���˿���

I am not going to go over ground that the witnesses have already given evidence on, because I know their views on those aspects. It feels as though, once the not proven verdict is removed, Scotland is going to be an outlier whichever way you look at it—unless we adopt the English position, which I know that the witnesses are opposed to, of having all 12 jurors, or possibly 10, agree on a verdict.

How could Scotland remove its not proven verdict, which is one of the few elements that there seems to be quite complete agreement on, without being an outlier? I am really interested to know how the witnesses think that we could fix that. Sandy, do you want to go first?

Do they not have any system of evidence that would be comparable to Scotland’s system to prove a case?

This question is on jury size—obviously, I have other questions.

I agree with Simon Brown and Fulton MacGregor when they say, “If we are going to do it, let us do it properly”. “Flashbacks” is probably the right word, because coming down on either side seems to be an enormous decision. I probably favour a majority of 10 to five, but I still do not feel comfortable that we have reached the point—although we are not back where we started with the not proven verdict—where we remain an outlier, without the appropriate balances.

Forgive me if you have already answered this, but I want to be sure—I think that Ben Macpherson asked the same question. What we are understanding—and what we did not understand previously—is that the English system is different. Simon Brown spoke to one of the key differences—I did not really appreciate this until our work on the bill—which is that, in England, it is on the likelihood of conviction that the Crown Prosecution Service determines whether a case goes to trial. We heard evidence that, proportionally, there are fewer rape trials in England because of that. However, in Scotland, that is not the test: the test is whether the prosecution service has evidence to prove the case. That implies that more cases go to trial.

The question is how to balance a system that is different. Stuart Munro explained the system very well. In Scotland, these are the safeguards: there being three verdicts, the need for a simple majority and the system of corroboration, notwithstanding the changes that have been made to that. However, England does not have the system of corroboration that we have. Other systems have that other test. It is a whole system. In Scotland, we are breaking down the whole system that we had by removing one verdict. We now have to determine how to balance the system.

You said to Ben Macpherson that you prefer the English model’s jury size, which is 12. That seems to be the number in other jurisdictions, too. Is it your position that, to accommodate the fact that we still have corroboration in the Scottish system, we do not have to have unanimity among the 12, as in England, in order to balance the system? Or, should we get rid of corroboration in Scotland?

Do you see where I am going? I am looking at how we are going to balance our system. I take the point that the only two ways in which we can do that is to use the English position, which is to remove corroboration and go to a unanimous jury of 12, or to keep corroboration, which is the system that our lawyers have been operating under. I cannot see a scenario in which we would just go to the English system. I presume that you would need to retrain the legal profession on a different evidential system, although I do not know that. Does the fact that we require corroboration mean that, if we go for a jury of 12, a verdict does not need to be unanimous? I apologise if you feel that you have already answered that, but I just do not really understand.

I am trying to make sense of what you said. I cannot conceive of a situation in which there would be any support for the English system of unanimity of 12, given that we have corroboration. Albeit that you are suggesting that the October decision has changed that somewhat, we still have it. If the Government had come up with the scenario of a majority of 10 out of 12, would that fulfil the requirement for balance?

I might come back on the point about medical assessment at a future date. It is worth considering whether there might be any blockages facing someone who comes forward because they think that they need help—that is, the possibility of their being rejected after making such a big step, just because of a medical assessment. As I have said, I might come back to that at another date.

I also want to ask about the fact that men are twice as heavy users of services. I do not detect a lot of discussion about the approach that we should take, given that high numbers of men are harming themselves. How is that factored into the approach that you are taking to drug misuse and stopping drug deaths?

I understand that, but I want to get a sense of how important and central you think access to rehab is. At some point, we need an answer to the question about demand.

I do not know how easy it is for drug users to access rehabilitation, although I am quite familiar with how difficult it is for those who are dependent on alcohol to access such facilities or to know who to call. What is the pathway? Are you satisfied that it is clear? People might be on their own, because they do not have family support or because their family might not be able to cope any more. Are you clear about how easy it is to access facilities?

I want to follow on from Annie Wells’s line of questioning, because she asked what I think is an essential question about demand. We acknowledge the progress that has been made; however, we do not know what the demand is, so it is important to establish that. I know that there are many ways of approaching that question, but to what extent do you think that access to rehabilitation programmes is central to tackling drugs deaths?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Fees for defence solicitors in particular have been in crisis for many years. The key question, which I do not think has been addressed by the Scottish Government, is in the way in which the rate is set. In the criminal justice system, prosecutors are paid a certain salary, but defence solicitors do not seem to have kept pace with the people that they are working alongside in the criminal courts. That is why we are losing solicitors from the profession. I know that the cabinet secretary will share my view that, if there is to be fairness in criminal justice for accused persons, it is important that we retain good solicitors in the profession. How will the budget address that specific point, and what are the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of press reports that indicate, not for the first time, an on-going crisis in legal aid. Some press reports have said that, since 2021, we have lost more than 400 solicitors from the system. Not all of those were lost because of the legal aid situation, I am sure, but certainly a high number were. There has already been a 23 per cent drop in the number of cases that solicitors have been paid for, so there has been less demand on the budget. However, that is a flat-line budget, so, in effect, there has been a cut to legal aid.

What approach is the Scottish Government taking to the crisis, given that it has not allocated an increase in the legal aid budget, and what is the thinking behind that?

Is that for police budgets?