Chamber and committees

Are you able to comment at all on the impact that that has on the prisoner who cannot get their appointment?

I am interested in prisoners who are not currently on drugs but who might be struggling with not getting their health appointments while they are serving their sentence in overcrowded conditions. Does that add to the problem of drug use in prisons?

This question is for Leona Paget. In answer to some questions, you talked about the psychiatrists and psychologists you work with. I took that to mean that it was perhaps a struggle to get prisoners out to get health treatment. Is that what you meant?

That is a good thing. I thought that you suggested earlier that other prisoners were not getting their appointments because—

That affects the process.

Thank you.

This is the most difficult bill that I have dealt with in my time on the Criminal Justice Committee. It deals, in its entirety, with wholesale reform of the criminal justice system, overturning years of established systems that fit together, so it is not simple to pick apart. In the early stages of the bill process, there was considerable focus on the systems—on abolishing the not proven verdict and on abolishing the jury system for some trials—rather than on victims. There is a lot to deal with in the bill, but we do not have the kind of consensus that we would want for changes to some of the big legal principles, such as to the size of the jury following the removal of the not proven verdict.

At stages 2 and 3, many big issues arrived that were not properly scrutinised, and I was not comfortable with that. Yesterday, I did my best to follow all the late amendments, but I have to be honest and say that I did not understand all that members were trying to achieve, because there was simply not enough time, and that is not satisfactory. The debates on jury size and the balance within the jury for convictions have not achieved the positive consensus that you would want for making such substantive changes. There is no way of knowing whether we have retained the same balance of interest on how the change will affect convictions—we will just have to wait and see.

A lot of what the bill is trying to achieve could be done without legislation. In fact, I would argue that culture change has already started. There is a strong consensus that the experience of victims of sexual assault has not been good enough, and, as the cabinet secretary said, there has been an imperative, because we need a fundamental change in society towards women and girls—two thirds of the crimes in the High Court are sexual offences. Leadership from the Government, the Lord Advocate, the judiciary, Victim Support Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland has paved the way for some of the changes that are already happening, such as the tackling of jury myths, the taking of evidence by commissioner, the changes made to the law of corroboration and the extended use of the Moorov doctrine. Those things are already beginning to change the culture—for the better, I hope.

Trauma-informed practice should be standard practice and can be embedded in any court. Scottish Labour welcomes independent legal representation, but we would have liked to have gone further on that. We note changes to the victim notification scheme and communication with victims, which are good. The real test will be whether the bill results in the transformative change for victims that the Government promises. A lot of what we have heard so far is the Government asking us to trust that it has got it right, but we do not have any evidence that it has done so.

If victims are given more agency and engagement—with the Crown, for example—they are far more likely to feel that they have had a positive experience. I have argued that victims must have the right to meet their advocate in advance of a trial for them to be given the agency that they deserve.

One of the most traumatising things for victims is the delay in the system. That issue comes up all the time, and it is at the heart of the argument. We have not heard any promises of extra resources for the court system, but unless we fix the shortages of defence lawyers and ensure that there are enough people to staff any new court or the existing court system, the bill will not adequately address the problems of delay.

The Scottish Government says that structural change is the answer, but, as I have said, I am concerned that the bill will not deliver on the promises that the Government has made. The sexual offences court is certainly the flagship of the bill. It will be a new court in so far as it will have natural jurisdiction over solemn cases. However, I agree with Liam Kerr that the new court simply involves a sign over the door. There will be a lot of organisational change, but it is not clear that it will result in any difference or reduction in the delay that victims experience, which is a very large claim to make. I genuinely worry that delay will not be reduced. I suggested an alternative way; I whole-heartedly believe that having a specialist division for victims of sexual assault in the High Court and the sheriff court would have been a better, more practical way of achieving the same thing.

I want to put on record that, fundamentally, I am not in favour of taking rape cases out of the High Court; I agree with Ellie Wilson on that. Members might disagree, but I believe that rape is one of the most heinous crimes—that is why it is a plea of the Crown. It is clear that we can embed the practices that we are talking about without legislation.

For those reasons, Scottish Labour will not be voting with the Government tonight; we will be voting against the bill.

This is the most difficult bill that I have dealt with in my time on the Criminal Justice Committee. It deals, in its entirety, with wholesale reform of the criminal justice system, overturning years of established systems that fit together, so it is not simple to pick apart. In the early stages of the bill process, there was considerable focus on the systems—on abolishing the not proven verdict and on abolishing the jury system for some trials—rather than on victims. There is a lot to deal with in the bill, but we do not have the kind of consensus that we would want for changes to some of the big legal principles, such as to the size of the jury following the removal of the not proven verdict.

At stages 2 and 3, many big issues arrived that were not properly scrutinised, and I was not comfortable with that. Yesterday, I did my best to follow all the late amendments, but I have to be honest and say that I did not understand all that members were trying to achieve, because there was simply not enough time, and that is not satisfactory. The debates on jury size and the balance within the jury for convictions have not achieved the positive consensus that we would want for making such substantive changes. There is no way of knowing whether we have retained the same balance of interest on how the change will affect convictions—we will just have to wait and see.

