 i ddysgust o'r cymdeithasol i ddweud hynny oherwydd i gael peth i gael ein proses. Y next site of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the Bonomy review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should be there for no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary around 10 minutes. On 23 April 2014, my predecessor, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, announced agreement across parties that stage 2 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill should be deferred until after Lord Bonomy's post-corroboration safeguards review completes its work. The Scottish Government initiated the Bonomy review after listening to views expressed during stage 1 of the bill about the impact of removing the general requirement for corroboration. I have said since taking up post in November that I would await the outcome of the review before reaching a decision on how to proceed on this matter. Lord Bonomy has now completed this review and has provided recommendations on what further safeguards would be required following the removal of the corroboration requirement. Lord Bonomy's reference group, comprised of 18 of the most knowledgeable and respected representatives from across the justice system, including key figures from victims and human rights groups, from academia, from the legal profession and judges. Those experts have given this issue thorough and careful scrutiny, undertaking a substantial academic analysis and public consultation exercise. I, Presiding Officer, am very grateful to the work that they have undertaken and for the considered and collaborative manner in which they have taken it forward. The group's proposals are substantial and complex. Taking forward all of those changes would have a considerable impact on our justice system. One key finding is that research on jury decision making in Scotland is required before fully informed conclusions can be reached on issues relating to juries. In particular, the report concludes that without research it is not possible to reach a definitive position on jury size or in the not-proven verdict. The report gives provisional recommendations on jury majorities, but argues that that should also be subject to research. The issues that Lord Bonomy has raised are of crucial importance, and we should take the time necessary to consider them fully. The Scottish Government will look at Lord Bonomy's detailed recommendations as a package, alongside the corroboration requirement itself and form of view on the best way forward. Our justice system must provide the appropriate balance so that the rights of the suspect, victims and witnesses all get appropriate protection. It must, as far as possible, be fair to all. That is why I want to take a holistic approach and look at those issues in the round. This Government will now work with stakeholders during the remainder of this Parliament to develop and seek a consensus on a package of proposals for criminal justice reform, including a full response to Lord Bonomy's recommendations. Given that approach, I do not consider that there is sufficient time to complete the work this work before the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill resumes its parliamentary passage. On that basis, it is clear to me that proceeding with the removal of the corroboration requirement in the bill would be neither appropriate nor feasible. Therefore, I am making this immediate statement to inform Parliament of this development. The bill should proceed with amendment to remove the corroboration provision from the bill and also to remove the related increase in the jury majorities that are required for conviction. Removing the corroboration provision from the Criminal Justice Bill will allow the other provisions in the bill to go forward as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits. Those include important reforms to police procedure and practice, as well as strengthening rights to legal access to suspects and improvements to sheriff and jury trials. The Scottish Government still believes that there is a case to be made for the abolition of the corroboration requirement, but we will now consider whether to proceed with it as part of a wider package in the next parliamentary session. We should not forget the original motivation behind the proposal to remove the general requirement for corroboration. It was to improve protections and access to justice for victims of crimes committed in private, including domestic abuse, sexual offences and abuse of older and vulnerable people. The Scottish Government remains committed absolutely and unequivocally to improving protections for victims and tackling inequality. We all recognise the added difficulties of prosecuting crimes committed in private, and we all share the belief that victims of crimes deserve access to justice. Despite that, it has not been possible to build a consensus around the corroboration rule at this time. Strengthening access to justice remains a key priority for this Government. I believe that the jury research could play a valuable role in developing a way forward, and there could be merit in looking at wider issues through this form of research. I will therefore look at Lord Bornymi's proposals in this area, and I am open-minded about taking them forward. Lord Bornymi has indicated that some of his recommendations would be worthwhile improvements, independent of corroboration reform. I will consider whether it is appropriate to take forward any of the review's recommendations in this parliamentary session. I will be very interested, of course, to hear the views of others within the chamber on that possibility. In the meantime, the Government is already making real improvements for victims, strengthening legal protections and providing direct support towards access to justice. We are making progress in addressing domestic abuse and sexual offences. Although overall crime rates, including violent crime, have fallen, more cases involving domestic abuse and sexual offences are reaching our courts. During 2013-14 alone, there was a 50 per cent increase in the number of charges with a domestic abuse background sent to court, and the number of people with a charge proved in court for sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault, increased by 22 per cent. Those increases reflect more proactive policing, better evidence-gathering and consistent marking by procreator ffiscals, as well as greater confidence among victims in coming forward. We