Chamber and committees

To follow on the theme of commenting on NatureScot, it seems that all species are equal, but some are more equal than others. Goats seem to be the species that does not merit any care or attention from NatureScot. Why that is the case is completely baffling, but NatureScot could no doubt explain it. I suggest that we ask NatureScot to explain why goats are apparently not worth anything as a species, and on what value judgment basis it has come to that apparent conclusion.

I want to pick up on a point that Lynda Graham made in her submission on 27 August, which is that, unless there is grazing of moorland upland by cattle, sheep or feral goats—I am told that the cattle and sheep have gone, which just leaves the goats—a fire load of tinder will be created. We have seen that in my constituency with the largest recorded wildfire in Scotland’s history—in Dava, Carrbridge and Lochindorb—and also, I gather, with fires in the Borders during the Easter period.

I am told that in the local press—perhaps the august journal that Mr Hoy mentioned as well as others; I do not know—the fire service has expressed concern that, unless there is grazing, vegetation will increase the propensity for fires to become even more serious than they have been in the past.

Therefore, I would be grateful if we could write to the chief of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ask whether the service has a view on the desirability of moorland being subject to grazing. After all, it seems to be a pretty obvious and sound management practice, although, again, it is a practice that seems to have gone by the attention of NatureScot.

It was lodged by Terri Gunning.

I suggest that we write to the SPSO to ask for further information that it holds on requests for extensions to the 12-month time limit. If that information is unavailable, we should ask for an explanation of how the SPSO can be confident that its policies and processes are working for neurodiverse people, given the issues raised in the petition.

I was made aware by Mr Bisset, whom I commend for lodging the petition, that the process has been difficult for him and has resulted in some pressure and anxiety. That is most unfortunate and would not have arisen had the SPSO exercised the flexibility that it would surely be reasonable to expect it to exercise. I feel very strongly that that is a fault on the SPSO’s part, and it must be called to book. That is what we are here for.

Moreover, the fact that a rejection can be taken to judicial review is phooey. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to raise a judicial review. A huge amount of money is involved—massively more than would result from the additional workload for the SPSO if it just exercised flexibility in the first place. I thought that we in Scotland were supposed to be sympathetic to people such as Mr Bisset who have needs related to their neurodiversity. I commend my colleague Mr Mountain for taking the case on, and I hope that we can get some answers from the SPSO to prove that it is not just another unaccountable quango.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the cashback for communities scheme. I was involved in that some years ago—so long ago that it is probably only of archaeological interest now. When Kenny MacAskill and I set up the cashback scheme, the idea was to take money that was confiscated from drug dealers and other criminals and to put the fruits of their crime into helping to turn around youngsters, particularly those who were not criminals but were on the cusp—or were feared to be on the cusp—of moving into criminal behaviour. They were perhaps involved in antisocial behaviour or minor crime, although every crime has a victim. A lot of work was done on that.

You said in your written submission that £20 million is being provided to the cashback scheme. I saw in a recent announcement that that is being supplemented by £6 million. Does that constitute all the money that has been confiscated from criminals, or is some of that siphoned off for other purposes?

That is helpful. It looks as though the lion’s share, if not all the money, is going towards trying to divert youngsters from criminal behaviour. I get the impression that many of the schemes were effective, although it is very hard to measure the outcome of those things.

Sorry, convener. Finally, are private companies still involved in partnership programmes with the Government? I remember Jim Fox from Coca-Cola, who was very active in working with the Scottish Government, helped to fund a five-a-side football competition in, I think, central Scotland, which proved to be very popular. There was a cost involved to that.

I wonder whether the cabinet secretary is aware of any other examples. If not, is that something that the Scottish Government could do a bit more of, to seek to work in partnership with private companies, which might well have a direct interest in trying to turn around the behaviour of youngsters but which are public-spirited and would like, in many instances, to be of help?

Good morning. We are here in this committee to give a voice to petitioners, and the petitioner in this case is Julie Mitchell, who I understand has been in contact with the Lord Advocate. The petition is ultimately about a point of principle. The petitioner stated in her submissions that rape is an adult crime and should be treated as such. In her submission she added:

“I have found that if perpetrators are under 16 years old in Scotland and charged for their crimes, they are automatically referred to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, giving them the opportunity to carry on with these types of behaviours because the victim and the perpetrator are both treated as children.

The consequence of committing rape, which is a criminal offence, isn’t a charge with a record of sexual offence. Instead, they are referred to SCRA and can be given behaviour therapy and not a custodial sentence for a crime they have committed. I ask why.

The victims are left with a lifetime of difficulty and trauma. It doesn’t just affect the victim, it ripples out into the close family.”

The principle that we were asked to pursue and have pursued—and widened it out perhaps, Lord Advocate—is pretty clear. Information has been provided by you and your office about the numbers of cases of rape or attempted rape and serious sexual assault reported for 12 to 15-year-olds or under 16-year-olds for each year from 2018 to 2023. It is helpful that that was provided. Serious sexual assault cases have risen from 62 in 2018 to 92 in 2023, a rise of around 50 per cent, which is worrying. Also, the charges of rape or attempted rape have been on an upward trajectory.

First, we do not appear to have a breakdown of the figures. How many of those cases in each year went through the adult system and how many were referred to the SCRA? I appreciate that it has been indicated by Ms Ross that the courts can refer the case to the SCRA, so that is an additional complication. To be fair to the petitioner and to those in society with an interest in this—which is probably most of us, given the abhorrent nature, as you have said, Lord Advocate, of these disgusting, repulsive crimes—we need to get to the bottom of whether the petitioner is right. Are most of these cases, if not all, dealt with by the children’s reporter or not? I still do not know the answer to that question.

The petitioner plainly believes that such cases do not go to the courts, but to the children’s reporter. I do not imagine that you have the breakdown of those figures with you, but after this meeting can you provide us with a breakdown showing, for each year, how many cases went to the children’s reporter, how many went to the sheriff court—or the high court, I imagine, depending upon the nature of the crime and the circumstances involved—and how many of those were then referred to the children’s reporter?

I think that the feeling is that this is still something where the people charged with the most serious offence of rape end up being treated not in the criminal justice system, but in a more lenient way. From the victims’ point of view, one can readily understand how much anguish that must cause, especially in the most serious cases.

That would be helpful, thank you.

I am grateful for that, Lord Advocate. I understand what you say and I understand the arguments, but I will simply say that for the family of a victim of rape, subsequent diversion is a bit late. Of course, the best diversion, as we all know, is before a serious criminal habit develops, but that is another topic.

I will pursue some of the points that you have raised. You alluded to the review of diversion from prosecution, which was announced in July 2023 and then expanded. As a result, a new “Statement of prosecution policy: diversion and referral to the Principal Reporter in rape and other solemn level sexual offences where the accused is a child” was published by the Crown Office on 28 April 2025. Are you able to summarise what is different about the new approach? I think that that is really what people want to know: has anything changed or is it the same?

The figures that you have just cited—eight of the 10 cases going to the criminal justice system and two going to the children’s reporter—might just be anecdotal, but the implication is that the new system is tougher, in the sense that there is greater likelihood that cases of serious sexual assault, rape or attempted rape will go to the criminal justice system rather than the children’s reporter system. Is that correct? If not, are you able to outline in simple terms what has changed about the new policy?

Thank you. I have one final question.