A lot of what the bill is trying to achieve could be done without legislation. In fact, I would argue that culture change has already started. There is a strong consensus that the experience of victims of sexual assault has not been good enough, and, as the cabinet secretary said, change is imperative, because we need a fundamental change in society towards women and girls—two thirds of the crimes in the High Court are sexual offences. Leadership from the Government, the Lord Advocate, the judiciary, Victim Support Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland has paved the way for some of the changes that are already happening, such as the tackling of jury myths, the taking of evidence by commissioner, the changes made to the law of corroboration and the extended use of the Moorov doctrine. Those things are already beginning to change the culture—for the better, I hope.

Trauma-informed practice should be standard practice and can be embedded in any court. Scottish Labour welcomes independent legal representation, but we would have liked to have gone further on that. We note changes to the victim notification scheme and communication with victims, which are good. The real test will be whether the bill results in the transformative change for victims that the Government promises. A lot of what we have heard so far is the Government asking us to trust that it has got it right, but we do not have any evidence that it has done so.

If victims are given more agency and engagement—with the Crown, for example—they are far more likely to feel that they have had a positive experience. I have argued that victims must have the right to meet their advocate in advance of a trial for them to be given the agency that they deserve.

One of the most traumatising things for victims is the delay in the system. That issue comes up all the time, and it is at the heart of the argument. We have not heard any promises of extra resources for the court system, but unless we fix the shortages of defence lawyers and ensure that there are enough people to staff any new court or the existing court system, the bill will not adequately address the problems of delay.

The Scottish Government says that structural change is the answer, but, as I have said, I am concerned that the bill will not deliver on the promises that the Government has made. The sexual offences court is certainly the flagship measure in the bill. It will be a new court in so far as it will have natural jurisdiction over solemn cases. However, I agree with Liam Kerr that the new court simply involves a sign over the door. There will be a lot of organisational change, but it is not clear that it will result in any difference or reduction in the delay that victims experience, which is a very large claim to make. I genuinely worry that delay will not be reduced. I suggested an alternative way; I whole-heartedly believe that having a specialist division for victims of sexual assault in the High Court and the sheriff court would have been a better, more practical way of achieving the same thing.

I want to put on record that, fundamentally, I am not in favour of taking rape cases out of the High Court; I agree with Ellie Wilson on that. Members might disagree, but I believe that rape is one of the most heinous crimes—that is why it is a plea of the Crown. It is clear that we can embed the practices that we are talking about without legislation.

For those reasons, Scottish Labour will not be voting with the Government tonight; we will be voting against the bill.

I will speak to amendment 109 and also to amendments 110 to 113, 116 to 121, 125 and 126, which are all consequential amendments. I will not go through them all.

The amendments relate to the creation of a sexual offences court. We all acknowledge the growth in the volume of sexual offence cases. The last time that we were notified, 69 per cent of cases in the High Court involved sexual offences. The Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service has said to the Criminal Justice Committee that the only realistic opportunity is to create a stand-alone court, but it is not the only option. My amendments deal with what I believe would be a more sensible option.

I do not intend to move amendments 110 and 111, because they just set out different ways of doing the same thing as amendment 109.

Amendment 109, along with most of the amendments that run from 112 to 160, would allow the High Court to make the sexual offences court a division within the High Court. There would also be a sexual offences division within the sheriff court. I understand that we would have the same number of courts, because the High Court uses nine locations and there are 38 sheriff courts. The High Court is a peripatetic court, so it could extend the number of locations that it uses if it so wished—it has previously done so.

As with the proposed sexual offences court, there would be judges and counsel dedicated to dealing with sexual offences. It is important to note that the figures show that High Court judges already deal with a high number of rape and sexual offences cases, so they are specialists in what they do to some degree. However, rape cases will no longer be heard in the High Court as a result of the Government’s proposals but will be heard in the new sexual offences court. I am sure that the Government will say that the new court will have the same sentencing powers, but let us be clear: it is not the High Court. The highest court will still be the High Court of Justiciary, which currently operates. The new court could be trauma informed, but I do not believe that we need legislation for a trauma-informed court—it could be done now, although the bill talks of “trauma-informed practice” throughout.

Having a stand-alone court in the bill has created many problems that the Government has had to go back and fix. One of the substantial issues that it had to fix was on rights of audience, which is not an insignificant matter and proved to be quite a serious omission from the bill as drafted. The Government did not consider who would represent whom—for example, senior advocates who represent people in the High Court would not necessarily be in the sexual offences court. However, the Government has now corrected that, and we have to hope that it has got that right and that there are no gaps. My proposal would not require to fix that at all. I could have been persuaded—

That is a central question. The evidence that survivors gave to the committee said that delay is the most concerning aspect of their poor experiences in the criminal justice system. If we do not reduce delay, victims will continue to experience something that is unacceptable. That is my primary concern.

The creation of a stand-alone court is a big, bureaucratic organisational change and I am not convinced that it will get delay down, which, as I said, is my primary worry. Otherwise, I might have been persuaded that it is the best way to proceed.