Hansard

As the Presiding Officer says, I speak in this debate on behalf of the Justice Committee, which was the lead committee considering the bill. However, I want to put on record—I feel a letter to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee coming on—that I have never understood why, in a stage 1 debate, the cabinet secretary or minister gives the Government’s response to the convener’s report on behalf of the committee before the convener has reported to the chamber. It would be much more useful if I got to say my stuff and then—if he will forgive me for saying so—the cabinet secretary gave his response afterwards. Much of my speech has probably been pre-empted, but off I go anyway.

The bill has two main purposes: first, to improve the experience of victims and witnesses, which was the focus of the Justice Committee’s consideration; and secondly, to create the national confidential forum, which was examined by the Health and Sport Committee and which my colleague Duncan McNeil, along with other members, will speak about. The Justice Committee has already written to the Health and Sport Committee to say that we anticipate that it should consider those provisions at stage 2, as we took no evidence on them and that would seem an appropriate division of the bill.

I, too, thank all those who provided written and oral submissions. I also thank the members of the Justice Committee, which it is always a pleasure to chair—that is a brownie point for me. I also thank all those victims who spoke to committee members about their individual experiences of the criminal justice system during a specially arranged private and informal discussion. Key themes from that session were reflected in the committee’s formal scrutiny of the bill and in its report. I know how difficult it was for those people to speak to us about their experiences and to relive the pain that they had suffered five or 10 years previously. We saw how the pain of those events and of their experiences of the justice system was just below the surface.

As the cabinet secretary has said—I shall not say that more than once—the committee supports the general principles of the bill. We believe that the bill will provide much-needed support and protection for victims and witnesses. Many people in those positions hope never to be in a court, and of course it is an extraordinarily difficult experience for them. However, our stage 1 report highlights, as it should, a number of areas that could be improved to ensure, in particular—I know that this is a difficult issue—that the rights both of the accused and of victims and witnesses are balanced appropriately. Let me highlight some of those issues.

On the definition of victim, like the Faculty of Advocates we are concerned that the innocence of the accused might be compromised. Therefore, we suggested the use of the term “complainer”, which is used in certain sections of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The cabinet secretary rejected that in his response, but I think that we still have concerns about the proposal. However, I will leave members to raise that point in the open debate.

On the general principles, there was broad support that certain criminal justice bodies should follow those in their dealings with victims and witnesses, but there was some confusion and concern, which we felt will be shared by the general public, about the provision that gives victims and witnesses a right

“to participate effectively in the investigation and proceedings.”

Victim Support Scotland went so far as to suggest that the provision

“should be struck from the bill”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 16 April 2013; c 2596.]

There are concerns that such a right would lead people to have expectations that would never be fulfilled and were never intended to be fulfilled. I note that we will look at a more detailed and practical explanation of how victims and witnesses are expected to be involved in the process.

Communication with victims and witnesses is very important and is not as effective or as co-ordinated as it should be. Victim Support Scotland told the committee that victims have to tell their story around 16 times during the course of reporting a crime through to the trial process. That should not happen. Therefore, the committee believes that individuals working in the criminal justice system should be properly trained to show sensitivity and respect in their communications with victims. Any written information that is provided must be—these are key words—in plain English.

Although continuity in the support that is provided across the system is needed, like the cabinet secretary we do not believe that a compelling case was made for the introduction of case companions or the establishment of a victims commissioner. The issue with case companions is a practical one about how someone could always be available as a case companion to liaise with a witness or a victim. However, we certainly think that there should be continuity in the personnel who keep people informed.

Jenny Marra rose—