Seòmar agus comataidhean

What I think that I am clearly saying is that, in the work that is done with offenders to address their offending behaviour, a very prominent strand in any assessment of someone’s rehabilitation is their attitude to their offending history. Although some of us might have thought that we were very good at that work, we ultimately have to recognise the complexity of assessing people. I have no doubt that the Parole Board, because of the way in which the rules are drafted, can—and does—take the matter into account.

My concern is that the practical effect of amendment 251 will not, on one level, have the impact that I think that you are striving for. It is the amendment that causes me most anxiety, because, at the end of the day, this is all subjective, and, in particular, I do not want to tilt the system in favour of our more socially adept, slicker-at-communicating, more deviant offenders. Of course, assessments can take account of someone’s neurodiversity and all the rest of it, but, as someone who has worked in the field, I genuinely think that this is a deeply problematic area. Of this group, it is amendment 251 that causes me most concern.

In summary, then, given the Parole Board’s capacity to address the concern where it arises, I do not support the amendment. I ask Mr Greene not to move it, and, if he does, I ask the committee to oppose it.

I assure members that I view all three amendments on this aspect with the same seriousness. I have endeavoured to keep the committee informed of progress on the pilot, which enables free access to court transcripts for victims in rape and serious sexual assault cases. It is the first such pilot in the United Kingdom, and it has attracted interest from elsewhere.

I have been open with the committee about the challenges involved, in particular the level of demand, the need to meet our obligations under data protection law, and the current limitations of technology redaction and artificial intelligence, in particular as regards accuracy. I recognise that, in the future, there will be an opportunity for such areas to be considered as part of the pilot’s extension.

I remain mindful of concerns that have been expressed about how such an approach might see a change in behaviour, through transcripts being shared through social media. I am therefore ever conscious of ensuring that we consider any unintended consequences of our actions and that we are confident about how we might respond if those concerns were to be realised. The evidence to date does not support the concerns, but the pilot is still in relative infancy.

I have also been reassured, through the detail provided by applicants, that the reasons behind requests for transcripts accord with the Scottish Government’s wider aim of delivering a truly person-centred, trauma-informed justice system. However, some of the feedback suggests that more needs to be done. I have therefore extended the pilot for a further 12 months so that we can resolve any issues ahead of assessing changes that might be required in legislation. It is worth reiterating that I want the pilot to provide information that will support any future legislative change to the general position under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, on which the three amendments in this group are founded, and the specific secondary legislation—the Transcripts of Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Order 1993 and the Transcripts of Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Amendment Order 1995—all of which are pre-devolution legislation.

I have already outlined to the three members with amendments on this matter that, although I do not support the amendments as they stand, I am entirely sympathetic to their aims and want to work with all of them ahead of stage 3, as there will be an opportunity to include aspects of all their intentions at that point.

Amendment 145, in the name of Pauline McNeill, would significantly increase the number of free transcripts that are being produced and create a major capacity issue for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the company whose services have been procured for that purpose. In turn, that would create a significant cost to the public purse.

However, I would like to discuss the matter further with Ms McNeill, alongside Jamie Greene’s amendment 263, which is an innovative proposal that recognises the costs that are associated with free transcripts that are paid for from the public purse. Therefore, over a longer time than we have had to consider the amendments, I would like to consider what the proposal for a regulating power, which Jamie Greene’s amendment would introduce, would look like in practice and how it could enable the aspiration of wider access that is outlined in Pauline McNeill’s amendment 145.

On amendment 179, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, notwithstanding my words of caution, I consider that there is an opportunity to build on the premise of the amendment, subject to some further refinement. I fully understand the desire to ensure certainty around the pilot and the limited opportunity that remains to achieve that in this parliamentary term. I would also like to place the current pilot on a statutory footing. It is important that we get this right and that we recognise that there might be a need for further legislative changes, informed by and evidenced from a range of areas, including those who have participated in the pilot to date.

I think that that delivers a level of cross-party consensus and, therefore, recognition of how we can deliver and acknowledge our respective positions. Noting that and that I will work with members, I ask the three members to withdraw their amendments and to work with me and collectively ahead of stage 3.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 141 agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31 agreed to.

Section 32—Register of solicitors for section 22B of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004

Amendment 122 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to.

Amendment 123 not moved.

Amendment 124 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to.

Amendment 125 not moved.

Amendments 126 to 128 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

Section 33—Vulnerable parties

Amendments 142 to 144 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

After section 33

I very much understand the intention behind amendment 91. The committee has heard from victim support organisations and from survivors about the distress that the uncertainty of floating trials can cause. Indeed, the issue was explored in the policy memorandum for the bill.

You have also heard from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that abolishing floating trials in the High Court would add, on average, 22 weeks to reaching a trial date. That was reflected in the committee’s stage 1 report, which stated:

“we do not think it is realistic to legislate to prohibit the use of floating trials completely. Instead, we recommend that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service should make every effort to keep the use of floating trials to the absolute minimum that is required.”

