My amendment 241 would protect victims of domestic abuse by requiring anyone who is convicted of a domestic abuse offence to be subject to a non-harassment order. That would protect and safeguard victims of domestic abuse.

I know that the Government has concerns about the impact that that would have on the discretion of the courts to make sentencing decisions in individual cases. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for offering to meet me to discuss how we can improve protections for victims in that regard ahead of stage 3. As a result, I will not move amendment 241.

We have heard from many witnesses about the trauma. The cabinet secretary and the Lord Advocate know about the trauma that it causes—everybody knows. The bill is there to address the trauma that victims face when they go through the court system and my amendment is the only one on the subject, so I do not feel that we as a committee have done anything to address that trauma that victims face.

If members have suggestions on anything else that would improve the situation for victims, I would be happy to hear them, but I think that this would be a first step in looking at the full situation and getting a report back to see when floating trial diets are used, why they are used, what impact they have on victims and what we can do to improve things for victims, because that is what the bill is meant to do. I hope that we are passing legislation that will improve things for victims rather than just sound good. After listening to victims giving their testimonies, this became, for me, another area that we need to look at improving.

Amendments 258 and 259 seek to safeguard victims by ensuring that, when the Parole Board decides to release a discretionary life prisoner and there is a victim of their crimes, the board must provide a summary explaining why it has chosen to release them. That summary would then have to be provided to the victim, or to a family member if the victim is deceased.

Those who are given life sentences will have committed very serious crimes, and we must ensure that, when they are released, victims or their families are notified and given a full account of the reasons behind their release. Victims deserve transparency, but unfortunately, as we have seen in recent years, not all victims get informed when their offender is released from prison. The amendments will safeguard victims and ensure that they and their families have transparency when it comes to the release of dangerous offenders.

I thank Tess White for bringing the debate to the chamber. I will focus my comments on the first line of today’s motion, which is:

“That the Parliament considers that single-sex spaces for women and girls across Scotland’s public services are being eroded, with worrying implications for their rights and safety”.

The issue of protecting single-sex spaces for women is being spoken about everywhere. It is talked about in the streets, at the school gates, in the pubs, in the media on a daily basis and now even in the legal system, with the on-going case of brave Fife nurse Sandie Peggie. Today, I want to talk about three specific areas where the Scottish Government’s abject failure to protect single-sex spaces for women is being felt most painfully.

The first area is schools. As of 2024, not all secondaries in Scotland provided suitable single-sex toilets. Forcing young girls to share facilities with teenage boys is utterly shameful, and most parents cannot believe that we have got ourselves into that position. We know from evidence that is provided to us by girls that it is making them scared to use the bathrooms at schools, which causes them to miss lessons or perhaps not even turn up to school at all.

It may be an uncomfortable issue for the Government to think about, but when a girl is going through her early teenage years, it is—as all females across the chamber are well aware—an incredibly difficult time for her. The idea that schoolgirls should have to go through experiences such as beginning their monthly periods while pushing past boys to get into a small cubicle that leaves a gap at the top of the door, separated from those boys only by a door that is a quarter of an inch thick, is utterly inhumane. The First Minister must drop the hesitation and the placating of various fringe groups and issue a simple order: that all secondary schools and public services must provide suitable separate toilets for girls as a matter of the utmost urgency.

We know that the younger members of society are being affected by this issue, and so too are the most vulnerable. The situation in women’s prisons is beyond a joke. We have well-documented cases that have made Scotland a global laughing stock, from double rapists putting on blonde wigs to gain a place in a female prison to male inmates having state-facilitated surgery to shave down an Adam’s apple. Those examples would be comical if they were not so deadly serious. The Parliament hears a lot about the vulnerability of women prisoners and how so many of them have endured violent sexual and physical abuse at the hands of men. When those accounts are shared, the Scottish Government nods its head in sympathy. At the same time, however, it does little to keep them safe from predatory males inside prison walls. From recent media reports, it appears that that now includes female visitors who are visiting male prisons being subjected to searches that are conducted by male-bodied trans women.

We also have the example of the police. Earlier this month, a leading lawyer warned that Police Scotland could run into the same difficulties that NHS Fife is facing. She said that female police officers, for obvious reasons, do not want to share changing facilities with men, but that they are also likely to be too scared to raise the matter, fearful of an employment tribunal, suspension or an end to what could otherwise be a strong and successful career—all on the altar of a dangerous gender ideology designed by the SNP Government and pandered to by everyone else except the Scottish Conservatives.

I hope that every member in the chamber can get behind Tess White’s motion today, but I especially hope that female members do so. We have a particular duty to women and girls across Scotland, and we must stand up for them.

I will speak to Russell Findlay’s amendments, convener.

The amendments in the name of Russell Findlay would remove the establishment of a victims commissioner from the bill. Although the proposal is well intentioned, we already have seven different commissioners in Scotland, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee has said that creating a new commissioner

“has ... been seen as an ‘easy win’ for the ... Government”,

as the Government can show that it has done something

“without the need to provide oversight or ensure effectiveness.”

I believe that the same logic applies in this case.

Concern has also been expressed over the potential overlap between a victims and witnesses commissioner and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. Despite the name of the proposed commissioner, they would have no power to champion or intervene in the individual cases of victims. That was highlighted by the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, who expressed concern about managing the expectation that a victims commissioner would be able to help people directly.

