³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It is important to reflect a little bit on the history of jury sizes, which have varied over the years. For example, during the second world war, the jury size was much lower than 15 members. The size of the jury has changed at different points in history.

The core of the evidence is that, if we reduce the size of the jury from 15 members to 12, we have higher levels of participation, lower levels of jurors not participating and less domination by some jurors. In essence, reducing the size is about responding to the evidence that says that it improves the process of deliberation. It is no more complicated than that.

I will ask Lisa McCloy to respond to Ms Dowey’s question about the qualified majority, which is sliding and exists in most circumstances when jurors have to be excused part way through the process. However, there are one or two exceptions.

I will flag up a point that might be useful. The policy memorandum speaks in detail about the jury research and gives a reference to it. We have published information today or yesterday about rape myths, which also talks about the research. I assure the committee that information is publicly available so that people can peruse the further detail.

The point that I was making in reference to the research is that we do not want to change one part of the jury system in isolation because that may well have unintended consequences. That is why we are looking at this as a package. We are following the evidence that was illuminated by the research. I hope that I understand Ms Clark correctly. The reforms will apply to all cases and throughout the system, so we must ensure that there is balance, fairness and integrity and that there are none of the unintended consequences that might be caused by changing one part without changing the other constituent parts.

It is important to stress that the jury reforms are not about increasing or decreasing conviction rates; they are about the integrity and fairness of our system, and transparency in decision making.

In my opening remarks, I intimated that there are challenges in people having confidence in a verdict that cannot be explained and which is open to interpretation. The independent Scottish jury research demonstrated that the not proven verdict was not understood by jurors and that understanding of it varied. It was sometimes seen as a compromise verdict. It was used if people believed that someone was guilty, but there was not enough evidence. The evidence also showed that people believed that the verdict came with associated stigma.

If we are moving from a three-verdict system to a two-verdict system, we have to make associated reforms to ensure that we keep a balanced system. Removing the not proven verdict is, of course, a historic reform, but we have to consider our verdict system in the round by considering the number of verdicts, moving from a simple to a qualifying majority and the size of juries. On all three counts, our system is unique—there is no other comparable system. However, the overriding message that I want to convey is that this is about the transparency of the decision-making process, so that we can have as much confidence as possible in the administration of justice and that our convictions and verdicts command confidence. The reforms are in no way a blunt tool in any shape or form to increase or decrease convictions.

Convener, I am not gonnae breenge into Northern Irish affairs. With respect to—

Yes. They came late in the day, only on 8 June. We worked as speedily as possible on it, and we will continue to engage with the UK as much as possible, but time is short. As Mr Greene said, we anticipate debating the matter in the chamber next week. As for how the legislation will progress at Westminster, it will go to the report stage next week, I believe. Although it is not a matter for me, it is my understanding that the UK Government will be seeking to make progress with the bill before Westminster goes into the summer recess. Time is quite short.

There remain fundamental concerns about how the bill cuts across the Lord Advocate’s constitutional powers.

Yes, she does.

I do not have that data to hand, and I would have to check whether it exists and is available.

The matter relates to the impact on the Lord Advocate’s powers, and I would not take issue with the Lord Advocate on that, if I can put it that way.

Let me answer the question about the change as a result of the amendment. The amendment that the UK Government has made—which is welcome but does not go far enough—will mean that, once the commission has decided that someone will not be granted immunity, the Lord Advocate could request that the case be referred to her, but the outstanding issue is that it continues to be the case that the commission will make decisions about immunity in the first instance, so it will pre-empt the Lord Advocate.

The political opposition is as I clearly laid out in my statement. Maintaining peace in Northern Ireland is of paramount importance to everyone. I refer Jamie Greene to the views of all political parties in Northern Ireland, which, of course, take precedence over my views in this instance.