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Amendment 65, by agreement, withdrawn.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

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s points about drafting, but the principle is about communication from the prosecution and the Crown, whether that is the advocate depute or procurator fiscal. Does she support that principle? It is very much being introduced now, as she will be aware.

Will the cabinet secretary outline how the pilot will differ from the proposal in amendment 68? I appreciate that the pilot would not have a statutory footing, but would all the principles that are outlined in amendment 68—including the evaluation and the approach—be incorporated in the pilot?

I believe that my amendments have been overtaken by events. On the basis that the cabinet secretary is proceeding with her amendments, I do not intend to proceed with mine. For the purpose of the debate, I move amendment 65, which I will then seek to withdraw.

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?

Yes, I will.