 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8.792 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I moved. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 8.792 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Before we move to the next item of business, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Hon. Mark Shelton MP, Speaker of the House of Assembly, Parliament of Tasmania. The next item of business is topical questions. At question 1, I call Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in light of the grounding of M.V. Pentelina and any impact on ferry services to and from Orkney. First, I would like to express thanks to the RNLI, emergency services and the crew for their work on Saturday evening. Ministers were kept informed throughout and I met with Orkney Islands Council on Sunday to discuss further. Northlink proactively contacted holliers at the time of the incident to ensure that essential goods could be delivered to Orkney, and I thank them for their action. We await detail from Pentland ferries on the length of any outage. Transport Scotland met Northlink over the weekend to discuss what potential increases in capacity may be needed on services to Orkney. We also await the outcome of any investigation and actions to prevent any reoccurrence, and we need those answers as soon as possible. Liam McArthur. Thank you. I echo the minister in paying tribute to RNLI, the emergency services, the Pentelina captain and crew, as well as the local community in St Margaret's Hope, for the part that they played in responding to events on Saturday evening with calm professionalism and generosity. While it will take time for the full facts to emerge about what led the Pentelina to be grounded, it is obviously in the public interest for answers to be provided as quickly as possible. In the meantime, as we enter the busiest time of the year, Orkney is set to be without ferry provision on a key route for both passengers and freight over the coming weeks. Will the minister therefore agree to approve a temporary resumption of four return sailings on the strongness to the Scrabster route, as occurred when the MV Alfred was out of service last year? I thank Mr McArthur for his question. As I said in my original answer, Northlink ferries have already been proactive in reaching out to hauliers and our monitoring capacity available across their routes. As Mr McArthur is well aware, from Monday there are three return trips from Scrabster to Strumness, and we will continue to engage with Northlink ferries on other options available and keep in close contact with Orkney Islands Council about those issues. Mr McArthur rightly pointed out that during a previous incident four return journeys were put in place between Scrabster and Strumness. We will continue to monitor all that, and if necessary, we will consider moving towards that fourth return service to ensure that Orkney Islanders are served well. The MV Pentalina was brought back into service due to the Scottish Government's desperation to plug gaps on the west coast by chartering MV Alfred. That provides yet another reminder of the lack of resilience within the overall ferry network across Scotland due to the Government's lack of investment in new ferries over the past 15 years. What specific action is the Minister planning to take to ensure that islanders and island communities in Orkney and elsewhere in Scotland do not continue to pay the price for the Government's calamitous mishandling of ferry provision in this country? The Government is investing heavily in ferry services. As members will be aware, we have in order six ferries for the network, which is important as we move forward. I heard Mr McArthur on the radio yesterday talking about Pentalina being rushed back into service, and he suggested that there was pressure put on the MCA to do so. I put on the record that we are not aware of any pressure being put on the MCA, certainly not by CalMac or ministers who would not be directly involved in that engagement. Given their role in rightly strictly enforcing maritime safety, it is doubtful that the MCA would succumb to any pressures. What we need to do is to wait and see what the maritime accident investigation branch comes up with. As I said previously, we want to ensure that we get those answers as soon as possible. However, as members are aware, the maritime accident investigation branch and the MCA are governed by the UK Government in reserve powers and do no answer to the Scottish ministers. Jamie Halcro Johnston Can the minister be very clear if the MV Alfred cannot return? The Pentalina is delayed getting back into service. There is not the option of a replacement vessel, and capacity cannot be increased adequately via Northlink. Where does that leave residents and businesses on Orkney as we enter the peak season? How will the Scottish Government compensate our islands for the loss of this vital route and the passenger freight capacity that it carries? It is too early to say whether there is an immediate need to consider bringing Alfred back into service. As I said to the leader of Orkney Islands Council, Councillor James Stolkin, on Sunday, we will monitor to see what is happening in terms of the three return services that are in place. If there is a requirement, we