I agree with that position, and I would like to see the use of floating trials reduced, but not at the expense of people needing to wait for justice.

The courts service also recognises that there is a need for greater transparency and awareness of the use of floating trials, and I understand that it is considering ways that it could provide more information on that. It might also be worth being aware that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Crown Office are trying to improve estimates of how long trials will run for. Two years ago, around 50 per cent of cases lasted longer than anticipated; that has reduced to 33 per cent.

It is also worth highlighting that the bill already requires the courts to consider trauma-informed practice when business is being scheduled. In the new sexual offences court, there will be a presumption that complainers pre-record their evidence before the trial, helping to reduce the direct impact that a distant or uncertain trial date has on them.

I understand Ms Dowey’s desire for greater accountability over how floating trials are used and for more to be done to recognise the negative impacts that they can have. However, I do not believe that the amendment would give us meaningful information. It would capture floating trials only in the High Court, not solemn trials in the sheriff court, which account for a greater number of trials without a fixed start date. More importantly, it would require the courts service to report every year on the impact that floating trials have on victims, but the courts service has very little direct engagement with victims and so could not report in a way that gives us any real insight into victims’ experiences. I therefore urge the committee to oppose the amendment.

I support the intention behind amendment 240, which seeks to expand victims’ ability to have their voices heard by the court by making an impact statement about how a crime has affected them physically, emotionally and financially. A previous consultation was carried out on the issue, the findings of which made it clear that there is an appetite for change, such as widening the list of eligible offences and piloting new ways for victim statements to be made. There was also support for moving to a position in which all victims should be able to make a statement in all cases.

Currently, as Mr Greene said, the right to make a statement, which the judge must take into account in considering sentencing, is limited to certain offences in solemn procedure. I am very supportive of moving beyond that position, but there are significant operational and resource considerations, particularly for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which co-ordinates the process of contacting victims and ensuring that the statement is available to the court, and is responsible for ensuring that statements do not contain any inappropriate material. There are also considerations for victim support organisations, as composing a statement can be difficult for victims because it involves asking them to revisit the most traumatic aspects of the crime.

Those considerations were behind the introduction of a new power in March 2021 to enable the piloting of changes to both the range of cases in which statements can be made and the way in which they can be made. Piloting enables those aspects to be tested and resource and operational implications to be better understood. I assure members that an expansion of the victim statement regime is currently under consideration.

I support the ambition of amendment 240 and I agree that we want to move to giving victims the right to make a statement in all cases. However, I do not support making that move in one step at this time, due to the need to ensure that the resource and operational aspects are properly considered. That is particularly the case in relation to summary cases, as the volume of cases and therefore statements would be significantly greater, with associated resource implications.

There are also particular operational issues. For example, in summary cases, it is more likely that an accused can plead guilty and be sentenced at the same hearing. A statement would be sought from the victim only following the guilty plea. To do so beforehand would raise false expectations for the victim and put them through the experience of revisiting the impact of a crime, potentially for no benefit, if there is no plea or the accused is found not guilty. That would also be an inefficient use of resources and would potentially lead to significant delay in such cases, as a statement would be sought and the plea and sentencing could then not happen on the same day.

Those types of issues underlie the necessity of taking a stepped approach to widening the scope of the victim statement regime and considering at each point the variety of issues relating to introducing the measure in practice. Those issues include the resource implications for justice agencies and victim support organisations; the impact on court programming; and, importantly, the impact on victims.

However, I recognise that there is a compelling case for ensuring that the voices of victims are heard and that victims are given the opportunity to advise the court on the impact that an offence has had on them.

I am particularly keen that we take the first step of expanding this right to all solemn cases, where there is an established process in place and where there will therefore be fewer additional operational considerations. There will be some resource implications. However, this is an area that I would be keen to discuss further with Mr Greene with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3 to make that initial change to the legislation.

I am also happy to commit to the committee that we will carry out further engagement with the Crown Office and victims organisations to inform the use of the piloting powers, which would test further expansion.

I acknowledge Mr Greene’s long-standing interest in these issues and, indeed, his commitment to securing improvements for victims and the families of victims, particularly in their interactions with the Parole Board for Scotland. I absolutely share Mr Greene’s ambition for a victim-centred, trauma-informed approach. Although there is much to commend in current practice, I absolutely accept that there is much more that we can do.

However, in embarking on reform, we must do so holistically and in a way that reflects and maximises all the levers that we have for effecting change. That is why I can confirm to the committee that I will be publishing a consultation in August, with work being carried out over the summer, on parole reform in Scotland, building on the changes to the Parole Board rules that were made in 2022. I hope that my committing at the outset to consult on some of the wider issues makes it clear that I am not only open to, but willing to make, the necessary changes to the parole process that will command the confidence of victims and their families.

That is not to say that I do not see a role for the bill in bringing about such change. I have looked constructively across the suite of amendments in the group to identify where I think we can commit to legislative reform that will make a meaningful difference. However, there are some intricacies that I would want to work with Mr Greene on before I could support the amendments. I cannot support them today as drafted, but there are many that I am keen to work with him on ahead of stage 3.

