. For Sue Webber, I say that that past achievement builds the case for future rail developments. As for how to build a railway, practical lessons were learned. Nobody had built one here in years.

The huge housing developments happened. Fields next to the station at Shawfair will soon be bursting with new homes. There is already easy access to the railway at Gorebridge, Newtongrange and Tweedbank. One look at the full car parks shows us how busy the line is—which is far flung from the gloomy predictions. People are taking the train, not the A7.

Here are some statistics. The Borders railway has had a significant increase in the number of passengers, rising from an initial forecast of 600,000 and approaching 2 million in 2018-19. By September this year, there had been more than 13 million passenger journeys since the line’s opening. In its wake, former railway buildings along the line have been transformed through community efforts at Newtongrange and at Stow station house, and there are now proposals for Gorebridge station house. Groups such as the Signal Box in Galashiels are working to raise funds for the Campaign for Borders Rail, and beautiful station flower displays—the display at Gorebridge being particularly stunning this year—are wholly maintained by a few volunteers. The communities take their railway very personally, having won it themselves.

This is, of course, about passengers. Removing peak fares will save someone travelling from Tweedbank to Edinburgh at least £7 a day, so there will be more bums on seats. Kids for a quid is another excellent initiative. The railway is about so much more: it concerns the wider economy and the social fabric of communities.

The Borders railway has not just pioneered how to build a railway; it has shown what the economic and social benefits of a railway are. Its extension through Hawick to Carlisle will complete that social and economic journey, and it is living proof for other future railway developments.