Chamber and committees

Yes, I think that there would be value in that. I am focusing on rape and attempted rape because the amendment proposes a pilot. Also, I would not expect the service to be available across Scotland, as the nature of a pilot means that it would be limited, controlled and evaluated with a view to seeing what was a success and what was not. I agree with the principle of what Maggie Chapman suggests, as there is probably a wide range of offences in which such representation would be appropriate, but the proposal in my amendment is for a pilot. Rather than going ahead with a full scheme, we would look at what works and build on that. Proper evaluation should be part of the pilot process.

As Maggie Chapman will note, the representation that I propose in the pilot is limited and restricted from the point at which the allegation is made until the end of the criminal investigation or proceedings. It may well be the case that there should be advice and representation beyond the very restricted proposal that is made for the pilot. The pilot is the start of what I imagine may be a longer process, but we would have to evaluate it to see how it works.

Other countries and jurisdictions have started off with a relatively restricted process of representation that has expanded over many decades. That might happen here, but it is not what is proposed today. What is proposed today is representation and advice in the early part of the process—before the court door, if you like.

Amendment 68 would require the Scottish Government to consult persons providing victim support services and any other persons that ministers consider appropriate before making the relevant regulations. There would be scope to build views and representations into the pilot, but the amendment says that the regulations

“must be made within 1 year of this section coming into force.”

Therefore, there are time constraints and pressure on the Scottish Government to act.

These are relatively modest proposals, but, as I indicated, they represent the current direction of travel. The amendment aims to empower victims in the process, and it seeks to enable them to have information about and understand the process so that they can engage with it and, where appropriate, make representations.

Amendment 64 also relates to empowering the victim—the complainer. It relates to having a single point of contact for victims. In drafting the amendment, we looked at other legislation that has been passed by the Parliament where there has been a single point of contact.

Amendment 68 also states that

“the Scottish ministers must—

(a) review the operation of the regulations,

(b) publish a report on their findings and

(c) lay the report before the Scottish Parliament.”

The report

“must include the views and feedback of—

(a) complainers,

(b) the Lord Justice General,

(c) the Lord Advocate,

(d) the Faculty of Advocates,

(e) the Law Society of Scotland

(f) the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service,”

and other stakeholders.

Amendment 68 retains the definition of rape under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2003, so it works within the existing legal definitions. Victim support services are also defined in the amendment.

Victims of sexual trauma have told us about inconsistent access to support and specialist guidance. My proposal would build on existing schemes, and the intention would be to take a trauma-informed approach.

Amendment 64 calls on ministers to assign a single point of contact, which would enable the victim to obtain relevant information on the progress that has been made in an investigation, as well as any related court proceedings. The amendment is informed by the views of complainers and their experiences, as they often find it difficult to get information and feel that they are passed from pillar to post.

I believe that my amendments 68 and 64 should be considered with a view to changing the balance in the criminal justice system in order to empower victims and address some of the significant concerns that they have raised repeatedly with the committee for many years.

I move amendment 68.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am actually making an intervention on Pauline McNeill. I will hand back to her.

They are sitting as temporary judges and they have been certified for that purpose. Our understanding is that the proposed sexual offences court would have a panel of judges who deal with a wide range of cases, some of which are currently dealt with in the sheriff courts and some of which are currently dealt with in the High Court—indeed, some may even be dealt with in the justice of the peace court.

As I said in my intervention on Pauline McNeill, the presumption is that any judge on the panel could deal with any case. That is our understanding on the basis of what we have been informed about. Does the member agree?

To ask the Scottish Government how many patients in hospital are waiting for a social care package assessment from North Ayrshire health and social care partnership. (S6O-04524)

A constituent of mine has been in touch. She has been in hospital but ready for discharge since 17 November, as North Ayrshire health and social care partnership has been unable to provide a care package.

I am making representations, but what advice does the cabinet secretary have? Does she think that that is the longest that a current patient has been in hospital? What is being done to ensure that we stop such waits happening, given the waste of resource?

