Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 27 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 984 contributions

|

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Katy Clark

Yes—exactly.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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].

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

I intend to withdraw my—

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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.

12:45  

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

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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”.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 2 April 2025

Katy Clark

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.