���˿���

Sorry?

As I said, convener, the purpose of the pilot is to gather empirical evidence to inform the debate on how our justice system can most effectively respond to cases of rape or attempted rape. It poses the question whether changing the decision maker improves the complainer’s experience and removes barriers to justice.

Three working groups flowed from Lady Dorrian’s work, one of which dealt with the pilot in particular. There are three broad strands to the purpose of the pilot and what it will elicit information on.

The first strand is how everyone involved, including the victim, the accused and the lawyers, perceives the pilot.

The second strand is the impact that the pilot has on the effectiveness and efficiency of the trial process. In some of my discussions with members of the legal establishment, they have spoken to the different atmosphere, tone and even skill set that is utilised when a case is made to a judge as opposed to a jury. Would that lead to more focused deliberations? Is such a process more efficient as well as more victim centred?

The third strand is the impact on outcomes. I am not going to prejudge the outcomes of any pilot. The word “time-limited” is there for a purpose. The pilot cannot go on in perpetuity. It would have to be evaluated and a report would have to be laid before Parliament. It would then be for Parliament to make a decision on whether there would be no further action, a continuation of the proposition or the development of another proposition. The proposition is for a time-limited pilot.

We have already addressed that today.

In the pilot, there would be no option for the accused to choose whether they participate; that would be clearly defined in the criteria. The question is whether the crime that someone is accused of fits the criteria for the pilot. On victims and witnesses, I was reflecting that, right now, across the piece, no one decides which court their case is heard in or which procedure is followed.

The point that you touched on is that, invariably, we cannot pigeonhole or assume that victims and survivors are one homogenous group who have one homogeneous view. I would never assume that; I understand that there can be different views. However, we have done work as part of the consultation on our proposals, and we have had engagement with victims and witnesses and groups who represent them—of course, the committee has also heard a lot of evidence—and I would point to the fact that, although there is not unanimous support for the proposition, there is good support for it.

I am confident that a pilot will be lawful, and I am confident that, as a Government, we will comply with the European convention on human rights. People have a right to a fair trial, but they do not have a right to a jury trial. I know that people have different views on that. Bear it in mind that single-judge trials are not unique to our current system.

On appeals, you might have heard me say that one of the strengths of a pilot is that written reasons will be produced. Under the current jury system, written reasons are not produced by a jury, and the option of juries writing their judgments was dismissed by Lady Dorrian’s review. I know from engagement with other jurisdictions that there is real value in written decisions. They not only give us an insight and understanding into what has led to conviction or acquittal, but offer real transparency for the complainer and the accused. I argue that written reasons potentially enhance the rights of the accused. I cannot predict whether they will lead to more appeals from accused persons, but there is a real value in written decisions. They are used in other jurisdictions, and I think that they are very valuable.

It is not the only outcome. I am sure that I am not alone in wanting to improve access to justice for women, girls and other victims of the most heinous offences, which have lifelong consequences. We all share that.

I have outlined—

Of course.

We will bring forward clear legislation. Obviously, the bill is at stage 1; stage 2 and stage 3 are yet to commence. I dispute aspects of Ms Dowey’s proposition, but I am not about copping out. You will have heard the phrase, “Now is the time, now is the hour”. We have decisions to make, and I do not think that we should be kicking difficult decisions down the line. There is evidence on the prevalence of rape myths in society and of how they impact on juries. We have discussed at length the lower conviction rates for rape, compared with those for other crimes. We have discussed the fact that there is an entirely legitimate and pressing need for further examination. Why would we kick that further down the line? Yes, there is always work to be done and we always need to work through the detail, but I am not prepared to kick things down the line.

We have an opportunity here and now to make seismic change through the bill as a whole. The pilot is one part of that, but the inclusion of the pilot in the bill says that we are not about to walk away from difficult issues. We are not prejudging the pilot, but we are prepared to invest the time, work and resources to tackle difficult issues that we are nowhere near to resolving. We should not be walking away from victims or difficult issues. We need to be focused on that now. That is what I and the Government are focused on, and I am quite sure that the committee is also focused on what we need to do now.

The issues that we are wrestling with here and now have been around for at least 40 years. If we do not grasp those difficult issues, we will be kicking the can for another 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, and I am not content with that.

On secondary legislation, it is not unusual for detailed research, a proposition or something very specific to come in at a later stage through regulation. Such regulation often allows for more in-depth consultation and analysis. I have been transparent—and I might be accused later of being overly transparent—about my thinking, about the direction of travel on amendments and the pilot and how it might affect the bill.

We have overwhelming evidence that rape myths are a factor and that they influence decision making. I know that there is not unanimous agreement and I would never expect to find that among academics, just as I would never expect unanimous agreement within the legal profession or among politicians. Legislators are meant to take everything in the round. I am not going to cherry pick or play one piece of evidence off against another. Much of the evidence from the past 20 years is overwhelming that rape myths can feature in jury trials. We should not ignore that. There will be more than one solution to it, but we have a duty to explore the benefits of all the tools that are available to us.