Seòmar agus comataidhean

That completes today’s evidence taking, and I once again thank everyone for their participation. It has been quite a thorough session, and your contributions have been noted and recorded.

We will now move into private session.

Our next item is an evidence session on suicide prevention in Scotland. I refer members to papers 2 and 3. I welcome to the meeting Rob Gowans, who is policy and public affairs manager at Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland; Neil Mathers, who is the executive director of Samaritans Scotland; John Gibson, who is chief executive officer at the Canmore Trust; Dan Farthing, who is head of suicide prevention at Scottish Action for Mental Health; Jason Schroeder, who is chief executive officer at the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association; Rebecca Hoffman, who is national policy lead at LGBT Health and Wellbeing; Aidan Mitchell, who is policy and public affairs officer at Change Mental Health; and Dr Richmond Davies, who is head of public health analytics and intelligence at Public Health Scotland.

We have a large number of witnesses this morning, which is great to see, and we have a lot to cover on this important topic, so I am afraid that we do not have time for opening statements. However, you are all very welcome, and I want to note that we are grateful for your responses to our call for views.

I will open up the questioning. Given the increase in deaths by suicide over the course of the every life matters strategy, what impact has been made by the Scottish Government’s previous suicide prevention initiatives?

We move to questions from Evelyn Tweed.

Before we move to questions from Meghan Gallacher, I would like to ask one myself. When we were talking about other groups, it came to mind that we have not discussed postnatal or menopausal women. Have those issues come up for anyone?

I appreciate those comments.

We will move on to questions from Paul O’Kane.

That is great. Thank you.

No problem at all.

Thank you for that important contribution, John. Following on from that, we have also not touched on neurodivergent people, autistic people and those with ADHD. We know that studies have been done and there is data on the mortality rates of individuals in that community and that group. From what we are hearing today, there is a vast amount of data out there, although some still needs to be gathered. Nevertheless, this sort of thing needs to be streamlined in some way.

All of the committee members have asked their questions, but I just want to ensure that everybody has said everything that they want to get on the record. If anyone would like to raise anything before we close the session, they should indicate as much.

The famous quote

“How society treats its most vulnerable is always the measure of its humanity”

could not be more true than when we speak about the vulnerability of the victims and survivors of sexual offences. How we in Scotland treat the victims of sexual offences is a true measure of our society and humanity, so we must go above and beyond to ensure that any process is as sensitive and safe for them as possible.

We owe that to survivors who have spoken their truth, often at great personal cost, and who have sought justice and paved the way for others to do so. We owe it to the survivors who are seeking justice right now for the heinous acts of others and certainly to the survivors who, for myriad reasons, are unable to get the justice that they deserve. We owe it to them to deliver reform that will put victims and witnesses at the heart of the justice system while continuing to safeguard the key principles that underpin it.

As we have heard, much of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has been informed by the work of the victims task force, by Lady Dorrian’s independent and cross-sector review of the management of sexual offence cases and by the landmark jury research that was published in 2019. I place on record my gratitude for the work that has been done to ensure that today’s debate is guided not only by our own ethical considerations but by victims themselves and by reputable actors in the legal sector.

As has been said, the bill is ambitious in its reforms to modernise processes and improve the experience of victims and witnesses, but I have limited time and will focus on three areas: the introduction of a sexual offences court, the abolition of the not proven verdict and the extension of the use of special measures to protect those who have suffered abuse from being cross-examined by their abusers.

I welcome the introduction of a new criminal court for Scotland to permit rape and other serious sexual offences to be heard within the same specialised court, which is not always the case today. Sexual offences are among the most serious crimes that are dealt with by our courts and a sexual offences court with Scotland-wide jurisdiction could embed specialism from the outset, supporting complainers to proffer their best evidence and requiring specialist trauma-informed training for all personnel, judges and legal professionals appearing in that court. It would also allow for a more flexible use of the available resources, which might, in turn, reduce delay and increase efficiency in those cases. That is vital, because a delay to justice is an injustice in itself.

I note the concerns that any such specialised court must possess a solemnity that reflects the seriousness of those offences. It is crucial that any new court is given due gravitas and that every effort is made to avoid any perception of the downgrading of seriousness once cases are indicted to the sexual offences courts rather than to the High Court.

I stood for election to this Parliament on a manifesto that recognised the strong case for the abolition of the three-verdict system and made a commitment to consult on the removal of the not proven verdict. My SNP colleagues and I were not alone, because removal of that verdict was supported in the manifestos of almost all parties in the chamber. What is more, 62 per cent of respondents to the consultation supported changing to a two-verdict system.

There is clear and compelling evidence—including from independent Scottish jury research that was the largest study of its kind ever undertaken in the UK—that the not proven verdict is not well understood by jurors and that it can cause stigma for the acquitted and trauma for complainers. The verdict does not serve justice, so I welcome the plans to abolish it. I have listened to what colleagues have said today about the technicalities of doing so and hope, for the sake of all and because of what I have just mentioned, that a solution will be found to bring us to a final conclusion and to abolish that verdict.

Special measures in court cases exist to protect vulnerable people. The taking of evidence by a commissioner and the use of a live television link or a screen to create a boundary between the complainer and the accused can alleviate the stress that is associated with giving evidence and ensure that witnesses and victims can give their very best evidence in a way that retraumatises them as little as possible.

The award-winning one-woman play “Prima Facie” was based on how the legal system treats victims of sexual assault. In the final moments, actress Jodie Comer concluded by breaking the fourth wall, speaking directly to the audience and drawing our attention to the statistics. She said:

“Look to your left, look to your right. It’s one of us.”

One in six men will experience an unwanted or abusive sexual experience in their lifetime, and an obscene statistic tells us that the majority of Scottish women have been sexually harassed or assaulted. We cannot delay justice any longer. As a survivor myself, I ask members to please vote for the bill.