Chamber and committees

That brings the public part of the meeting to a close. Next week, we will continue to take evidence as part of our inquiry into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scottish prisons.

Before I bring in Pauline McNeill, I want to let you know that there is a slight issue with some of the windows opening—I think that they have a mind of their own. We are arranging to get them closed, but it might get a bit noisy while we are doing that. There we go—they are closing now.

Before I bring in Rona Mackay, I will ask a follow-up question. You are aware that we had representatives of the Prison Officers Association Scotland before the committee last week. They spoke about the pressures on prison officers and staff at the moment, not least because of the prison population issue. One of the things that the association called for was a return to 24/7 nursing provision in prisons, just to cope and to support the management more fully with the impact of drug misuse. That would be a significant resource commitment, so I am interested in your views on that, Rhoda. I can see that you wish to comment.

It is safe to say that the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has been long, complex and challenging—and rightly so, given the transformational ambition of the bill, which derives from the Lady Dorrian review, and which centres on delivering meaningful change for victims and witnesses in the justice system.

I, too, thank everyone who contributed to the shape of the bill as it stands before us today at stage 3. The extensive debates at all stages reflected the breadth of the bill and our collective desire to shift the dial on the common and, often, justified perception that the system fails to adequately support those whom it is meant to protect. I will quote the words of a survivor who gave powerful evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 1. She said:

“when we talk about what happened, each one of us mentions the exact date that our case went to trial. We remember the date that we were raped, but we also remember the date that we went to trial, because they are as traumatic as each other.”

Speaking as a member, rather than the convener, of the Criminal Justice Committee, and through the lens of a career in policing, I say that the bill presents a huge opportunity for us to create a contemporary and modern justice system that we can be proud of.

There is not enough time to comment on all the provisions in the bill, so I will reflect on a couple: the removal of the not proven verdict and the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court. First, I thank everyone, including campaigners and colleagues, for their efforts in making the case for free court transcripts. I hope that that proves to be a small but meaningful option for survivors as they move on from their experience of sexual crime.

There is no doubt that the not proven verdict has had its day and should be abolished. During scrutiny of the bill, some argued that the not proven verdict is a unique and historical feature of the Scottish legal system that should be retained. However, that is hardly a good reason for keeping it. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Committee heard compelling evidence about the devastating impact that that verdict—which cannot be defined—can have on victims. Even for the accused, it can be an unsatisfactory outcome and leave a lingering stigma.

The creation of a specialist sexual offences court is a key reform in the bill and is informed by survivors, their families and many others. It is supported by victims, stakeholders and leading members of the justice system. It provides a real opportunity to reform practice, process and culture by improving efficiency and effectiveness, reducing the number and frequency of unnecessary court adjournments and ensuring that cases reach trial more quickly. The status quo is simply not an option. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s view that the idea of creating specialist divisions of the High Court and sheriff courts

“prioritises hierarchies, status and tradition over progressive and practical solutions that will improve the experiences of complainers in sexual offences cases.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 114.]

There is so much more to say, but I will conclude. Over decades, we have seen meaningful change in culture, legislation and attitudes, but we need to do so much more. I urge members to support the bill.

It is safe to say that the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has been long, complex and challenging—and rightly so, given the transformational ambition of the bill, which derives from the Lady Dorrian review, and which centres on delivering meaningful change for victims and witnesses in the justice system.

I, too, thank everyone who contributed to the shape of the bill as it stands before us today at stage 3. The extensive debates at all stages reflected the breadth of the bill and our collective desire to shift the dial on the common and, often, justified perception that the system fails to adequately support those whom it is meant to protect. I will quote the words of a survivor who gave powerful evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 1. She said:

“when we talk about what happened, each one of us mentions the exact date that our case went to trial. We remember the date that we were raped, but we also remember the date that we went to trial, because they are as traumatic as each other.”

Speaking as a member, rather than the convener, of the Criminal Justice Committee, and through the lens of a career in policing, I say that the bill presents a huge opportunity for us to create a contemporary and modern justice system that we can be proud of.

