Official Report 912KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18883, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
15:26
The core of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill is about supporting victims. I begin by recognising everyone who has been impacted by the matters that the bill seeks to address—victims, witnesses and survivors, their families, campaigners and support organisations. Many of them have shared their lived experience to shape the bill, and I know how painful that was. I am grateful for their courage.
Let me speak directly to those people, whether they are watching online or joining us in the gallery, as I know some are. You have campaigned for many years for many of the reforms in the bill, which the Parliament will vote on tonight. Although it will not lessen the pain that you have gone through, I hope that you will feel a sense of pride and achievement as a result of the changes that you have brought about.
I thank the committees that considered the bill, particularly the members—past and present—of the Criminal Justice Committee and its clerks, as well as the wide range of individuals and organisations that brought significant legal and academic expertise through their engagement with the committee and the Government.
I am grateful to all those who were involved in major pieces of work that informed the bill: the victims task force, Lady Dorrian’s review, the large-scale jury research, the victim notification scheme review, the NHS Education for Scotland trauma workstream and the Emma Ritch law clinic.
I also thank my officials in my private office for their considerable support and patience throughout the bill’s passage. It is fair to say that this journey has been a marathon, not a sprint.
The bill is large and ambitious, with the scope to make fundamental and meaningful changes to ensure that the justice system meets the needs of survivors of sexual offences, the majority of whom are women and girls. We want a justice system in which victims are treated with compassion and their voices are heard; in which processes are modern, fair and transparent; in which the rights of the accused continue to be protected; in which there is strong public confidence in justice outcomes; and in which vulnerable parties and witnesses in civil cases are better protected. That is what the Parliament has the opportunity to support tonight.
The bill is a landmark bill of reforms, and I wanted to ensure that I worked collaboratively with members across the chamber to reach a consensus wherever possible. I want everyone to be in the position to back the bill today. It is time to come together.
I listened to concerns about the piloting of single-judge rape trials and took the decision not to pursue that. Instead, I lodged amendments that will enable further research on jury deliberations to help us to better understand the impact of rape myths on decision making. If the Parliament agrees to the bill, I will seek approval from the Lord President to commission that research as a priority.
Changes that were made to the bill also reflect the determination to work constructively with members of the Scottish Parliament. I have worked and engaged with all parties, as was seen during stage 2 and yesterday’s stage 3. Many MSPs have changed the bill for the better, and I thank each and every one of them.
I know that cultural changes and new laws that the Parliament has introduced mean that women feel that they are more able to report sexual offences. However, it pains me that so many have to face the challenges that that brings. It is abhorrent that so many women and girls are victims of sexual crime and, although I believe that laws and culture can help to protect women, we need men to address their abusive behaviour and attitudes that underpin it. That is part of the work that we carry out in our equally safe strategy.
The reforms in the bill will implement a trauma-informed justice system and introduce lifelong anonymity and independent legal representation, which will afford greater protection to survivors of sexual offences. I cannot stress enough how essential the creation of a new national sexual offences court will be to improving the experience of survivors. Lady Dorrian, the Lord Advocate, senior members of the judiciary, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, victims and support organisations have all been clear that that stand-alone specialist court can deliver further improvements in culture, process and practice that will benefit many. MSPs who support the bill today should be proud of the part that they have played in creating that court. We might wish that such a court was not needed, but it will benefit so many.
For victims generally, the victims and witnesses commissioner will have a significant role to play in ensuring that the interests of victims are central to the operation of the justice system.
I am pleased that there has been cross-party support for the abolition of the not proven verdict, from the manifesto commitments of several parties to the support for the bill today that will bring about that change.
There is much to be proud of in our justice system and there have been many positive changes recently. The bill builds on that with reforms that can create the structural, procedural and cultural shifts that are required to make improvements for victims, witnesses and survivors. We have reached where we are today by listening to many voices in advance of and during the passage of the bill. The Parliament must also demonstrate that it is listening and that it is serious about putting victims and witnesses at the heart of our justice system.
I conclude by once again quoting Lady Dorrian, who explained why the reforms in the bill should be supported:
“if we do not seize the opportunity to create the culture change from the ground up ... there is every risk that, in 40 years, my successor and your successors will be in this room having the same conversation.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 January 2024; c 22-23.]
