Hansard

I speak first to amendment 32, which is in my name. Victims of crime should clearly have the opportunity to communicate to the court the physical, emotional and economic impact of crime. That is why I introduced the victim statement scheme, which allows victims to give a written statement describing how the offence has affected them. However, I have heard first hand from victims of crime who struggle to fully convey in writing the impact that the crime has had on them. I have been asked why it is not possible to make a victim statement by way of a pre-recorded video. In this day and age, we should explore whether such alternative means of making statements are viable; we should also ensure that we have the flexibility to utilise new technologies as they become available.Amendment 32 introduces an order-making power into section 14 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 to allow the Scottish ministers to specify the format in which victim statements can be made. Crucially, that allows formats to be piloted for specific periods of time and in specific areas. Taking a power to pilot new formats will allow for a full evaluation of any new approach to be carried out, taking into consideration the views of victims, the courts, the Crown and the defence. If pilots are successful, any new statement formats can be extended more widely.The new power will enable the Scottish ministers and criminal justice partners to take a balanced and considered approach to extending the format in which victim statements can be delivered, while allowing for the development of new formats in response to advances in technology.In amendment 86, Graeme Pearson has made a suggestion in the same vein that allows for different means by which a victim statement can be made. I welcome his attention to the matter. I have concerns, however, regarding the extent of amendment 86, in that victims would be able to read their victim statement live in court. I am not sure how well that would work in practice, nor am I persuaded of the benefits of such a measure. I have concerns about the potential impact on the victim. That said, I would not want to rule out that proposal altogether and would be happy to revisit it once greater consideration has been given to how such a measure would operate in practice and the benefits and risks to the victim have been explored in more detail, which will also be informed by any pilots of alternative forms of victim statement.Amendments 30 and 31 in my name amend section 19 of the bill. The effect is that children over the age of 12, rather than 14, will be able to make victim statements in their own right. At present, children over 14 are able to make victim statements. However, as a number of victim support groups, including Children 1st and Scottish Women’s Aid, have pointed out, the age of 14 is inconsistent with other legislation relating to children, primarily the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, which provides that children over the age of 12 have testamentary capacity and are able to make decisions about many things, including instructing a solicitor.I agree that it is appropriate to align the provisions around victim statements with existing legislation as far as possible and therefore I am taking this opportunity to introduce an amendment at stage 2 to lower the minimum age from 14 to 12. However, I am not persuaded that there is a need to totally remove the minimum age limit at which children may make a statement in their own right, as proposed by Elaine Murray in amendment 68. Basing a decision on whether a child is capable of making a statement solely on the age and maturity of the child would involve additional delays in the process by requiring an assessment by a psychologist. That delay and additional process could cause further stress to the child. It is more appropriate that statements should be prepared by a parent or carer on the child’s behalf, taking into account the views of the child, as proposed in the bill and by amendments 30 and 31.I consider that requiring the court to make a decision on which carer should make the statement, where there is more than one possible candidate, as set out in amendment 68, is an unnecessary requirement. Again, that step will cause additional delays and prolong the process for the child. Where more than one person is eligible to make a statement of behalf of the child, there is existing provision in section 19 to provide for agreement to be reached by the carers themselves. It also sets out that the child must be allowed to express their views and that those views must be taken into account when the decision is made. That less formal approach does not require the involvement of the court, thereby reducing the possibility of delays and additional stress on the child.Amendment 29 is a minor drafting amendment that does not alter the overall effect of section 19 and is in consequence of amendment 32.I urge Elaine Murray and Graeme Pearson not to move amendments 68 and 86 respectively.I move amendment 29.