���˿���

I have three amendments in this group, 53, 54 and 59, with amendments 54 and 59 being consequential to amendment 53, which is the most significant one and is my focus.

Amendment 53 would remove from the bill the proposal by the Scottish Government to remove juries from rape trials. In the committee’s stage 1 report, Scottish National Party members supported the proposal for juryless trials but, having listened to the evidence, my party took a different view, which we set out in detail in that report. In summary, we opposed the fundamental departure from the long-established right of an accused person to be tried by a jury of their peers and we stated that the proposal

“would amount to an experiment with people’s lives”

and would risk creating

“a two-tier justice system”.

It was clear from the evidence that ministers had not taken into account recent developments to address rape myths and that they had no answer to the very real prospect of lawyers boycotting juryless trials. In addition, some of the most compelling evidence came from rape survivors who said that they supported trial by jury. It is therefore welcome that the Government, and presumably the SNP committee members, now agree with us and with all those who warned that that was a bad idea. The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association described that as a “humiliating U-turn” and said:

“Our opposition was a principled campaign based on a simple premise: either all of us matter or none of us matter. Once you start taking away some people’s rights, it never ends there.”

They, and many others, will be glad that the cabinet secretary has now seen sense. It is a victory for common sense.

I have some brief further observations to make before hearing from the cabinet secretary. Fighting to remove juries has taken a monumental amount of Government, Parliament and committee time. The bill was published almost two years ago yet, throughout the process, the Government has failed to provide basic evidence to justify that radical experiment, to explain the intent behind it or to address the consequences and concerns that have been raised by so many people. My concern is that that has been an example of this Government’s cavalier approach to legislation.

I think that we are in full agreement. My speech was a very brief summary of two years’ worth of work and evidence, but the stage 1 report is in black and white. The SNP members supported the proposal, in spite of all the evidence that we heard explaining why it was a bad idea. The stage 1 report also sets out in great detail why we believed that it was a mistake. We are where we are, and that should be welcomed.

Would the member take an intervention?

I was just going to say that you misunderstood the point that I made—

Will Katy Clark take an intervention?

Thank you. My apologies for the unconventional approach, but the cabinet secretary was unwilling to take an intervention. If I understand her contribution correctly, she seemed to think that I was accusing her of being the cause of the two-year process, which I absolutely was not. I do not think that there was anything that was not respectful about my contribution. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not take an intervention. It is good that we have now reached this position. In the future, however, much greater preparation in respect of legislation would be better.

There was some evidence in support of the proposal, but the majority of evidence, as was set out in detail in the stage 1 report, was opposed to it, for good reasons. I am glad that you, as a member, and the cabinet secretary now agree with our position.

It is extremely frustrating to have lost two years to arguing about something. It is welcome that the Government is now doing the right thing, but I think that the cabinet secretary has a duty to explain why it has taken two years to finally reach this position and do the right thing.

I apologise for my manner, but I provided a factual summary of events. Indeed, it is a matter of fact that some members were for it and some were against it, as the stage 1 report says. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

As I stated and as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, I have no intention of pressing amendment 79 or moving its corresponding amendment on summary proceedings, which I think is amendment 82—although I think that the numbers have been jumbled up in some of the testimony so far.

I will start with the positive: the cabinet secretary made some very smart and interesting points about amendment 80 and its corresponding amendment on summary proceedings, on what happens in cases where there are multiple victims and complainers. She also made a good point, which I had not considered, about what happens when individuals are subject to pressure from an accused, whether through coercion domestically or even in the context of organised crime or things of that nature. Her point makes sense and, therefore, I do not intend to move amendments 80 and 83.

However, I turn to a negative point: I absolutely do not buy the novel argument put forward by the cabinet secretary that some victims appear to want to be kept in the dark. That is absolutely not my experience.

There should be universality, exactly as in Jamie Greene’s amendment 239. Communication, respect and transparency are fundamental issues. If you are the victim of a crime, you put your faith in the hands of the police, the prosecutors and the court. At the very least, it is reasonable to expect to be told whether no further proceedings are being taken. The Lord Advocate is on the record, telling me and the committee three or four years ago that that should already happen in respect of plea deals, but we know that it does not. Much as Jamie Greene is struggling to understand the rationale behind the Government’s opposition to amendment 239, I do not understand the rationale behind its opposition to amendment 81.