Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I think that there would be value in that. I am focusing on rape and attempted rape because the amendment proposes a pilot. Also, I would not expect the service to be available across Scotland, as the nature of a pilot means that it would be limited, controlled and evaluated with a view to seeing what was a success and what was not. I agree with the principle of what Maggie Chapman suggests, as there is probably a wide range of offences in which such representation would be appropriate, but the proposal in my amendment is for a pilot. Rather than going ahead with a full scheme, we would look at what works and build on that. Proper evaluation should be part of the pilot process.

As Maggie Chapman will note, the representation that I propose in the pilot is limited and restricted from the point at which the allegation is made until the end of the criminal investigation or proceedings. It may well be the case that there should be advice and representation beyond the very restricted proposal that is made for the pilot. The pilot is the start of what I imagine may be a longer process, but we would have to evaluate it to see how it works.

Other countries and jurisdictions have started off with a relatively restricted process of representation that has expanded over many decades. That might happen here, but it is not what is proposed today. What is proposed today is representation and advice in the early part of the process—before the court door, if you like.

Amendment 68 would require the Scottish Government to consult persons providing victim support services and any other persons that ministers consider appropriate before making the relevant regulations. There would be scope to build views and representations into the pilot, but the amendment says that the regulations

“must be made within 1 year of this section coming into force.”

Therefore, there are time constraints and pressure on the Scottish Government to act.

These are relatively modest proposals, but, as I indicated, they represent the current direction of travel. The amendment aims to empower victims in the process, and it seeks to enable them to have information about and understand the process so that they can engage with it and, where appropriate, make representations.

Amendment 64 also relates to empowering the victim—the complainer. It relates to having a single point of contact for victims. In drafting the amendment, we looked at other legislation that has been passed by the Parliament where there has been a single point of contact.

Amendment 68 also states that

“the Scottish ministers must—

(a) review the operation of the regulations,

(b) publish a report on their findings and

(c) lay the report before the Scottish Parliament.”

The report

“must include the views and feedback of—

(a) complainers,

(b) the Lord Justice General,

(c) the Lord Advocate,

(d) the Faculty of Advocates,

(e) the Law Society of Scotland

(f) the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service,”

and other stakeholders.

Amendment 68 retains the definition of rape under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2003, so it works within the existing legal definitions. Victim support services are also defined in the amendment.

Victims of sexual trauma have told us about inconsistent access to support and specialist guidance. My proposal would build on existing schemes, and the intention would be to take a trauma-informed approach.

Amendment 64 calls on ministers to assign a single point of contact, which would enable the victim to obtain relevant information on the progress that has been made in an investigation, as well as any related court proceedings. The amendment is informed by the views of complainers and their experiences, as they often find it difficult to get information and feel that they are passed from pillar to post.

I believe that my amendments 68 and 64 should be considered with a view to changing the balance in the criminal justice system in order to empower victims and address some of the significant concerns that they have raised repeatedly with the committee for many years.

I move amendment 68.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am actually making an intervention on Pauline McNeill. I will hand back to her.

They are sitting as temporary judges and they have been certified for that purpose. Our understanding is that the proposed sexual offences court would have a panel of judges who deal with a wide range of cases, some of which are currently dealt with in the sheriff courts and some of which are currently dealt with in the High Court—indeed, some may even be dealt with in the justice of the peace court.

As I said in my intervention on Pauline McNeill, the presumption is that any judge on the panel could deal with any case. That is our understanding on the basis of what we have been informed about. Does the member agree?

Yes, I will.

Brilliant—thank you. Can you update the committee on the latest position on any upcoming legislative consent motions, particularly ones that are likely to engage the remit of this committee?

Minister, could you provide us with an update on discussions that the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government on its powers to make UK secondary legislation on matters within devolved competence? What arrangements have been considered for notifying the Scottish Parliament about any such secondary legislation?

Would you be happy to keep the committee updated in that regard?

Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to speak to my amendments. Lodged after discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid, they are probing amendments that aim to strengthen the requirement under proposed new section 56A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, as inserted by section 45 of the bill, for social housing providers to take account of a domestic abuse policy; to enable a review of women’s refuge provision; and to enable the public debt of domestic abuse survivors—for example, rent arrears—to be written off.

The minister was kind enough to meet me last week to discuss my amendments, and I understand that his general approach is that the level of detail outlined in my amendments should be in regulation. That brings us back to the wider debate about framework bills, enabling legislation and the scrutiny of regulations and guidance, to which a number of members referred last week.

I would argue that it is important for some of these provisions to be in the bill. My amendments relate to the protection of victims of domestic abuse and the housing instability that so often arises in such situations. We need robust, codified support for people who face homelessness as a result of abuse.

Amendment 1061 requires relevant bodies to ask individuals whom they might have reason to believe might be

“homeless or threatened with homelessness”

whether their situation arose as a consequence of either past or on-going experience of abuse.

Amendment 1062 defines “abuse” within a whole and broad understanding of harm or risk of harm, for the purposes of the duties to ask whether a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness; to act if a person might be homeless; and to act if a person might be threatened with homelessness. Abuse is acknowledged as encompassing cases of abusive behaviour from a partner or ex-partner within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021.

Amendment 1063 requires that,

“If the relevant body is informed that the person is homeless as a consequence of ... having experienced or experiencing abuse”,

it

“must provide the person with details of such support that may be available to the person”.

Amendment 1064 expands that for individuals whom relevant bodies have reason to believe might be “threatened with homelessness” due to the threatening or abusive behaviour of others.

Amendment 1088 calls on

“Scottish Ministers”

to

“carry out a review of temporary housing provided for persons who have left their homes as a result of domestic abuse”

within one year of royal assent. The review

“must consider ... whether”

the temporary housing

“is compliant with international standards in respect of”

a number of matters, including provisions under the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. The review would consider

“the availability of specialist provision”

and the suitability of funding for such housing.

The amendment also requires Scottish ministers to

“consult ... organisations providing such housing”,

such as

“local authorities”

and

“other persons as they consider appropriate”

as part of that review. It asks Scottish ministers to

“prepare and publish a report of the review”,

which would

“set out any action the Scottish Ministers plan to take”.

Amendment 1089 relates to the issue of public debt and the scope of domestic abuse policies to enable steps to be taken to mitigate such a situation, particularly in relation to rent arrears for tenants for whom an application for housing benefit has not yet been determined but is likely to be paid, at a level that allows the tenant to satisfy outstanding rent or other financial obligations of tenancy. The action would include

“the whole or any part of the rent arrears”

to enable those to be, in effect, written off in certain circumstances.

I am just coming to an end, but I will.