Turning to the specific amendments in order, I absolutely accept the principle of amendment 246, which seeks to ensure that victims or their families are given the opportunity to attend oral hearings. As Mr Greene has mentioned, I recently met survivors, who talked compellingly about the importance of having that opportunity. Some victims are already afforded such an opportunity in the current system, and what is proposed can be achieved through reform of the Parole Board rules. I fully intend the upcoming consultation to include consideration of whether that aspect of the system is working as it should or whether we need to revise those rules. I therefore ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 246 and to allow the consultation to run, so that we can gather the widest possible range of views on the matter.

I also agree with the principle of the provision of victim statements and written representations as it is set out in amendments 247 and 248. Victims should have their voices heard and should not have to repeat their presentations unnecessarily. I agree that there is more that we ought to do to ensure that processes are effective, and it might be that primary legislation has a role to play in that respect. However, we need to ensure that the amendments have the intended effect. Therefore, I ask Mr Greene not to move them now but, instead, to discuss them with me in advance of stage 3, to see whether we can come to an agreed position.

There will always be an argument to be made with regard to how we use our resources now to impact on change. I do not demur from that, but there is also the argument that there is a very strong case to be made for having a victims and witnesses commissioner to uphold and undertake specific statutory functions—those arguments are not mutually exclusive. We should bear in mind that criminal justice agencies are independent from Scottish ministers—and rightly so. After all, we do not want undue ministerial interference in independent decision-making functions. I contend, therefore, that there is a gap that can be filled by a statutory victims and witnesses commissioner who will fulfil statutory functions that cannot be undertaken by anyone else.

I acknowledge the concerns about finance that Ms Dowey has raised consistently throughout stage 1 of the deliberations on the bill, but I contend that, although the recruitment of a victims and witnesses commissioner and the establishment of their office will, of course, incur a financial cost, making such an investment only for the post to be removed a few years later would not seem to be a wise use of resources.

My instinct is to seek consensus where I can, but, on some issues, you are either in or out. When it comes to the debate on the victims and witnesses commissioner, I remain fairly in.

I urge members to oppose all the amendments in the group.

Convener, I had finished my remarks and I did not appreciate that I had a right to reply, but I will take a brief moment to respond to Ms McNeill.

I understand the points about resources. We have to carefully consider every pound that is invested. I hope that members will be cognisant of that as we proceed through stages 2 and 3, because cost is much more of a germane factor in some of the other amendments that we will come on to.

The financial memorandum sets out that approximately £600,000 would be required to set up the commissioner’s office and that there would be approximately £600,000 in recurring costs, which is not an insubstantial amount of money. However, to put that into context, the victim-centred approach fund is £48 million and, over the past five years, the justice portfolio alone has invested £92 million in victim support and related matters. There are ways to reduce costs, although it would be up to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to do that by sharing services or premises.

Finally, I understand Ms McNeill’s point, but in order to best serve individuals we also need a robust system that is held to account.

I am very mindful of the discussions that I had with Mr Greene early on after my appointment to the position of Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. At the time, he was a very active member of this committee. I say to him and colleagues that we will always do what we can to work together collaboratively. We have done our very best with the 50-odd amendments that Mr Greene lodged at the end of last week. I assure him that we are working at pace. We might not have all the answers today, but I hope that, as we proceed through stage 2, we can demonstrate a willingness to make further improvements to the bill and discuss other work that is in train and beyond.

On group 3, I agree with Mr Greene about the importance of ensuring that victims understand their rights and how the criminal justice system works. I strongly agree, in principle, with his amendment for a victims charter to be the responsibility of the victims and witnesses commissioner. However, I cannot support amendment 234 in its current form, as it would require the victims and witnesses commissioner to prepare and publish the victims charter and to lay it in the Parliament within 12 months of section 1 of the bill coming into force. The recruitment process for the commissioner cannot start until section 1 has come into force, and we anticipate the recruitment process taking between six and nine months. Assuming that a suitable candidate was appointed, the commissioner’s role might have been filled for only a couple of months prior to the deadline in the amendment, which would not allow the commissioner the time needed to develop and produce a charter.

My suggestion to Mr Greene is that he does not press amendment 234 and that we work together ahead of stage 3 on an amendment that provides that the charter should be produced within 12 months of the commissioner taking up their role.

Given that I agree with the principle of the commissioner being responsible for the charter, I urge Jamie Greene not to move amendment 236, which would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish the charter.

I suppose that the bottom line is that we run the risk of traumatising victims who do not wish to engage, notwithstanding that the entire system needs to become more proactive, focused on early engagement and outward reaching.

My fundamental point about the amendments is that they would best be considered as part of a wider piece of work. They focus on very specific points in the criminal justice system and therefore would potentially create lots of opt-ins or opt-outs. The proposed solutions certainly feel somewhat messy.