will look to move to that fourth service that was put in place previously when there was a difficulty with MV Alfred previously. The terms and conditions of the charter of MV Alfred are a commercial matter between CalMac and Pentland Ferries. There is no recall clause in the terms of the contract, which was a commercial decision made by Pentland Ferries as part of its discussions with CalMac. As I said previously, the Government will continue to monitor all that as we go forward to ensure that the Orkney Islands are well-served. Graham Simpson. Does the minister regret describing the situation for islanders as not brilliant? Would it be no more appropriate to say that it was disastrous? I would say that the antonym of brilliant is gloomy. I recognise that for some the situation is gloomy. Not brilliant, gloomy, is exactly what it is for some folks. I have spoken to folks in Orkney. I recognise the difficulties that there are here. That is why I spoke to Orkney Islands Council at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that we get this right for islanders as we move forward. I will continue that engagement with Orkney Islands Council and others to ensure that we get this right. I once again pay tribute to Northlink for its efforts in contacting hauliers very quickly indeed to make sure that capacity was in place, but we will monitor and act accordingly. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported comments from the Scottish List of Bar Association that its plans for durilist trials would be an affront to justice and that any proposed pilot could result in boycott action. I am, of course, disappointed that some criminal defence lawyers are not in agreement with some of the recommendations flowing from the review carried out by Lady Dorian, Scotland's second most senior judge. The European Court of Human Rights has explicitly ruled that a jury is not necessary to deliver a fair trial. Trials without juries are not undemocratic or inherently unfair. Over 80 per cent of criminal trials in Scotland are conducted without a jury currently. There is, of course, overwhelming evidence that false beliefs and preconceptions influence jury decision making in cases of rape and attempted rape, which coupled with the significant and long-standing disparity on conviction rates in those cases is a cause for concern. Therefore, a time-limited pilot of single judge rape trials will enable us to gather objective evidence to inform the debate on the issue and is entirely compatible with an accused's right to a fair trial. We have, of course, been working closely with stakeholders, including the legal sector, on proposals and will continue to do so. Jamie Greene I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. It is, of course, true to say that everyone wants to improve outcomes for victims of these horrific crimes, but the Government's proposals for jury-less trials has resulted in a significant backlash from the judiciary. The cabinet secretary just mentioned the ECHR. She will be aware of Lord Doe's comments today, a retired senator of the College of Justice, who described the pilot and its ministerial review as, I quote, constitutionally repugnant, which constitutes a serious attack on the independence of your judiciary. He went on to say that a court with limited lifespan working under such constraints could not, in his view, be considered an independent tribunal within the meaning of article 6 of the ECHR. The Faculty of Advocates described the proposal as anti-democratic, and the Bar Association made the stark claim that no other civilised country dispenses with juries in such cases. It will go as far as balloting its members to potentially boycott the trials, which makes a complete mockery of the pilot itself. I suppose that the fundamental question that I have for the Government is this. What makes them all so wrong on this matter, and the Government also right? Cabinet secretary, we are at the very start of a parliamentary process where the Victims Witness and Justice Reform Bill will be debated in detail and, of course, scrutinised, I hope, to the very highest of standards. For my part, I am absolutely determined to have the highest standard of debate on those matters and, indeed, scrutiny, where we are focused on the substance, because we need the people of Scotland and, indeed, victims and complainers to be proud of the debate that we are about to embark upon. Of course, the recommendations in hand, yes, are being put forward by the Government, but they, of course, come from significant deliberative recommendations of a cross-sector review led by Lady Dorian, who said and recommended that we gather evidence to inform this debate so that we can move forward and we can establish whether, in its treatment of rape and serious sexual offences, do we have a justice system that is fair and balanced to all involved in that, bearing in mind the evidence that we have around conviction rapes and the prevalence of preconceptions seems like a very legitimate inquiry to have. It may also be of interest to the chamber that there is no single approach to the use of juries in criminal cases and other comparable jurisdictions. For example, New Zealand and, indeed, France have moved away from jury trials for particular sexual offences cases. There