���˿���

You said that a service already exists. I am familiar with an advocacy service that exists at the moment, but the problem is that it is not national—not all survivors have access to it. On the point about whether it is a matter for a budget discussion rather than something to be put into legislation, part of the problem is that, because of budgetary constraints, some complainers never get support. Putting the provision on a statutory footing would make it much more likely that more survivors would get the advocacy support that they need. How does the cabinet secretary answer the recommendation of Lady Dorrian, given that what currently exists is not sufficient?

That is a good question. We ummed and ahhed about the cut-off point, but we thought that there needed to be some point at which the right to free independent legal advice ends. However, if there is scope for extending that, I would be up for a discussion on that between now and stage 3.

Finally on independent legal advice, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have together developed a model for that, so I hope that it will not be contentious, neither here nor in the world out there.

Amendment 264 is on the provision of independent advocacy support to complainers during criminal investigations and proceedings. That was a clear recommendation by Lady Dorrian and is supported by Rape Crisis Scotland. Where such advocacy support exists, survivors find it essential and life changing, but it is not available to all survivors across Scotland.

The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research made positive evaluations of the national advocacy service, which unfortunately is not national, and recommended that it be routine provision that is nationally funded. The centre’s evaluation report stated:

“Victims-survivors were overwhelmingly positive about the advocacy support that they had received, describing it as invaluable and life-changing”.

Indeed, survivors themselves said things such as

“to me it’s turned my life around, like, completely”,

“I found it just invaluable”

and

“This has been invaluable, it’s changed my life, it’s been fantastic”.

The service clearly fills a gap in the justice system. Victim survivors described perceived imbalances in the criminal justice system, reflecting its adversarial nature, and the perception that it protects the interests of the accused before those of the victim. Advocacy support was therefore understood to improve victim survivors’ experiences by providing someone who is independent of any investigative or prosecutorial process and whose sole remit is to protect and represent the interests of the victim survivor.

Finally, amendment 265 calls for a report on what provision of ILR to complainers might be possible. In some ways, that is a fallback position in case there is no movement on the other amendments in the group—either Katy Clark’s or mine. However, it would still be useful to gather that information as preparation for the drafting of regulations or the preparation of a pilot.

I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but there is a difference between what Katy Clark and I think about the issue and what she does. Could a report gathering information on extending ILR beyond the very specific scope that is currently in the bill help us to better understand what could be done beyond the very narrow and intrusive part of a trial that you indicate?

I welcome the pilot, but I have a couple of questions about it. The first is on timescales. First, when do you hope that the pilot could be under way? Secondly, before Katy Clark’s intervention, you mentioned the importance of advocacy; however, in this context, we are talking not about advocacy but about advice. It is important that we retain the distinction between advocacy and advice, because they are two distinct and important services.

Thanks. Oonagh, you wanted to come in.

That is really helpful and powerful.

Good morning to the witnesses and thank you for joining us. I echo the apology that Jan Savage gave at the start—none of us wants to be in this situation, and it is right that we acknowledge that the people who are most directly affected should not be in such a situation.

To follow on from the responses to Paul O’Kane’s questions, there was that case last year that made it clear that detention that was based on learning disability alone was not lawful. Obviously, that was without the legal mechanisms. Cathy Asante, you said that no such case has been brought into domestic law along the same lines. Are you aware of conversations between ministers and local authorities or local authorities and care providers about the legal risk that Paul O’Kane spoke about? It should not take the threat of legal action to change the situation.

It seems as though there is something lacking in the care or support that would enable people to become de-institutionalised: we know that what is happening is technically legal, but it should not be, and we know that we should be able to provide the support in communities. Is it a question of resourcing or the lack of availability of care workers, or is it due to something more fundamental than that?

That is really helpful. In some ways, that leads me nicely on to my next couple of questions, which are also about some of the key findings of your report.

Your report said that you

“found little meaningful engagement with human rights standards.”

Do people know that those standards are in place? Is it a question of awareness and understanding, or is that awareness and understanding there and what we are lacking is oversight? Or is it, as you suggested in answer to another question, all of the above? We sitting around this table might think that we have an understanding of those human rights standards, but are you convinced that there is awareness and understanding among the people who are out there providing the support and the institutionalisation, before we even get to oversight?

That was helpful. Jan, you said that there has not been more focus on that issue—deadlines come and go, et cetera—and there is a lack of outrage about it. Is there underlying cultural prejudice in society and all of the institutions that are supposed to support the transition away from institutionalisation? Are people with learning disabilities not taken seriously or considered to be of as much importance as they should be?

Thanks, Cathy. In different ways, you have all alluded to the idea that, although we talk about having a human rights-based approach or a human rights-centred approach to service provision, that is just talk. I think that that is the case, from what we are hearing this morning. Would you agree?