Chamber and committees

I was more interested to know what stage we are at with the team, how many people are in it and what it has done in the past couple of months.

We do not need all the details just now, but if you could perhaps update us.

Good morning. I return to the report on the independent review of victim notification that was published in May 2023. It set out 22 recommendations, and it said that not all of them would require legislation. I was pleased to hear you say in your opening remarks that any legal changes would be the absolutely essential ones only. That is good, as we do not need legislation just for the sake of it.

You have also said that progressing the reforms is a priority, and that you wanted to do that at pace. The Government issued its response in October 2024, but the report was published in May 2023, which was 17 months earlier. If you are trying to work at pace, why did it take so long for the Government to issue a response?

I am trying to establish what practical measures have been implemented. There was a period of 17 months between the recommendations being made and the Government’s response. Another two months have passed since the Government’s response, and the next phase of emergency early release is due.

With the previous early release, the prisoners’ victims felt that they were an afterthought, and Victim Support Scotland is on record as saying that just 2 per cent of victims of the criminals who were released in that process were informed. Do you have any confidence that any of the proposed reforms would change that when the second batch of prisoners are released in the new year? Will more than 2 per cent of victims be notified? I am thinking about practical measures that could be implemented now without legislation.

It was just that the press release said that you had already started work on creating a victim contact team.

We would be changing the system by creating a stand-alone court. However, if all that we need to do is to ensure that everybody who takes part in such trials has that extra level of training, so that they are all specialists, we could do that within the current estate and system, so why do we need a specialist stand-alone court?

You both said that you support a stand-alone specialist court. I am still trying to get my head around all this. We are talking about giving all victims more choice in how they give evidence. Everybody is different. We heard in evidence that there are some people who still wanted their day in court—they wanted to be there live—and others who wanted to give evidence on commission. We are basically saying that the people who are prosecuting—who are working in the courts—need a higher standard of training. We want to make physical adjustments to courts so that it is easier for victims when they go to court—so that, if possible, they have a better experience of going to court. A lot of people said that they wanted more access to advocate deputes. Those are issues that we could address when we are considering the bill. However, it will still be the same estate, and a very high percentage of cases that are being heard will continue to be sexual offence cases. In effect, courts are already sexual offences courts, but we just need to make them better for people when they give evidence.

I am trying to work out what you think is the biggest benefit of creating a stand-alone sexual offences court. We talked earlier about rights of audience. I am concerned that a stand-alone court could end up creating further backlog, and that creating such a court would cause more confusion in the justice system. I know that you support such a court, but what is there about it that will make a big difference?

If we are saying that people would not be able to take part in a trial unless they had had specialist training, why would we need to have a stand-alone sexual offences court? Nobody—including advocates, people working in the court and judges—would be allowed to take part unless they had had specialist training, so why would we need a specialist court? We would not need to change the rights of audience, because such cases would be heard in the estate and system that we already have.

The report says:

“Funding for tackling alcohol and drug harm has more than doubled over the last ten years”,

but it goes on to say:

“However, ADPs have seen an eight per cent decrease in real terms funding over the last two years”,

It also states:

“The Scottish Government has yet to undertake an evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of alcohol and drug services to determine if they are delivering value for money”,

and it highlights as important the need to ensure

“that ... funding is directed in the most effective way.”

I have heard people describe the funding landscape as like spaghetti: when they try to find help or a pathway, there are a lot of groups that are trying to help people, but it can be confusing. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that we are putting the funding into the right areas? The level of drug and alcohol deaths in Scotland is still far too high.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I have some questions on Audit Scotland’s “Alcohol and drug services” report, which was published recently.

Do you accept all the recommendations in the report, and can you give us an update on any progress that has been made on those recommendations?