Chamber and committees

Getting the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to this stage has been a marathon. As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I too thank our wonderful team of clerks and researchers, and our convener, Audrey Nicoll, for steering us through so skilfully to get us to where we are today.

The committee is agreed on the aim of the bill, which is to improve the justice journey for victims and witnesses and to ensure that victims of sexual and gender-based abuse are supported in a trauma-informed way when they are at their most vulnerable.

The testimony that we heard from survivors of sexual abuse was shocking and disturbing. At its outset, our stage 1 report highlights quotations that powerfully illustrate the need for the bill. Hannah McLaughlan said:

“Survivors endure trauma as a result of the abuse that they go through, but, having come through the justice system, I would say that I endured trauma not only from my abuser but from the system that is supposed to provide me with justice. That is not acceptable”.

Ellie Wilson said:

“Survivors of sexual abuse have already had their agency stripped from them, yet they partake in a criminal justice system that further strips it from them. We are treated like outsiders throughout the process.”

Another witness said that she felt as if she was “missing” during the process. Another said that she was so traumatised that she could not remember her name in the witness box. I could fill my contribution with quotes such as those, each one powerful and heartbreaking.

Last week, a report by HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland claimed that Scotland’s prosecution service is failing victims in domestic abuse cases. The report concluded that better communication with survivors is needed and recommended a more victim-centred approach. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has said that it “profoundly regrets” that it has not always got communication with victims right.

The aim is clear, and doing nothing is not an option. That is the view of the Lord Advocate and of the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, whose review initiated the bill.

As we have heard, the bill is split into several parts. It is hard to do justice to all these huge issues in a short speech, therefore much detail will inevitably be missed in my contribution, but it can be found in our stage 1 report.

There is no doubt that it is a big bill, but we have taken a long time to scrutinise it and have heard a great deal of evidence. I agree that it is huge, but we have taken a lot of time over it.

Our committee, despite some differences of opinion—which are natural to have in relation to a bill of this stature—worked constructively from the start. That is why I am disappointed to hear that the Opposition parties intend to abstain on the vote today. What a missed opportunity.

On the proposal for a victims commissioner, we heard mixed evidence, and the committee was not convinced that the money could not be better spent on front-line services. However, the Government has highlighted that victim support organisations wish to see accountability and independent scrutiny of the system, and a time-limited period for assessment will be considered. I agree with that.

Trauma-informed practice cannot be a tick-box exercise. A requirement for it has to be embedded in the bill to deliver the pace of improvement that is needed, and that requirement must also apply to defence lawyers, who are currently excluded, for obvious reasons.

Abolition of the not proven verdict is, in my view and the committee’s view, essential to the reform of the justice system. It is outdated, it serves neither the accused nor the complainer, and it has to go. However, we did not hear convincing evidence that jury size or the size of majority should be changed. I am pleased that the Government will give consideration to the way forward at stage 2.

I whole-heartedly support the creation of a sexual offences court. The committee was concerned, however, that that would mean a downgrading of the seriousness of rape and sexual crimes, but I am reassured that that will not happen. Bringing sexual offences into a single forum with specialism in trauma-informed practice is long overdue, given that those crimes have doubled in the past 10 years. However, we believe that the same level of legal representation must apply, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary will consider how that principle could be embedded at stage 2. Similar consideration will be given to where murder cases with a sexual element will be dealt with. The status of the new court is crucial, and I am glad that that issue will also be looked into at stage 2.

The conviction rate for rape is consistently lower than that for other crimes. Of course, that is partly due to the corroboration requirement, but a 24 per cent conviction rate for single rape case complainers is unacceptable. The Lord Advocate told the committee that, in order to improve the justice system for women, radical reform was needed. I accept that a rape trial pilot with a single judge, a judge with two lay members or a panel of judges is radical, but I believe that it is necessary if we are to improve the justice experience for women. Evaluation criteria and assessment of such a pilot are crucial, and that is the task of the current working group. The pilot would provide an invaluable opportunity to gather evidence on rape myths, which undoubtedly exist, as survivors know only too well. It would also create the opportunity to have written judgments from a judge, which would be a huge step forward for victims.

It is true that the committee was split on the issue of juryless trials. It is a bold proposal that I believe we should not shy away from if we truly believe in reform.

Today we vote on the general principles of the bill. The Government is committed to working with those who have concerns at stage 2. Over the past eight months, the committee has heard evidence from people who have been brave enough to speak out about their experiences. This is our chance to improve our ailing justice system and make it fit for the future. We would be failing in our duty to the people of Scotland if we did not pass the bill today.

I urge members to ask themselves whether our current system is working for those who find themselves on a traumatic justice journey and whether we could do better, and to vote to pass the general principles of the bill at decision time.

We know how difficult the news must have been for the young people who have been affected. What is vital now is that we focus on improving the healthcare of that very small number of affected people. I note the minister’s comments about the steps that have been taken in that regard. Can she say any more about that work and provide assurances to the affected young people that this issue remains a priority?

Does Sharon Dowey acknowledge that we have taken eight months to scrutinise and take evidence on the bill, which is unprecedented?

Does Pauline McNeill believe that a 24 per cent conviction rate in single-charge rape cases is acceptable?

Thank you for coming in to talk to us. I want to go back to some of your previous comments about the PIRC. I understand that you do not think that the PIRC is independent enough to scrutinise the police and that the complaints system should stand outside of that.

It is almost funny—it is just so strange. How did you feel when you got that response?

Okay. Do you think that an entirely independent board should be investigating complaints?

Good morning, Stephanie. Thank you for coming in and being so brave today. I have a quick question. Before you put in a complaint, which you clearly had to do, would a single point of contact have been helpful to you after your son’s body was discovered?

You would get them all the time.