There is not enough time to comment on all the provisions in the bill, so I will reflect on a couple: the removal of the not proven verdict and the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court. First, I thank everyone, including campaigners and colleagues, for their efforts in making the case for free court transcripts. I hope that that proves to be a small but meaningful option for survivors as they move on from their experience of sexual crime.

There is no doubt that the not proven verdict has had its day and should be abolished. During scrutiny of the bill, some argued that the not proven verdict is a unique and historical feature of the Scottish legal system that should be retained. However, that is hardly a good reason for keeping it. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Committee heard compelling evidence about the devastating impact that that verdict—which cannot be defined—can have on victims. Even for the accused, it can be an unsatisfactory outcome and leave a lingering stigma.

The creation of a specialist sexual offences court is a key reform in the bill and is informed by survivors, their families and many others. It is supported by victims, stakeholders and leading members of the justice system. It provides a real opportunity to reform practice, process and culture by improving efficiency and effectiveness, reducing the number and frequency of unnecessary court adjournments and ensuring that cases reach trial more quickly. The status quo is simply not an option. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s view that the idea of creating specialist divisions of the High Court and sheriff courts

“prioritises hierarchies, status and tradition over progressive and practical solutions that will improve the experiences of complainers in sexual offences cases.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 114.]

There is so much more to say, but I will conclude. Over decades, we have seen meaningful change in culture, legislation and attitudes, but we need to do so much more. I urge members to support the bill.

We all understand, I think, the point that Russell Findlay is making. However, the Lord President’s letter stresses the “extended delays” that could be expected in both criminal and civil cases, which is contrary to being trauma informed and trauma responsive. Further, with respect to the member, his party is frequently critical of the backlog of criminal court cases, with which we are still grappling.

Amendment 83 would enable survivors of rape and sexual offences to access court transcripts from the clerk of justiciary free of charge. For context, I note that, at stage 2, I moved a probing amendment on the issue, joining Pauline McNeill and Jamie Greene, who lodged similar amendments. I welcomed the cabinet secretary’s commitment to engaging further on the issue in advance of stage 3.

The difficulties that survivors have historically experienced in accessing a record of a trial were first brought to the Criminal Justice Committee’s attention in 2021. I pay tribute to the women who described the challenges that they faced, with one having had to pay more than £3,000 for a single transcript. For some survivors, access to transcripts has a practical function if they are involved in another process, such as one in the civil space. For many, access to a record of what was said during a trial is an extremely important part of their recovery and closure process, and such access reflects a justice system that is trauma informed and trauma responsive.

I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for agreeing to the establishment of a pilot that enables survivors to access transcripts free of charge and for extending the pilot beyond its original timeframe in order that a number of operational considerations—such as the development of emerging technology, the evaluation of potential demand, and potential legislative changes—could be considered more fully.

Amendment 83 seeks to add a new subsection to section 94 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to require that a transcript is made and sent to a complainer at no cost. That will apply to cases involving sexual offences listed in section 288C of the 1995 act that were heard in the High Court or the sexual offences court and that commenced on or after 31 December 2006.

I am very grateful to Scottish Women’s Aid, Victim Support Scotland and other organisations for their support for amendment 83.

I know that that has been proposed and given some thought. Perhaps it is something that the cabinet secretary will be able to comment on.

I urge all members to support amendment 83, which reflects our commitment to ensuring that our justice system responds effectively to the unique needs of victims who have suffered complex trauma, putting their needs front and centre always.

I move amendment 83.

I thank my colleagues Pauline McNeill and Jamie Greene for their support. This is a small but, I hope, important piece of cross-party work, and it is great to get cross-party support for it. I thank the cabinet secretary for her support, too.

I endorse and agree with all the points that were made by colleagues about the extension of the provision. There are practical and cost implications, but this is perhaps the beginning of a wider discussion. I press amendment 83.

Amendment 83 agreed to.

As the minister highlighted, nuclear power takes decades to become operational, at an eye-watering cost to the public, with EDF Energy reporting that the costs of Hinkley Point C could spiral to almost £48 billion, which is more than double the original estimate. Does the minister agree that, given the risks and huge costs of nuclear, we are better placed to take advantage of Scotland’s natural abundance of far more affordable and far quicker to deliver renewable power?