are extending the rights of victims through the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 and the Police Scotland pilot on domestic abuse disclosure, known as clear law, is due to be completed in May of this year. We launched last month a public consultation on a range of proposals to help victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, including seeking views on specific domestic abuse offences, measures to tackle the unauthorised publication of intimate images and directions to juries in rape trials. The First Minister also announced funding of £20 million over three years to help to speed up the process of cases through our courts, support for victims, through our criminal justice process and to address perpetrator's behaviour to prevent further harm. Those measures have been widely welcomed by victims' organisations and we will continue to work with them to support victims of crime. In conclusion, I want to express my thanks to Lord Bonomy and his reference group for their hard work on this substantial review. Their findings will be valuable in ensuring a clear, fair and coherent justice system for Scotland. I will now take the time to consider the review's recommendations in detail. The Criminal Justice Scotland Bill should proceed without the abolition of corroboration and I will consider corroboration alongside Lord Bonomy's recommendations. This Government still believes that there is a case for abolition, but I have listened to the range of views on the issue. I will continue to listen to all who have an interest in our justice system to work collaboratively towards a fairer Scotland for all. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes of questions, after which we will move to the next side of business. Members who wish to ask a question of the minister should press the request-to-speak button. I call Hugh Henry. Can I join with the cabinet secretary in praising the work of Lord Bonomy and his reference group? They had a very specific remit and they have worked within that remit to come up with a very thorough and sensible report. However, today is not a debate about whether there should be corroboration. That will be for another time, but I think that it is right to contrast the discussion today in the cabinet secretary's comments with those that were made 14 months ago. What a difference 14 months can make? On that occasion, the cabinet secretary for justice told Graham Pearson that the Labour party's view that it did not make sense to go forward with corroboration was selling out its principles and that Labour had sold its soul and was in danger of selling out the victims of crime. However, today, I think that we have heard a very measured and considerate and mature response from the cabinet secretary and is to be commended for that. We will work with him in trying to move this forward in whatever way we can. He asked whether there would be some agreement for taking forward some of the issues. If we can reach consensus, then yes, we will work with the Scottish Government to see where that is possible. There are a number of things that I might want to put down just now for the cabinet secretary to consider. There is a debate to be had about whether the waiver of legal advice is in fact informed consent. Will he consider that issue carefully? Will he ensure that, if there are any changes to that, there are adequate resources for video evidence? Will he ensure that, in any changes, there are adequate resources for the hard work to overpressed fiscal service? Will he give some consideration to the issue that Lord Bonomy has considered about the Lord Advocate's guidelines and whether those should be published? Will he consider whether or not the publication and consultation on those guidelines would prejudice the independence of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office? I think that my primary focus, as members will appreciate here, is to move the issue forward. My focus in doing so is about improving access to justice for those individuals who continue to have difficulty in having cases brought before the courts, particularly for crimes that are committed in private. I believe that there is common ground across the chamber in order to achieve that. With regard to the specifics that the member raised, particularly in relation to the recommendations that have been made by Lord Bonomy, I believe that, for the very reason that he raised those questions and the points associated with them, that is why we need to take time to consider them to look at their implications. For example, if we were to move immediately to the introduction of all police interviews to be recorded in an audio-visual way, there is a significant resource implication for that and there is a procedural implication for that as well and training implication for the police. Although those are issues that would be worthwhile taking forward, outwith the whole issue of corroboration, we have to look at them in the round. That is why I believe that the best way in which to deal with Lord Bonomy's recommendations, along with the rule of corroboration, is as a package and to take the time to engage with stakeholders to get their views on those matters and then look at what is the best approach in moving forward, with again that primary focus about improving access to justice for those who feel that they are being denied justice as a result of the present arrangements that we have within our criminal justice system in Scotland, and that is the approach that I intend to take forward with the report and the recommendations. Margaret Mitchell I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of his statement. I very much welcome his confirmation that the abolition of corroboration will be removed from the bill. That is most certainly the right thing to do, especially given the Bonomy's review recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be retained for hearsay evidence and confession evidence. In his statement, the cabinet secretary seems open to the implementation of the third way, which the Scottish Conservatives have called for since it was omitted from the Carlyway review and which Lord Bonomy was not allowed to consider in his remit, namely the retaining of corroboration but including it in a wider review of the law of criminal evidence. Given that, will he now look at some of the helpful and effective recommendations of the review group, for example in relation to the judicial institute clarifying and simplifying the