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:33
The bill has had a tortuous passage. The cabinet secretary said that it has been a marathon, not a sprint, and that is certainly true. It was originally going to be called the “Criminal Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”. It was introduced in April 2023, but it did not reach stage 1 until a year later. Since then, it has been through repeated rounds of evidence taking, fundamental amendments, extensive scrutiny at stages 2 and 3, and the introduction of novel and unscrutinised amendments at stage 3. The Government even amended its own draft only to realise its error and reverse course again. The bill’s name was changed to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.
On Sunday, the cabinet secretary said:
“This Bill should modernise our criminal justice system in the most radical ways ... putting victims right at the very heart of everything.”
She is absolutely right: it should—but it does not.
To be fair, there are some welcome measures. Thanks to Russell Findlay, victims will have greater access to notifications about the outcomes of plea deals, and Sharon Dowey and Pam Gosal have strengthened victims’ protections through non-harassment orders. The bill also includes improved rights to information for victims of crime and better recognition of child victims and witnesses. Those are steps in the right direction.
However, the bill misses so many chances to do so much more. It could have launched an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland to uncover the scale of the problem and prevent further victims of this vile crime, but it does not. It could have extended the parole period from two years to three, giving victims both peace of mind and respite from the revolving door of parole hearings, but it does not. It could have introduced a genuine Suzanne’s law—no body, no release—but it does not.
Instead, the headline reforms are deeply flawed. The so-called specialist sexual offences court has been described as little more than a sign on a door. Simon Di Rollo KC has called it “window dressing”. It will use the same judges in the same buildings with the same overstretched staff, and it could potentially add to the existing backlog. Rape survivors have deep concerns about what their cases not being heard in the High Court will mean. Ellie Wilson told the Criminal Justice Committee:
“Rape is one of the most serious crimes in Scots law; such cases are only ever heard in the High Court. That solemnity is sacred, and it is important that we maintain it.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 4.]
The sexual offences court will cost millions of pounds that could instead have been invested in trauma-informed practice in our existing courts and in tackling the backlog, which leaves rape victims waiting for up to three years for justice. The Law Society of Scotland—of which, I remind the Parliament, I am a member—warns that it will increase complexity, noting that “specialist divisions” could achieve the same thing. Children 1st has said that it could
“distract from efforts to make the clear practical changes that victims and witnesses consistently tell us would make things better”.
The bill also establishes a victims commissioner—an idea that England adopted more than 20 years ago. However, the commissioner will have no power to intervene in individual cases. They cannot investigate grooming gangs or address the crisis in legal aid or, indeed, the court backlog. That is why it is unsurprising that Scottish Women’s Aid has said:
“We maintain our opposition to the creation of this Commissioner”.
It will add a layer of bureaucracy, and the funds could be better utilised in improving services and advice to victims.
I come to the changes to the trial system. The cabinet secretary candidly admitted that the Government originally proposed juryless rape trials, which was abandoned only after overwhelming expert opposition, threats of legal boycotts and warnings that it would lead to miscarriages of justice.
As the cabinet secretary noted, the Conservative manifesto committed to abolishing the not proven verdict. That could have been done simply and effectively. Instead, however, the Government has decided to go much further, with changes that strike at the heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. As well as changing the verdicts in the context of the Lord Advocate’s corroboration changes to a system that has consistently featured since at least the 1600s, the Government has also changed the size of the jury majority, following a back-and-forth about its size.
If we are going to change a system that has worked for more than 200 years, we need a strong basis to found the change on, but the Government does not have that. Three of the four key features of our criminal trial system will be altered, largely without evidence, largely without precedent and against expert advice. We have all received the warnings that the rebuilt system could be counterproductive. It could reduce conviction rates and lead to more miscarriages of justice, and outcomes for victims could be even worse. The Law Society has been clear. We are concerned that the proposed model has never been proved effective in any other comparable jurisdiction. The lack of evidence to support the proposals may lead to unintended consequences for the fairness of criminal trials.
The bill is called a victims and witnesses bill. It does some good things, but it fails to do what it could have done, and it will make changes that may well fail and could even be counterproductive. It is a victims bill in name only and it represents a massive missed opportunity to truly put victims at the heart of justice. The bill that we have in front of us is neither for victims nor for witnesses, and that is why the Conservatives will vote against it.
