Chamber and committees

I saw the letter, or at least extracts from it, last night. I have had discussions with the sector in the past, and I understand that many in the sector are sympathetic to something along the same lines, although they may have a concern about the drafting of the amendments or a broader concern.

In what I have outlined so far, I am trying to say that we need to look at the issue again. Given the amount of public funding that goes into higher and further education, it would be reasonable to expect those institutions to have higher levels of responsibility for providing safe systems.

What “safe” looks like will be many things. I have focused on the issue of violence against women and girls, and we can think of many reasons why it is necessary to create systems that minimise the risks of that violence. However, my amendments are far more wide ranging and relate to many other situations and pressures that affect students.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments in the group, all of which were lodged with the aim of exploring how we can create a strong duty of care to students on educational institutions in the higher and further education sectors. The duties that organisations have to students are very different from those that they have to their workforce—where duty of care is contained in the employment contract—and from the types of duties that exist in the school system.

I have come to the committee as a result of work around violence against women and girls—there are a number of cases in which there have been significant failures in the education setting—and the work of campaigners such as Fiona Drouet, which many committee members will know of.

My amendments relate to how we can try to ensure that there are greater obligations on institutions in relation to students. We have to remember that many young people leave home for the first time to go to college and university, which are very different kinds of environments from the ones that they have been in before. As a society, we need to ensure that we provide a strong framework and that there are appropriate duties of care to students in such situations.

All my amendments relate to the mental health and wellbeing of all students in further education and higher education and those who are studying for teaching qualifications, for example, under the proposed qualifications Scotland framework.

We know that being a student, and, indeed, taking part in those forms of training, can be a very stressful experience for many. A survey from the Mental Health Foundation in 2021 showed that 19.6 per cent—nearly 20 per cent—of university students in Scotland reported either having had suicidal ideas or making a suicide attempt in the previous six months. There will be other data and we know, generally, that this is a very stressful time for many. Trade unions in the further and higher education sector have also reported that there are high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and other mental health issues among staff, and that those issues can exist on campus.

Clearly, we need robust and codified support for both those who are learning and those who are teaching under the proposed qualifications Scotland framework. All my amendments aim to open up that discussion and consider how we can—

I will not press amendment 68. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, particularly about the pilot that has been proposed. I would like to hear more about that before stage 3. That sounds like a positive development, so I will not press amendment 68 or move amendment 64, but I may bring them back at stage 3.

Amendment 68, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 265 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

I intend to withdraw my—

I thank the member for his intervention. As I was saying, I intend to withdraw amendment 65 and not move my other amendments in this group, given that the Scottish Government has decided not to proceed with its very controversial proposals, which, I would argue, were not evidence based. I was surprised by some of what the cabinet secretary said, in that my understanding is that we were not presented with evidence that judge-only trials led to different outcomes. It is a very wide debate and we have to put the interests of victims at the centre of the process. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has not proceeded with the proposals, given their controversial nature. I therefore do not intend to proceed with my amendments.

Amendment 65, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 66 not moved.

Amendment 53 moved—[Russell Findlay]—and agreed to.

Section 66—Report on section 65 pilot

Amendment 54 moved—[Russell Findlay]—and agreed to.

Before section 67

I have two amendments in this group, amendments 68 and 64, both of which aim to reduce trauma by empowering victims to ensure that they have information and are in a position to make representations. At the moment, victims often do not have information about the legal process around their case and communication is regularly poor. Indeed, complainers often describe the criminal justice system as retraumatising. My amendments aim to empower victims within the process.

Amendment 68 would require the Scottish Government to set up an independent legal representation pilot for rape victims to give them information and advice. There is significant scope in Scotland to give victims far more advice and support in the justice system. As we know, complainers often say that they find the challenge of retelling and sometimes reliving their stories retraumatising. The experience of the criminal justice system for complainers is also often felt to be retraumatising, intimidating and disempowering. My amendment 68 calls for a pilot for complainers that is similar to systems that exist in many other jurisdictions, including California, most European countries, Australia, Colombia, Ireland and many other countries across the world. Many of those systems have brought in representation for victims in recent decades—that representation was not initially in place. Scotland needs to look at such systems in more detail.

The amendment states that

“The Scottish Ministers must, by regulations, provide that any person who is or appears to be a victim of rape or attempted rape and meets any other specified criteria is ... to be entitled to independent legal representation”.

I understand that, in other countries, advice extends beyond a year—for example, it could be until the conclusion of compensation. Is there any particular reason why the timeframe of a year has been chosen? Is there any evidence that that is right? We can imagine situations in which, a number of years later, there are live issues.

As Maggie Chapman will be well aware, one of the issues is what happens in the court. That is complicated, because different interests and individuals are involved in that process. As the cabinet secretary will be well aware, any proposal on representation in court involves an awful lot of detailed work with the different parts of the court process, and that work has been happening in relation to the very limited form of independent legal representation that is proposed in the bill. Does Maggie Chapman agree that the report that she proposes could scope out some of that and look at where there might be further representation?

The principle behind the amendment is that it should be clear to a complainer where to go and that there should be a named person or persons from whom they would be able to get information. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that principle is incorporated in the work that she advises is on-going?

The cabinet secretary spoke about hierarchy as a negative—she said that we should not have a hierarchy. As Pauline McNeill knows, at the moment, the people with experience of hearing rape and sexual assault cases are High Court judges, and one concern is that we are moving towards a situation in which sheriffs would hear rape or serious sexual assault cases. That may be a good idea or a bad idea, but it is not a concept that we have scrutinised.