is a wealth of evidence out there that we need to debate, look at and inform our approach going forward to do our best by women when they are at their most vulnerable but also to ensure the integrity of the system for everybody involved. I agree with much what the cabinet secretary says. I keep an open mind on the outcomes of this legislation but we cannot ignore what are very serious and direct pieces of feedback from senior members of the judiciary. The cabinet secretary wrote in the media over the weekend that the principle rationale for jury-less trials was because there is overwhelming evidence that jurors are subject to preconceptions about rape. If that is true, why would the answer to that simply be to remove juries altogether and not to educate or improve the jury process? The Scottish Government has done very limited research into the issue, which has drawn much criticism. It also fails to ignore other forms of research including that by the University of London, which quizzed real jurors about the so-called myths and stereotypes around those crimes. My question to the cabinet secretary is that, in advance of introducing legislation that removes the accused person's fundamental right to a jury trial, will the Government commit to immediate and comprehensive research into jury attitudes here in Scotland using the real-life testament of jurors who have tried people in rape cases so that any policy change is driven by evidence and not just by assumptions? It is important that we recognise that the existing evidence and the existing views, whether that is of victims or indeed parts of the legal establishment, does not in any way negate the need for other research and measures. Of course, there were a number of recommendations made by Lady Dorian that have already been taken forward by the judiciary, but we are having this debate in needs progress. Some of those issues are long standing and we have been debating them for around 40 years, so we now need to make progress for all involved and in particular victims. I think that we all agree in this chamber that we need to improve that end-to-end justice journey. In terms of the evidence, I can point members to the policy memorandum that quotes and examines a range of evidence. We will have further discussions and debates around that, but if I point to paragraph 544 in the policy memorandum that states—this is based on research from 2023—that research examining the existence and influence of rape myths is now vast and empirical evidence is reliable enough to conclude that widespread endorsements of rape mythologies spans varied societies, cultures and distinct social groups. Members are perhaps also aware of the work by Professor Fiona Leverick, Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Glasgow, who states that there is overwhelming evidence that jurors take into the deliberation room false and prejudicial beliefs about what rape looks like and what genuine rape victims would do and that those beliefs affect attitudes and verdict choices in concrete cases. I will take some supplementaries. I will require more concise responses, Cabinet Secretary. I call Audrey Nicholl. The Lady Dorian review acknowledged several benefits that could be achieved through single-judge trials, including reducing the impact of rape myths. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with the review that reducing the impact of rape myths is a very important factor in removing stigma and ensuring a fair trial for survivors? Removing the impact of rape myths on jury decision making is, in my view, absolutely vital to ensuring that we have a justice system that is fair to both complainers and accused. The evidence shows clearly, as I have referred to earlier, that this balance is not being achieved at present due to the impact of cultural misconceptions or indeed the stigma that Ms Nicholl refers to. Therefore, conducting a time-limited pilot provides us all with an opportunity to explore whether single-judge trials can mitigate the impact that currently exists on jury decision making in cases of rape and attempted rape. Can I register my concern regarding jury list trials, let alone a pilot, in rape cases? For example, the right to appeal, let alone appeal itself, a judge only conviction compared to that of a conviction by a jury, to me raises serious issues of parity of right to justice. Perhaps I would be helpful to the member if I actually quote from Lady Dorian's review again when she said that consideration should be given to develop a time-limited pilot of single-judge rape trials to ascertain their effectiveness on how they are perceived by complainers, accused and lawyers, and to enable the issues to be assessed in a practical way rather than a theoretical way. Also to say to Ms Grahame that, as we proceed with the detailed work that has already commenced, there is already a number of recommendations made about case criteria, objectives and evaluation. The recommendation was for us also to do further work in and around these matters because we need to ensure the integrity of the system and to ensure that the matters of appeal and fairness, both to victim and accused, get the right balance between being bold but protect the integrity of our system at all times. That concludes topical questions.