15:40
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.
15:45
I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I used to work for a rape crisis centre.
We are here today to debate legislation that has the potential to transform how Scotland’s justice system treats those who have been harmed—in particular, survivors of rape, sexual assault and other serious offences. For too long, survivors have been asked to carry the heaviest burden: to repeat and relive their trauma in a system that was not designed with them in mind.
The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill gives us a chance to shift that balance, which is not simply a matter of making small adjustments. It involves moving from a system that is centred on procedure to one that is centred on people—on those who have been harmed, on those who are asked to give evidence and on those who need the system to work fairly for them.
The foundations of the bill are the recommendations of Lady Dorrian’s review. That work was clear in showing that sexual offences cases are failing survivors, failing to protect dignity and failing to deliver consistent justice. The provisions on specialist courts, on trauma-informed judicial duties and on measures to reduce delay and retraumatisation all stem from Lady Dorrian’s recommendations. The Lord Advocate, too, has been clear that reform is necessary if prosecution is to be both effective and fair.
Third sector organisations have been vital in shaping the bill. Rape Crisis Scotland has reminded us that survivors experience the justice system not just as discrete hearings but as one long ordeal. Victim Support Scotland has said that the bill represents a landmark chance to embed trauma-informed practice and transparency. They and others have told us that the bill must shorten that ordeal, reduce retraumatisation and make support an active offer at every stage. I am very grateful for the contributions of all those organisations.
I welcome many of the bill’s provisions, including the statutory duty to act in a trauma-informed way, the stronger protections for complainers’ anonymity, the reforms to the victim notification scheme, the right to independent legal representation to oppose intrusive questioning on sexual history, the establishment of a sexual offences court and the abolition of the not proven verdict. Those are practical, evidence-based steps that reflect the principle that survivors must be treated with dignity.
However, let me be clear: the Scottish Greens believe that the bill should have gone further. Survivors need support from the moment that they report, not weeks later. That means providing properly resourced referral pathways, so that survivors know what support they can access, whether that is rape crisis or victim support services, legal advice or something else. It means embedding consistency across the country, so that a survivor in Shetland is offered the same level of support as someone in Glasgow. That support must be provided throughout the legal process and beyond. That is why I lodged amendments at stage 2 to extend the availability of advocacy, legal advice and legal representation.
We also need to be honest about resources. Legal reform without investment in specialist services risks leaving survivors with rights on paper but not in practice. A trauma-informed duty for judges must be matched by training, by court scheduling that avoids last-minute cancellations and by proper facilities in every sheriffdom.
We must remain ambitious. Lady Dorrian’s work showed us that specialist sexual offences courts are possible and necessary, but we must also ensure that they are resourced, staffed with trained judiciary and rolled out with urgency.
Reforming our justice system is not optional. Survivors have waited too long for change. The bill is a start, but we must not pretend that it is the end of the journey. The Scottish Greens support the bill, and we will continue to push for a justice system that is preventative, trauma informed and truly centred on those who have been harmed. Let us all commit today to legislation that makes a real difference. Let us choose compassion, dignity and justice for survivors.
15:49
I am often asked, when schools come to visit, “What is the best part of being an MSP? Is it helping constituents? Is it meeting inspiring people? Is it changing the law?” Today, I say that all three are true, because every one of the 160 amendments that we debated yesterday has real-world consequences: from the creation of a victims commissioner to the removal of the centuries-old not proven verdict and other sweeping changes to our justice system, the likes of which this Parliament has not seen since its very creation.
In the case of my amendments, there will be the introduction of Suzanne’s law, commanding the confidence of those to whom it matters most, and the introduction of Michelle’s law. There will be changes to parole decisions and the rules around those and changes giving victims a greater voice in court and more information, not less.
I joined the Criminal Justice Committee back in 2021, when I was then shadow justice secretary. Week in, week out, we took evidence from ministers, lawyers and academics, but what sticks in my mind the most about that period was the evidence sessions that we took in private—the horrific stories of abuse, assault, rape and murder.
