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?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding different funding models that may be available to finance the building of social housing, in light of the approach adopted by Falkirk Council which awarded Hearthstone Investments £30 million through its local government pension scheme fund to invest in social and affordable housing in 2015. (S6O-04975)

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 might 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.