language used in jury directions and varying the means of communication of communicating directions to juries? To address the cabinet secretary's specific question, I do believe that those are recommendations that could be taken forward in this parliamentary session. One of the reasons why I want to take time to consider those as a package of measures is to ensure that we make sure and to ensure that the balance within our criminal justice system is one that is fair and reasonable. That is why I want to take the time that is necessary in order to do so. I am open to the views of other stakeholders around some of the specific recommendations that Lord Bonomy has made that could be introduced as part of the criminal justice bill at a later stage, if there is a consensus on how that should be taken forward. I am open to considering those issues but we have to look at them as a package on their overall impact in our criminal justice system in Scotland. The member made reference to the idea or the issue of jury directions where we have just started a consultation on jury directions for rape cases, which is part of the domestic abuse and the proposals that we have within that consultation. I think that there is scope to look at taking some of that work further forward. What I do not want to do is to get into a situation where we start to have a piecemeal approach to some of the recommendations that Lord Bonomy has set out. We need to look at those as a package and to consider what impact they would have on the overall balance of our criminal justice system in Scotland. That is the approach that I intend to take forward again with that very specific focus on improving access to justice for those who experience crimes in private that continue to feel that their cases are not being given the right hearing in court because of the present arrangements that we have in place. We are due to finish this session at 2.50. I have 10 members who wish to ask a question, so I urge members to keep the question brief. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I refer him to the justice committee's report last year at stage 1, in which we said at paragraph 27 that the majority of committee members are of the view that the case has not been made for abolishing the general requirement for corroboration and recommend that the Scottish Government consider removing the provision from the bill. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that sometimes the committees in this Parliament are told that they are not doing their job? In this case, the justice committee did its job and, thank goodness, the Government listened. Having spent almost seven years on the justice committee, I think that there is a very good job. As a justice secretary, who has appeared at it on a number of occasions now, I think that they are always very diligent in the way in which they scrutinise both the decision making and the actions of the Government and its ministers. I recognise the role that the justice committee has played in considering this whole issue around the abolition of corroboration and the concerns that have been raised in relation to its proposed abolition. As I also made the point in my statement, I recognise that a consensus has not been leached on this particular matter, that there are views that are polarized on this particular issue. However, it takes us right back to the original purpose for which its abolition was proposed and that was about improving access to justice for those who experience crimes in private. I have no doubt that the justice committee in moving the issue forward with the general justice bill later this year will be interested in how we take forward the recommendations from Lord Barnaby as a package of measures and how that sits alongside the whole issue of the corroboration rule. I have no doubt that in due course we will want to scrutinise any proposals that come forward from Government. In my closing speech on 27 February last year, I pleaded with the then cabinet secretary to remove the corroboration provisions from the bill for further consideration and was met with what would seem to be a very hostile response. I am very much welcome the statement that the cabinet secretary has made. Lord Barnaby's review group identified significant issues around the issue of dock identification. I am not sure that the final year of this term of Parliament would be sufficient time, but I wonder whether that is one of the issues that could be examined separately, both the case for ending dock identification and the means to do so. The member makes a reasonable point about the issue of dock identification, however. Removing it from the court process places a significant burden on our prosecutors and the police in the process that they have to put in place prior to a case getting into courts. That is why, on the surface, some of the issues may appear as though they are fairly straightforward initiatives to take forward, but the potential resource implication in other parts of the justice system could be very significant. That is why it is important that we do not just jump ahead and decide to select one of those particular recommendations or a couple of them without considering in detail what the full impact of that will be further into the system, including for prosecutors and for our police service. It is worth keeping in mind that the primary focus of the Bonomy Review Group has been on protections for the accused. We need to make sure that any of the measures that we take forward are ones that do not make an imbalance in our system that could be difficult to justify. That is why I do not want to at this stage give a commitment to any of those specific recommendations until we have worked through the full practical implications of them. However, I am more than happy to make sure that, as we take that work forward with stakeholders, we will inform Parliament as to what we believe is the best approach. I argued for and secured the suspension of the bill until the outcome of the Bonomy Review and Lord Bonway's report today indicates that approach, because it exposes the scale of the task that the Parliament would have faced had Kenny MacAskill had his way and if the bill was already law. However, we should not forget that he was backed by the entire Cabinet, and I do wonder if the cabinet secretary regrets his Government's obstinacy on that. On a more positive note, I share the cabinet secretary's wish to secure a better conviction rate for those crimes committed