I first consulted on my member’s bill back in 2021. With so many wrongs to right, I understood the gravity of the task in hand, the lack of victims’ voices and the endless traumatisation in the justice system. I was simply appalled at what I heard, to be honest. However, it is incredibly difficult to get a member’s bill through the Parliament, so it was perhaps serendipitous for me that the Scottish Government introduced its own criminal justice reform bill. The Government soon realised, however, that the word “victims” needed to be at the front of the name of the bill, as it had been in mine, so it changed the title. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery, but I do not really care, because what matters to me is getting those proposals into law, by whichever means possible.
Yesterday, we did just that. Now, victims in all solemn cases will be able to make an impact statement to court. They will have to be informed of a decision not to prosecute a case. They will have their safety and security put front and centre of parole decisions. They will have exclusion zones, if required or necessary. They will be given reasons for those decisions. They will be guided through their justice journey, and they will know that, if the killer of their loved one refuses to co-operate, that person will stay behind bars.
Every political party represented in the Parliament, to some degree or another, supported the changes and voted for them. They were constructive and respectful negotiations, because that is how you get things done from the Opposition benches in the Parliament. I am grateful to the members who backed my proposals, but I am more grateful to the people who let me sit in their living room, with a mug of tea in hand, while they recounted the absolute horror of the crimes that they or their loved ones had been victims of.
I say to those people in the public gallery, who live and breathe that trauma every day, that it is to them that we owe the most credit in getting to where we are today; it is their relentless campaigning to put victims first that has finally paid off. I made them a promise, face to face, that I would fight to change the law in their favour, and I sincerely hope that I have met their expectations.
I believe that there are members in the Parliament who would never vote for this bill, whatever its content, but I say to them that, if they vote against it, they are voting against their own manifesto commitments. If they vote against the bill, they are voting against every positive change that we made yesterday, and they are ignoring the pleas from those whose voices matter most—victims themselves.
Two members of those families sent me a quote that they want me to read out. It simply says this:
“We implore you to vote through this bill for this and all the positive changes that it can bring.”
I know that, when I next meet them, I will look them in the eye and say, “I did.” Members, please, if you do not listen to me, listen to them, to whom the bill passing matters most.
We move to the open debate.
15:54
It is safe to say that the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has been long, complex and challenging—and rightly so, given the transformational ambition of the bill, which derives from the Lady Dorrian review, and which centres on delivering meaningful change for victims and witnesses in the justice system.
I, too, thank everyone who contributed to the shape of the bill as it stands before us today at stage 3. The extensive debates at all stages reflected the breadth of the bill and our collective desire to shift the dial on the common and, often, justified perception that the system fails to adequately support those whom it is meant to protect. I will quote the words of a survivor who gave powerful evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 1. She said:
“when we talk about what happened, each one of us mentions the exact date that our case went to trial. We remember the date that we were raped, but we also remember the date that we went to trial, because they are as traumatic as each other.”
Speaking as a member, rather than the convener, of the Criminal Justice Committee, and through the lens of a career in policing, I say that the bill presents a huge opportunity for us to create a contemporary and modern justice system that we can be proud of.
There is not enough time to comment on all the provisions in the bill, so I will reflect on a couple: the removal of the not proven verdict and the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court. First, I thank everyone, including campaigners and colleagues, for their efforts in making the case for free court transcripts. I hope that that proves to be a small but meaningful option for survivors as they move on from their experience of sexual crime.
There is no doubt that the not proven verdict has had its day and should be abolished. During scrutiny of the bill, some argued that the not proven verdict is a unique and historical feature of the Scottish legal system that should be retained. However, that is hardly a good reason for keeping it. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Committee heard compelling evidence about the devastating impact that that verdict—which cannot be defined—can have on victims. Even for the accused, it can be an unsatisfactory outcome and leave a lingering stigma.
The creation of a specialist sexual offences court is a key reform in the bill and is informed by survivors, their families and many others. It is supported by victims, stakeholders and leading members of the justice system. It provides a real opportunity to reform practice, process and culture by improving efficiency and effectiveness, reducing the number and frequency of unnecessary court adjournments and ensuring that cases reach trial more quickly. The status quo is simply not an option. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s view that the idea of creating specialist divisions of the High Court and sheriff courts
“prioritises hierarchies, status and tradition over progressive and practical solutions that will improve the experiences of complainers in sexual offences cases.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 114.]
There is so much more to say, but I will conclude. Over decades, we have seen meaningful change in culture, legislation and attitudes, but we need to do so much more. I urge members to support the bill.