We have heard from organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that do not support the creation of a victims commissioner because they fear that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and impact on victim support service budgets. If we had unlimited resource, that would be one thing, but we must be realistic. At a time when there is huge pressure on the public purse, it is hard to justify the cost of almost £1 million that would come with the establishment and office running costs of a victims commissioner who will not be able to directly help individual victims.

As Scottish Women’s Aid and the Finance and Public Administration Committee have said, that money would be better spent both on improving front-line services and on practical measures that would directly benefit individual victims and witnesses. However, I know that the committee is likely to support the establishment of the victims commissioner, so my amendment 235 offers an alternative to ensure that the commissioner does an effective job in the way that victims deserve. It would sunset the office after five years unless the Scottish Parliament votes to make the role permanent before that time. That was recommended by this committee, which said:

“If ... a Commissioner post is to be established, ... we recommend that in the first instance it should be for a time-limited period in order to allow for an assessment to be made of the value of the role.”

I hope, therefore, that the Government will support my amendment to ensure that the commissioner is acting in the interests of victims.

I move amendment 1.

There are mixed views among people who currently support victims. Some of them support the creation of a commissioner, because they think that a commissioner would champion victims, but some do not, because they see it as adding another layer of bureaucracy.

Victim Support Scotland has said that it hopes that the money will not come from the support services that it already provides, but I do not think that we should be hoping—we need concrete assurances that the money will not come from the services that Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid already provide. If the money comes from those services, there will be a detrimental impact on victims and, instead of helping the people whom we want to help, we will end up making things worse for them.

Therefore, although I still have concerns, and I agree with all of Pauline McNeill’s comments, I am conscious that the amendments will not be agreed to, so I will not press amendment 1. However, I want to put all my concerns on the record.

I want to make a big difference for victims, and I am concerned about the substantial amount of money that will be required for a victims commissioner. I think that some victims have a mixed view of whether it will help or not, so I will not press the amendment.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The office of Victims and Witnesses Commissioner for Scotland

Amendment 2 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Functions

Amendments 95 to 97 and 3 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Civil function

Amendment 4 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Engagement

Amendments 98, 99 and 5 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5—Advisory group

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to work with others

Amendment 7 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7—General powers

Amendment 8 not moved.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8—Restriction on exercise of functions

Amendments 100, 101 and 9 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9—Strategic plan

Amendment 10 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

My amendment 90 would ensure that, when a prosecutor decides not to prosecute a person for an offence or alleged offence, that prosecutor must, as soon as possible, inform the victim of the offence or alleged offence of the prosecutor’s decision. That was first recommended in the “Thematic Report on the Victims’ Right to Review” back in 2018 but has still not been implemented. Victims of crime deserve transparency, and ensuring that they are informed of decisions that directly impact them and are likely to traumatise them is the right thing to do.

In her remarks, the cabinet secretary asked why we would not want a victims commissioner. If we had an endless budget, I think that we would welcome one, but I still have the concerns that I have raised when the committee first discussed the proposal.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee has said that the creation of such commissioners has been seen as an “easy win” for the Government, as it shows that it has done something. When this committee passes legislation, I want to ensure that it will make a difference to, and have an impact on, victims. We should not be doing something just because it looks good and would be a quick win.

My amendments in this group would ensure that trauma-informed practice and training worked in the best interests of victims across the justice system.

My amendment 86 would mandate that people who work with victims and witnesses in criminal investigations or proceedings should complete a training course in trauma-informed practice. That would ensure that victims of trauma were dealt with sensitively at a very difficult time for them.

My amendment 88 would require the Law Society of Scotland to include trauma-informed training in its training regulations, which would mean that a person would not be admitted as a solicitor until they had completed that training. I know that the Law Society has concerns about amendment 88 and has said that, due to the legal aid sector being in a real state of crisis because of the number of practitioners, it does not support further barriers to practising. I have listened to the Law Society’s concern about the proposal for mandatory training. It highlighted various commitments that it has made to recognising the importance of trauma-informed practice, including in relation to work conducted across LLB law courses in Scottish universities, which demonstrates progress in the field.

I understand the Law Society’s views, and for that reason I will not move amendment 88. However, the amendment has the best of intentions to improve the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Although I will not move amendment 88 at this time, we need to ensure that all solicitors—those who are new to the system and those who have been in practice for years—receive the relevant trauma-informed training, and that training must be kept up to date.

My amendment 87 would require five named criminal justice agencies to report directly to Parliament, rather than the victims commissioner, on whether they were performing trauma-informed practice up to the legislative standard. The five named agencies are the Lord Advocate, the Scottish ministers, the chief constable, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Parole Board for Scotland. It is important that Parliament has oversight over those agencies, so that concerns and areas of improvement can be addressed most effectively.

My amendment 93 would better define trauma-informed practice so that it would be carried out in the interests of victims and support their recovery.

I am glad to be able to take part in this debate to examine the findings of the people’s panel. We find ourselves in the relatively unique position of debating the views of members of the public, as opposed to the those of the usual experts and professionals, or even of each other.

We all know about the desperate drug deaths situation in Scotland. The people’s panel does not shy away from the severity and impact of the situation, but its report also provides a useful and productive take on many areas, which I will examine as part of today’s debate.

The panel is clear that the time for talking is over and that action is required, and it provides helpful details about funding structure, reducing stigma and the role of people with lived experience in the process of reducing drug-related harms.