Chamber and committees

I warmly welcome the debate, and I will move the amendment in the name of Pauline McNeill, which says that we recognise that many survivors of sexual crimes find their experiences of the justice system to be retraumatising, that we believe that improving the experience of women and girls requires changes throughout the justice system, and that we recognise that the current backlog of cases disproportionately impacts on women and girls.

Although the figures for most crimes in Scotland have fallen over the past decade, the figures for sexual offences continue to rise. That might be because more women are reporting offences or it might be that overall levels of sexual violence are increasing. In 2019-20, which is the last year for which we have figures, 44 per cent of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in a not proven verdict. That suggests that there was evidence but that the jury felt that it did not meet the threshold of being beyond reasonable doubt.

In many rape cases, the issue of whether there was consent is the main issue at trial. There is no doubt that society’s attitudes towards women and girls impact on the decisions that juries take. Lady Dorrian’s report looked at that issue and suggested providing better training and support for juries. Trials without juries have also been suggested, as well as a range of other changes, including the introduction of specialist courts.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I say that the justice system needs to be more responsive to survivors’ experiences, and that includes the police and the courts. There is much agreement across the political parties that are represented in the Parliament on what needs to be done. However, the policy as outlined by the Government and the authorities is very different from the testimony that we hear from survivors, who continue to describe their experiences of a justice system that they feel fails them, that they find to be traumatic and that does not work for them. The Criminal Justice Committee has met survivors, some of whom still have cases going through the system, and it is clear that they feel that the justice system continues to fail women.

We need a justice system in which staff dealing with cases in every part of the system are trained in trauma-informed approaches. Problematic attitudes towards sexual violence need to be addressed in all parts of the justice system, including in the courts and the police service, through education and changing the way that we deal with cases. It is clear that a range of measures need to be taken to deliver the justice system that victims of crimes often feel they are denied.

The Lord Advocate has said that cases of sexual violence make up 70 per cent of the workload of the High Court. That proportion has increased dramatically over the decades. Of that 70 per cent of cases, 80 to 85 per cent go to trial. Therefore, the current backlog disproportionately involves women and girls as victims of crime. We need to consider how we can deal with those cases more quickly and whether changes could be brought in, perhaps as pilots, that could speed up how those cases are brought to a conclusion.

I welcome the debate that has been secured today by the Conservative Party to consider the not proven verdict as part of a wide range of changes that need to be made to the legal system. Our legal system should have criminal laws that reflect the values of the society that we aim to have. We have a justice system that continues to work in the interests of male perpetrators of violence and against the interests of women and girls. In other cases, too, the interests of victims are not in the centre in the way that I believe we would all want.

I welcome the fact that we are debating these issues today, and I look forward to the rest of the debate. There was previously a member’s bill on the issue, and I know that we will be considering it again. I welcome the fact that the Government has come forward with a consultation to consider the not proven verdict, in particular, so that all voices can be heard before draft legislation is brought to the chamber.

I move amendment S6M-02553.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that many survivors of sexual crimes find their experiences of the justice system to be re-traumatising, and believes that improving the experience of victims will require improvements throughout the criminal justice process and that this must start with clearing the backlog of court cases, which disproportionately affects access to justice for women and children, as a priority.”

I have no doubt that the minister agrees that it is important to have the community on side, with maximum consultation on all aspects of drugs policy. I know that that was raised with her previously, when North Ayrshire Council, community councils and the local community found out from the media about the national drugs facility that is intended for Saltcoats. Will she outline what she can do to ensure maximum consultation, and will she provide an update on what is happening about the Saltcoats facility, so that that can be shared with the community?

It is clear that further restrictions are necessary, but does the First Minister agree that people are willing to comply with restrictions when they think that they are consistent and fair, and that it will be difficult to explain why people are allowed to mix at large events when restrictions are being put on small family gatherings?

Over the past 10 years, the Scottish Government’s budgets have increased, but local government’s budgets have been repeatedly cut. North Ayrshire Council, for example, has had to make more than £100 million in cuts. Given the £137 million real-terms cut to councils’ revenue grants in this year’s budget, what does the cabinet secretary expect councils to do to continue to provide services and to deliver on her stated aim of reducing inequalities?

I apologise. I appreciate that the proposals do not necessarily come from you. Perhaps I phrased my question wrongly. I was just trying to gather your understanding of what is proposed. Are you saying that, if the sentencing judge in a specialist court felt that the disposals that they had available to them were not sufficient, they could refer the case to another court for sentencing?

Did those courts take place in the court buildings where such cases are normally dealt with? I presume that you did not have anywhere else and, therefore, that those cases took place in a very traditional court setting.

I fully understand that your role is to implement the proposal, so I am not asking you to justify anything. We are just trying to understand what you think is happening.

I will ask about domestic abuse, which is different from sexual offences. I understand that it has been possible to pilot certain practices in domestic abuse cases without the need for legislative change and that there have been specialist domestic abuse courts. Will you outline what difference that has made to the way in which cases were dealt with before or, indeed, are dealt with now in many situations?

I am thinking not so much about the virtual trials as about pilot specialist domestic abuse courts. We were told that those were piloted before Covid. Will you share your understanding of that approach, any information that you have about how it worked and any evaluation that you are able to provide?

That would be very helpful.

I think that it would be helpful to ask them. Perhaps I can deal with sexual offences before I move on to the slightly different issue of domestic abuse cases.

Are you suggesting that cases in which a sentence of 10 years or more would be suitable—there are many appalling sexual crimes, such as historic child abuse, rape and so on, for which the sentence would be greater than that—would still be dealt with by the High Court?