15:58
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland.
The cabinet secretary knows that she has the numbers. She has worked hard with some parties to get the bill over the line. On Monday or Tuesday this week, we knew that the Greens would support it, before we discussed the 160 amendments that Jamie Greene referred to.
The bill will be passed but, having sat through yesterday’s stage 3 amendments and looked at the work of the Criminal Justice Committee, I cannot help but feel that it is a missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to have not just a majority in favour but a unanimous decision of the Parliament to support a bill that really made a difference for victims and witnesses.
We all want an improvement for anyone who goes through the horrific and horrendous experience of being a victim of crime, and the bill concerns some of the most serious crimes that we could ever imagine. We all want to make it better for people to be involved in the justice system—to be a witness and give evidence. Some of the most harrowing cases that I have ever had to deal with as a constituency representative have involved those who went into the legal system as a victim or a witness and came out of it almost more traumatised by that experience than by the crime itself.
With the bill, there was an opportunity to make a difference that all of us could get behind and support. I gently say to Jamie Greene that he cannot shame Opposition members—I do not think that he was absolutely doing this—for opposing the bill when there are good elements in it. There are undoubtedly elements in the bill that I support. I know that there are families in the chamber who would like all MSPs to back it because of the individual elements that they have rightly and fiercely campaigned on for so long, but that does not mean that we can ignore the elements that I believe could have been improved if the justice secretary had gone a bit further yesterday in the stage 3 amendments or at stage 2.
As Liam Kerr said, the Conservatives have made the bill better with the amendments from Russell Findlay, Sharon Dowey and Pam Gosal. However, I still cannot understand or get my head around the fact that the opportunity was not taken in the bill to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs. We see that issue all over the news and all over the media. The Labour Government at Westminster originally tried to do the same thing and tried to refuse such an inquiry, but it eventually had to U-turn because of public pressure. I am pretty sure that in a number of weeks, months or perhaps years—sadly, if it gets to years, it will be far too late—an incumbent Scottish Government will have to do the same thing, so why not take the opportunity under the bill?
On amendment 112, which I spoke to yesterday, I understand that there are disagreements on sexual offences courts. Some members believe that that is the right approach, and some believe that it is the wrong approach. I have to say that the cabinet secretary’s response to the alternative proposals that were put to her was dismissive. She believes that her option is the only option but, as Pauline McNeill said yesterday, that is not the case.
The proposal will cost a lot of money. That money could be better spent on changes in the current justice system. I understand that Lady Dorrian does not agree with specialised units or divisions in the High Court, but she also does not agree with the approach that the Government has taken forward on the sexual offences court. I believe that that is another missed opportunity.
I would genuinely have been pleased to be able to vote for the bill at decision time, but I cannot, and it is with a heavy heart that I cannot, because it could have been so much better and done so much more for victims and witnesses across Scotland. Sadly, I believe that it is a missed opportunity.
I call Christine Grahame, who is the final speaker in the open debate.
16:02
I congratulate all who are engaged in the bill, but I also consider that to allocate just over one hour to debate these radical changes to the delivery and pursuit of our criminal law is misplaced.
I shall make just a few remarks. Steps to better steer witnesses through the court process with compassion must be welcomed. I am not convinced of the need for specialist sexual offences courts. I pose this question. An individual is indicted for robbery, assault with a threat to life and sexual assault, and there are three different victims—in which court should that case be held?
The changes in the majority required and in the size of juries seem to me untried. The removal of the not proven verdict may make convictions more difficult, whether before a sheriff sitting alone or before a jury. The test that is applicable across summary and solemn proceedings is still that the Crown has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The onus is on the Crown. Not proven meant that there was still a reasonable doubt, but that now transfers seamlessly to not guilty considerations. Some campaigning organisations may believe that that, together with the change to jury size, makes convictions more likely, and I understand why, but in my view, it will not, and at best it may be neutral.
As the not proven verdict is consigned to history, I have marked down my reservations, and I sincerely hope that my concerns about unintended consequences do not come to pass. Despite those concerns and reservations, I will support the bill at decision time, but I will watch how it works in practice.
We move to closing speeches.
16:04
Presiding Officer,
“We are treated like outsiders throughout the whole process.”
“I was told by a police detective that I wasn’t raped—it was consensual.”