Brilliant—thank you. Can you update the committee on the latest position on any upcoming legislative consent motions, particularly ones that are likely to engage the remit of this committee?

Minister, could you provide us with an update on discussions that the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government on its powers to make UK secondary legislation on matters within devolved competence? What arrangements have been considered for notifying the Scottish Parliament about any such secondary legislation?

Would you be happy to keep the committee updated in that regard?

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We welcome the general principles of the bill, but we have concerns about aspects of the detail, which we hope can be addressed at stage 2.

As the cabinet secretary said, many of the provisions seek to make permanent some of the practices that were brought into effect by the emergency Covid legislation. Some of those practices have been accepted by all as good practice and are uncontroversial, such as the electronic signing and sending of documents. Other practices, such as aspects of virtual attendance, have either not really operated or operated with difficulty—the custody courts are an example of that.

The drafting of some sections has given rise to concerns about overreach. The reliability of technology is another consideration that has been a real concern over recent years, although it is one that I hope will be addressed over time.

As Pauline McNeill outlined, the evidence that the committee was given pointed to substantial additional court time being required due to failures with internet connections. We also know that defence agents, in particular, expressed concern about the difficulty in taking instructions or getting an impression of the client in virtual hearings. That is also a concern for the Crown and for the court.

As members before me have outlined, there are two parts to the bill. Part 1 seeks to allow digital paperwork, witness testimonies and evidence in order to make permanent provisions that were introduced during the Covid pandemic. I appreciate that those proposals represent an effort to streamline and renew the efficiency of the court system in a modern technological landscape.

However, the bill does not outline in detail the criteria on which a determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular categories should be made. I noted the cabinet secretary’s comment on that issue earlier in the debate. We are concerned that the provisions relating to whether there should be virtual attendance or physical attendance need to be clarified. We also believe that the provisions relating to evidential objects being produced in court by the Crown need to be strengthened. We would be looking for more safeguards on some of those aspects at stage 2.

As stakeholders have highlighted to the Criminal Justice Committee, it might often be in the best interests of the court to request witnesses and, indeed, the accused, to attend in person in order to obtain the best evidence. That is particularly the case when, for example, evidence is in dispute. It is also an issue in relation to physical evidence. In such instances, if the court is to request that evidence be given in person, the bill outlines in detail how that test would be applied.

Furthermore, I note that, during pilots for virtual court attendance, there were frequent difficulties with internet access. We welcome the intention behind the bill to make virtual hearings more of a reality, but we do not believe that we have fully heard the detail of what happened with pilots previously, and we believe that there needs to be a great deal more scrutiny of that before we have permanent provisions in law.

We very much welcome the proposed domestic homicide and suicide reviews in part 2 of the bill. Such reviews already exist in England and are being brought into effect in Wales. I was pleased that the convener of the committee spoke about why the reviews should be anonymous and about the risks of retraumatisation, particularly for the family if details of what has happened in a domestic homicide or a suicide become public. We understand that that approach is being taken in Wales, based on lessons learned from what happened in England, where much of the detail is provided to the public.

Liam McArthur spoke about the cluttered landscape of reviews in Scotland and how we must ensure that they do not overlap. The committee considered that issue, and we also believe that it needs to be addressed. I appreciate that these review proposals represent an effort to fill a gap in Scotland’s statutory framework and to reflect on areas for reform and improvement in order to prevent future abuse and deaths. We very much support that intention of the Scottish Government. However, we believe that, as well as looking at the issue of anonymisation, we need to look at the process of full disclosure for victims’ families during the development of those reviews. It is our understanding that the Scottish Government intends for families to be kept closely advised of the available facts.

We believe that the bill must reflect an understanding that there is no universal, blanket approach to the publication of sensitive information but that there needs to be a trauma-informed approach and that we need to learn the lessons of what has happened in other jurisdictions to ensure that Scotland has the best possible process.