in private. Research into jury decision making could be crucial to finding a way forward. Can the cabinet secretary explain his thinking in that regard in terms of taking that forward as a matter of importance? The first thing that I should say is that what I am very proud of in this Government is its determination to try to improve access to justice for those who are denied access to justice. We will certainly make no apology for that, and we will continue to take forward an approach that we believe will deliver that particular objective. On the specific point about jury research, I am conscious that that is an issue that has also been raised by a variety of stakeholders in the past in looking at the potential benefits that could come from jury research. There were concerns about its potential impact on the content of court provisions, however, as Lord Borramey has set out, there is a mechanism and way in which he can do that, which would overcome that particular obstacle. That is why I am open-minded to the issue of the research. However, I am open-minded to not just on the basis that it will allow us to look at the issue of jury size majorities and also the three verdicts. I think that there may be some other wider issues that that research could consider. I want to look at it on that basis, not just on the specifics that Lord Borramey has recommended it for, but on whether there could be value in looking at some other wider issues within our justice system. That is again something that I want to consider as we move forward as to what that could potentially look like. However, that is why I am open-minded to it and open-minded to it in such a way as it would go wider than what Lord Borramey has recommended. Roderick Campbell, for by Jim Baxter. Cabinet Secretary, you will appreciate that there remains widespread public concern about the historically low prosecution and conviction rates for victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse. Is there anything further that you can offer in the interim to address those concerns? As I set out my statement, there has been significant progress made in terms of domestic abuse and sexual offences cases reaching our courts, with the significant increase that we have seen since 2013-14. We want to continue to see that work being taken forward. One of the benefits that we have had from Police Scotland is a specialist investigations unit, which has been able to give much more focus and dedication to those types of crimes, which has allowed a much greater level of expertise to be deployed in tackling domestic abuse and sexual offences cases. The other aspect is about the additional £20 million that the First Minister announced several weeks ago, which is about looking at how we can improve the way in which our criminal justice system is operating by cases getting through the system quicker by the type of support that we provide to victims in the course of a particular case going through the courts, but also looking at how we can speed up the intervention methods that can help to reduce those types of offences from occurring in the first place. That is from the Caledonian scheme, right through to some of the violence reduction programmes that we run in our schools. All of those measures, I believe, will continue to allow us to improve the way in which people experience our justice system and to reduce the levels of domestic and sexual violence that take place within our society. Alongside that, I intend to work with stakeholders on the recommendations from Lord Bonomy to look at which of those measures could assist us and help them to improve further access to our justice system in Scotland. I note from the cabinet secretary's statement that the police Scotland pilots of domestic abuse disclosure, known as Claire's law, are due to be completed in May. Could the cabinet secretary give some indication of whether resources are to be made available to roll out this good practice, and will we see progress on this in the life of this Parliament? We have already saw progress in this area in the course of this Parliament with the pilots that Police Scotland has taken forward. The additional £20 million that we have announced will allow us to look at some of those other programmes that can be taken forward. The feedback that I have had around the domestic abuse notification scheme that the pilots are operating is a very positive one, where people value it. Police Scotland believes that it is valuable, so I am very sympathetic to that. Again, that is some of the work that we will be looking to take forward and to see what we can learn from those pilots to consider how that could be applied on a national basis. Given that the motivation to remove requirements for corroboration was to improve access to justice for victims of crime, I am very much supported at the time and still support what steps has the Scottish Government now taking to help victims? One of the areas of work that we are taking forward is the Provisions within Victims and Witnesses Act in order to improve the way in which victim rights are promoted and supported within our criminal justice system. Alongside that, since we announced additional £20 million for domestic violence organisations, we have been engaged with the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service or Crown Office, Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Assist, all looking at how we can take forward more proactive measures in order to support individuals who experience domestic violence and how we can improve the system with the use of those resources. Alongside that, as I mentioned earlier, one of the other aspects that I am keen to see being developed is the preventative measures such as the Caledonian model, which has already been rolled out in some parts of the country and which can help to reduce the risk of perpetrators of domestic violence from committing similar offences again in the future. That additional resource will allow us to look at how we can scope further work in this area and for that to then be rolled out into other parts of the country and, in doing so, help to support victims much more effectively. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, on two occasions now, I have consulted on the reform of the three verdicts and on the jury's majorities, notwithstanding the report of Lord Bonamy's group. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the consultations that I have undertaken show that there is widespread support from the legal, academic professions and the public for progress on the three verdict system? Given that I have achieved the necessary support from colleagues across the Parliament to take that bill proposal forward, will the cabinet secretary meet me to discuss how we can progress that issue? That is an issue that has been hanging around for far too long and now needs to genuinely be addressed. I recognise the work that Mr McMahon has taken forward in this particular area over several years now, and I would, of course, be more than happy to meet him to discuss it. I am mindful of the recommendation from Lord Bonamy on this matter, in that the review group does not feel that they can come to a recommendation on the three verdicts that we have at the present time until that jury research has been undertaken. That is why I am open-minded to undertaking that particular type of research. Of course, that is an issue for the member to consider and how he wishes to pursue his own member's bill, but I would be more than happy to meet the member to discuss that further. I have three further members who wish to ask a question. I intend to take them all, given the importance of this, but can I ask that the questions are brief? Christian Allard, followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Justice Committee, I would like to say that I regret that we did not manage to build the consensus around the co-operation rules, but, in light of the question today and the reaction of different members, I would ask the cabinet secretary why he could not provide clarity as to why all Lord Bonamy's recommendations cannot be taken forward in this parliamentary session. Can I say that, as I have mentioned in a couple of my responses so far, there are a number of significant complexities to those recommendations? If I can, for example, I will make reference to the issue around the jury research, about verdicts, majorities and the way in which we operate our jury system. It has been indicated that that could take some time to undertake that work over a period of time. It could take more than a year, possibly two years, to complete that type of detailed work that will be necessary in order to form the right type of decisions on this matter. It is simply not possible to fit that in in this parliamentary term. Again, the issue around dock identification, although it appears straightforward, there are potential other consequences that come from that, which have to be considered in great detail. Again, for example, the audio-visual recording that I mentioned in response to Hugh Henry's question. Again, the potential resource implication for that and the practical implication for the police are considerable as well. In order to consider those issues fully in this parliamentary term, there is insufficient time to allow us to progress the criminal justice bill as it stands at the present moment and to look at all those issues and to consider them in sufficient detail before we can arrive at a final decision in this parliamentary session. John Finnie, then finally, Christine McElvie. Thank you, minister, for the statement. You rightly referred to the report as a protection for the accused, and there is a reiteration in the report of a concern already picked up in a report delivered to you a number of months ago by HM. I see the concerns about suspects not waiving the rights to legal assistance at police stations and the implication that the costs of that are a factor in it. Will you lay before Parliament regulations disapplying the provisions of the Legal Aid Scotland Act 1986, which causes a suspect to pay for the cost of legal assistance provided to them at a police office? That is something that you could do to enhance the conditions straight away. I am conscious of an issue that has been flagged up by Lord Bonomy in his review, and, as the member will be aware, there are provisions already in the criminal justice bill for those who are vulnerable adults in terms of waiving their rights to legal representation, but I will consider all those recommendations, including the one that the member has highlighted, and consider what is the best approach to go forward. I will consider the views of those such as the member and the Justice Committee and other stakeholders before we come to a final decision on which of the recommendations will take forward in the criminal justice bill. The cabinet secretary has mentioned a lot in his contribution today about those crimes committed in private, and he will know many of the organisations that are involved in the cross-party group's men's violence against women rape crisis, women AIDS and zero tolerance. We are very supportive of the measure of withdrawing the need for corroboration. If the corroboration form is not to go ahead at this time, what steps can the cabinet secretary tell us that he will take to address those concerns, and would he consider meeting with the cross-party group, for instance, to help to address those concerns? I should say that, as part of our response to the Bonomy review today, we have been engaging with stakeholders who have a particular interest in the matter. A range of those stakeholders have expressed their views in the past around the whole issue of the abolition of the corroboration rule on relation. I will continue to do so, and I will, of course, be more than happy to engage with the cross-party group at some point on that particular issue. As I also mentioned, we have also got a specific consultation on a domestic abuse offence, and also about using the resources of additional £20 million on how we can improve support to those who are victims of crimes of domestic abuse within our court system. The provisions within the victims and witnesses act are there to help to support the needs of all victims, including those of domestic violence and of sexual violence and rape. All the measures that we have taken forward that are leading to improvements within our criminal justice system, we will continue to move forward alongside that, looking at what aspects of the particular package we can take forward and to help to improve the way in which individuals access our justice system. The member can be absolutely assured that this Government's commitment to improving access to justice for those who continue to experience crimes in pilot, part private. The experience difficulty in getting justice through our court system will continue to be a central focus on how we want to improve our justice system within Scotland.