“When you are on the witness stand you should not be made to feel embarrassed, humiliated or undermined by someone.”
“In our court system you are totally humiliated. It was the most degrading experience I have been through.”
“You are made to feel as if you are a bit of evidence that just gets put on a shelf and is brought out when you are needed and you are just disregarded afterwards.”
As we close the debate, I return to the people who are at the heart of it—those who have survived sexual violence, those who have stood as witnesses in court and those who have too often been revictimised by the very system that is meant to protect them. Their words should be in our minds this afternoon.
Throughout the bill process, we have heard the evidence from Lady Dorrian’s review, from the Lord Advocate and from those who are on the front line of support, including Rape Crisis Scotland, Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and many others. Their message has been consistent—our current system is not working well. Survivors face long delays, hostile environments and retraumatising procedures. Change is not only desirable; it is imperative.
The bill is a step towards that change. The statutory duty of trauma-informed practice, new protections for complainers, reforms to victim notification and the introduction of independent legal representation are important and welcome. Survivors have called for those measures, which can rebuild confidence in the justice system. However, we must also be honest about where we are falling short, as others have said.
The Greens have been clear that we need stronger guarantees of early and consistent support for survivors, and not just the possibility of referral but the expectation of it. We need all survivors to have access to legal advice and representation for as long as they need it. We need our criminal and civil justice systems to be better connected, to talk to each other and to ensure that women and children are not used as pawns in someone else’s game. We need the reforms that we will deliver on paper today to translate into meaningful change in people’s lives. Survivors deserve more than symbolic progress.
We must also guard against complacency. Passing the bill is not the end of the journey. Trauma-informed practice is not achieved by statute alone; it must be embedded in training, in scheduling and in the culture of our courts. The Lord Advocate and the Crown Office must play their part by ensuring that decisions are explained clearly and respectfully and that the pursuit of justice does not add to survivors’ pain.
Thank you for taking an intervention; I know that your time is constricted. Is there a place in our education system—in schools—for education on the general legal process and juries, including what a jury is and is not?
Always speak through the chair.
Absolutely—education for all of us about the legal system and our criminal justice system is imperative.
After we pass the bill today, our third sector partners will continue to hold us to account—and rightly so. Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland have stressed that survivors do not see the system as being in separate parts, but as one long process. We owe it to them and to the people they support to keep going until our justice system is worthy of the name.
For the Scottish Greens, this is about principle. Justice is not only about verdicts; it is about reducing harm, restoring dignity and preventing further violence. That is why we support the bill, and it is why we will continue to press for more restorative approaches where appropriate, for prevention and for survivor-centred practice in every corner of the system.
Let us pass the bill today, not as the end point but as the beginning of a transformation in how Scotland delivers justice. Survivors deserve nothing less.
16:08
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.
We remain concerned that the bill might have unintended consequences and disappoint victims. We are also concerned about the significant amendments—for example, on victim notification and the rape shield—that were lodged by the Scottish Government at stage 3 but not considered by the committee. We are not opposed in principle to those proposals, but they are major changes that require consultation and scrutiny. Much of what we proposed and argued for at stage 2 on victim notification—such as a single point of contact—was agreed to and accepted by the Government, whereas the amendments that the Government lodged at stage 3 extend to many areas that were not scrutinised by the committee.
We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government did not proceed with the most polarising part of the original bill: non-jury rape trials. These were controversial, and we do not believe that they were the top demand of victims. Indeed, many of the rape survivors whom we spoke to said that the jury was not an issue for them. It is unclear how the changes to jury size and jury majority and the abolition of the not proven verdict will impact conviction rates.
One of the most significant complaints from complainers is about the delay that they experience in the system. We are concerned that an unintended consequence of the bill could be further delays, given the massive reorganisation that will be required to create new courts. Even if extra resource were put into the new courts, the result would be less resource for the High Court and the sheriff courts, which may continue to deal with many rape and sexual offence cases. We would have been more supportive if the proposals had been more radical, with new buildings and infrastructure, so that a very different environment was created. However, the reality is that the new courts will use the same buildings and rooms, and complainers are likely to be walking into a similar set-up but with new signage.
