���˿���

I will not press amendment 68. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, particularly about the pilot that has been proposed. I would like to hear more about that before stage 3. That sounds like a positive development, so I will not press amendment 68 or move amendment 64, but I may bring them back at stage 3.

Amendment 68, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 265 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

I intend to withdraw my—

I thank the member for his intervention. As I was saying, I intend to withdraw amendment 65 and not move my other amendments in this group, given that the Scottish Government has decided not to proceed with its very controversial proposals, which, I would argue, were not evidence based. I was surprised by some of what the cabinet secretary said, in that my understanding is that we were not presented with evidence that judge-only trials led to different outcomes. It is a very wide debate and we have to put the interests of victims at the centre of the process. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has not proceeded with the proposals, given their controversial nature. I therefore do not intend to proceed with my amendments.

Amendment 65, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 66 not moved.

Amendment 53 moved—[Russell Findlay]—and agreed to.

Section 66—Report on section 65 pilot

Amendment 54 moved—[Russell Findlay]—and agreed to.

Before section 67

I have two amendments in this group, amendments 68 and 64, both of which aim to reduce trauma by empowering victims to ensure that they have information and are in a position to make representations. At the moment, victims often do not have information about the legal process around their case and communication is regularly poor. Indeed, complainers often describe the criminal justice system as retraumatising. My amendments aim to empower victims within the process.

Amendment 68 would require the Scottish Government to set up an independent legal representation pilot for rape victims to give them information and advice. There is significant scope in Scotland to give victims far more advice and support in the justice system. As we know, complainers often say that they find the challenge of retelling and sometimes reliving their stories retraumatising. The experience of the criminal justice system for complainers is also often felt to be retraumatising, intimidating and disempowering. My amendment 68 calls for a pilot for complainers that is similar to systems that exist in many other jurisdictions, including California, most European countries, Australia, Colombia, Ireland and many other countries across the world. Many of those systems have brought in representation for victims in recent decades—that representation was not initially in place. Scotland needs to look at such systems in more detail.

The amendment states that

“The Scottish Ministers must, by regulations, provide that any person who is or appears to be a victim of rape or attempted rape and meets any other specified criteria is ... to be entitled to independent legal representation”.

I understand that, in other countries, advice extends beyond a year—for example, it could be until the conclusion of compensation. Is there any particular reason why the timeframe of a year has been chosen? Is there any evidence that that is right? We can imagine situations in which, a number of years later, there are live issues.

As Maggie Chapman will be well aware, one of the issues is what happens in the court. That is complicated, because different interests and individuals are involved in that process. As the cabinet secretary will be well aware, any proposal on representation in court involves an awful lot of detailed work with the different parts of the court process, and that work has been happening in relation to the very limited form of independent legal representation that is proposed in the bill. Does Maggie Chapman agree that the report that she proposes could scope out some of that and look at where there might be further representation?

The principle behind the amendment is that it should be clear to a complainer where to go and that there should be a named person or persons from whom they would be able to get information. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that principle is incorporated in the work that she advises is on-going?

The cabinet secretary spoke about hierarchy as a negative—she said that we should not have a hierarchy. As Pauline McNeill knows, at the moment, the people with experience of hearing rape and sexual assault cases are High Court judges, and one concern is that we are moving towards a situation in which sheriffs would hear rape or serious sexual assault cases. That may be a good idea or a bad idea, but it is not a concept that we have scrutinised.

I look forward to considering that in more detail before stage 3.

Has the cabinet secretary looked at the likely costs of the pilot? Will she be able to provide that detail today or, if she cannot do so, after this meeting, so that we have a better understanding of the pilot’s scope and whether it will be available to women throughout Scotland to opt into or will be only in, say, the Glasgow area?

Yes, I will.