We support radical cultural change and embedding trauma-informed practice throughout the system for victims and witnesses. We believe that the experience of other countries is that one of the most effective ways of delivering justice for victims is by empowering them within the system. Yesterday, I spoke about some of the international examples in which victims have been given stronger voices and more access to information.
The member’s party and the Conservative Party are not voting for the bill. Do you not think that, by not voting for it, you are letting down victims and witnesses? Despite all the good things that are in the bill, you are not prepared to vote for it.
Always speak through the chair.
The whole of my speech addresses the point that Rona Mackay is making.
There are many proposals in the bill that we agree with. Indeed, many of them do not actually require legislation. For example, with regard to part 1, we strongly support the proposals for trauma-informed practice, but that should be happening already, and the Government needs to be driving that policy. We strongly support that approach, but we do not need the bill for that. What we need today is not warm words but the kind of real action that will improve the experiences of victims and witnesses in the system. Our view is that giving them access to information and to independent legal advice and representation and enabling their voices to be heard in the system are probably the most powerful steps that could be taken.
We welcome the very narrow provisions on independent legal representation in relation to access to medical records, but we believe that far more needs to be done. The bill was far too large. The committee attempted to give equal scrutiny to the different parts of the bill, but, inevitably, much of the scrutiny focused on proposals that have now been removed from the bill, and too many parts of the bill received little or no scrutiny or were added late. Therefore, unfortunately, on this occasion, we are unable to support the Government.
16:13
I acknowledge that the bill contains some improvements, and I welcome the fact that the Government backed my amendments to toughen up non-harassment orders and allow for a review to notify victims when fiscal fines are issued. However, taken as a whole, the bill fails to deliver the meaningful changes to the criminal justice system that victims in Scotland are crying out for. As Katy Clark said, the bill is far too big. It should have been broken up long ago, but, instead, it has been made even bigger, with significant changes introduced by the Government at the very last minute and without proper scrutiny, as Liam Kerr and Pauline McNeill made clear last night.
Let me turn to what the bill will do. It will create a victims commissioner, which, on paper, sounds wonderful. If we had limitless resources, that would be one thing, but we do not. The truth is that the commissioner lacks teeth and has no ability to intervene in individual cases, which will provide false hope to victims that it could directly help them while taking away resources that could be invested instead in victim support services, as Scottish Women’s Aid warned us. During stage 3 proceedings, I tried to strengthen the role by giving the victims commissioner the power to obtain information from local authorities and social housing providers, but my amendment was voted down.
The Parliament set up a cross-party committee to look into the role of commissioners, which concluded, a few months ago, that creating new bodies to address public service failures or perceived public service failures is not necessarily effective nor sustainable. Meanwhile, Children First has said that a commissioner should not be brought in as a substitute for concrete actions to improve the experiences of victims and witnesses, and I agree. Victims are being failed, but all that we are doing is creating yet another commissioner of debatable effectiveness and saying, “Job well done,” without having changed much.
I admit that the Government has done a great job on the branding of the bill, because creating a new sexual offences court sounds brilliant. However, as Douglas Ross said during the stage 3 proceedings yesterday, when we scratch the surface we realise that it is little more than an expensive sign on a door—in the same court buildings with the same judges and the same staff. I welcome the requirement for training in trauma-informed practice. However, as Pauline McNeill outlined, instead of setting up a new court and the huge expense that will come with that, we could create a specialist division in the existing courts, focusing our resources where we know that they are badly needed. The Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland both said that that would be more effective, while Children First said that it feared that creating a new court would distract from making the changes that victims and witnesses argue would make things better. Simon Di Rollo KC even called it “window dressing”. Once again, we are patting ourselves on the back without having addressed the real issues.
As Liam Kerr said, the issue of jury majorities was decided without any hard evidence, despite the liberty of our constituents literally being on the line, with the changes based largely on mock jury research that experts such as Lord Renucci KC warned do not in any way mirror what really happens in the courts. I tried to stop that by lodging an amendment that would have put us in line with the tried and tested system in England and Wales and in other jurisdictions, but it was defeated in favour of a step into the unknown.
It is hard not to conclude that the bill does anything other than waste millions of pounds on cosmetic solutions that will make little difference to victims while ignoring the real issues. Victims deserve real change, but the bill does not deliver that.
What is most disappointing is what could have been. We urged the Government to accept our amendments, which would have made fundamental changes and delivered a victims bill worthy of the name. Russell Findlay tried to deliver a real Suzanne’s law—meaning that if there is no body, there is no parole—and commonsense reforms so that victims would not be left in the dark regarding plea deals. Liam Kerr tried to deliver a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry. I tried to ensure that victims would be notified about decisions not to prosecute. However, all those amendments were voted down. As a result, this is a victims bill in name only, and it is with a very heavy heart that I will vote against it at decision time.
16:18
I do not want to pollute the debate with partisan comments because, at the end of the day, victims will judge for themselves whether they see through any contortions or manufactured grievances. As parliamentarians, we have had our debates and our disputes during stages 1, 2 and 3 and I believe that the bill is all the better for it. We have had debates on amendments that we have all either won or lost at some point during the legislative process.
Today’s debate is not about repeating, reheating or rehashing those old debates. Today is about putting our past battles behind us, because, ultimately, it is not about us. Today is about the people who are gathered in the gallery behind us and about the many victims, survivors and victim support organisations the length and breadth of the country.
Once again, I thank everyone for their thoughtful consideration of and engagement on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and for their remarks this afternoon. For the record, the bill was introduced with its current title.
I say to Jamie Greene that, I, too, made a promise: the day that I introduced the bill, I promised that I would see it through and do everything that I could with it.
I believe that the Parliament can be proud of the significant reforms that the bill will introduce, which will support victims and witnesses in our justice system. I remind Parliament of those reforms. The bill will introduce a new champion for victims by establishing a victims and witnesses commissioner who will have oversight of a victims charter. The commissioner will have powers to require criminal justice bodies to respond, and if they do not, the commissioner will have a route to the Court of Session. The commissioner will have the purpose and power to hold bodies to account in the implementation of trauma-informed approaches that will avoid the retraumatisation of victims, and to support victims and witnesses to give their best evidence, because that, surely, is in the interests of fairness.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Not just now.
The bill will introduce radical improvements to how sexual offences are dealt with through the creation of a new sexual offences court, which will, in its establishment, compel change. I just could not accept an alternative that only gave the power to courts and did not see that through by compelling them to change.
There is, of course, the abolition of the not proven verdict. There has been a long debate on that. That change, which is long overdue, will happen now. Some of the evidence to support the abolition of the not proven verdict goes back decades and, indeed, even to Michael McMahon’s Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill. That bill was, of course, unsuccessful at the time, but it speaks to the value of member’s bills, irrespective of whether they complete their journey.
There is also reform of the victim notification scheme to ensure that victims can be supported, informed and, ultimately, empowered. Rape is the most serious offence, not because it is prosecuted in the High Court but because it is the most degrading crime that a woman can experience.
Other improvements include changes to the parole process, including requiring the Parole Board for Scotland to take into account whether a prisoner has information about the disposal of a victim’s remains but has not disclosed it.
Through the legislation, we will embed trauma-informed approaches with a statutory duty on criminal justice bodies, and protect the privacy of victims through lifelong anonymity for sexual offence victims. There will be new independent legal representation for victims where the court has been asked to look into a victim’s character and sexual history, and we will strengthen protections for victims through reforms to non-harassment orders and other protective orders.
That is the transformation that parliamentarians have the power to agree to by supporting the bill today.
Yes, it is a big bill, but, as someone once said to me, “You do as much as you can for as long as you can.” I know that we are all attached to our tradition and history, not least that of our unique legal system in Scotland, which of course we are all proud of and which we will do everything that we can to safeguard. However, as Lady Elish Angiolini said, our justice system
“doesn’t stand still due to tradition. The great thing about Scottish justice is that it does look at itself and it does move and it does develop.”
Our justice system needs reform so that those who become part of it, whether as victims or witnesses of crime, feel safe and informed and are treated with understanding. The bill is needed to ensure that the structural, procedural and cultural change that will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a much more modern and fair justice system is created.
Even at this late stage, I appeal to—I urge—all parliamentarians not to let victims, their families and their support organisations down today. They want to know that we have heard them and that we are giving them our full support. We need to let those whom we seek to serve know that their pain has not been in vain and that we are with them in their creation of a legacy that comes from their loss. I appeal that we come together and back the bill.
That concludes the debate on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Air ais
Alexander Dennis LtdAir adhart
Business Motion