Hansard

I do not doubt that that is part of the problem and I will return to that issue. However, I maintain that analysis should be done in that area.

Progress has been made in some areas. Not long ago people who were accused of sexual offences were allowed to question their alleged victims directly in court. I am thankful that that inappropriate practice was ended by the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002—the result of a bill that was introduced by Jim Wallace. My colleague Margaret Smith referred to the 2002 act, as I think did Shirley-Anne Somerville. However, the 2002 act is not working as well as it might. We have all heard of cases in which people have felt intimidated and, indeed, have ended up wrecks as a result of going to court. Margaret Smith has already asked the minister whether he has any comments to make on this issue and whether things can be tightened up.

I greatly welcome the new rape crisis line and the introduction of four new national rape crisis centres, which significantly increase the range of accessible support services for victims. In line with that, there has been a steady rise in reporting of offences from a mere 775 in 1999-2000 to 1123 in 2006-07. Although it is clear that a lot more needs to be done, such increased reporting is surely the first step to securing more convictions.

I agree with a point that was raised not only by Pauline McNeill but by Margo MacDonald in her brief speech. When I was a member of the Justice 1 Committee in the previous session of Parliament, I often felt that we did not spend enough time on some justice issues and that we were always being pushed to reach our conclusions far too quickly. The Justice Committee must be given a considerable amount of time to examine this issue—and if it thinks that it needs more time to examine and reflect on the proposed bill when it is introduced, it will need to be given it. We need to take the time to get things right.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of a review in this area and welcome the report's findings as a solid basis on which to build. I particularly welcome the recommendations that are aimed at eliminating the so-called grey areas in the current law. A simple tightening of definitions would provide far more clarity on which to build criminal proceedings in our courts, and the adoption of the protective principle and inclusion of non-consent scenarios in law would represent significant steps forward.

Like Pauline McNeill and other members, I echo the Lord Advocate's acknowledgement of the importance of corroboration, which is, after all, a fundamental feature of Scots law. We need to keep a close eye on that to ensure that we do not interfere with it. Moreover, given the report's recommendation that the issue be addressed as a component of criminal law rather than simply used in reference to sexual offences, the matter must be highlighted to ensure that the necessary investigations are carried out within that context. For too long, real improvements in rape conviction rates have been held back by legal technicalities and inadequacies. Now that this opportunity has arisen, we must thoroughly investigate every angle.

I said that I welcome the report's stance on enshrining non-consent scenarios in law. However, some pertinent questions, particularly on the prominent role of alcohol and drugs in the debate, still need to be answered. An issue, for example, that must be examined is the point at which drinking alcohol or taking drugs renders one incapable of making one's own decisions. What is the difference between lost inhibitions and loss of control, and can they be differentiated legally?

Margaret Smith mentioned Scottish Government research that was carried out in 2007, which found that 27 per cent of people thought that a woman was at least partially responsible if she was drunk at the time of an attack. In that respect, I was quite taken by Bill Aitken's image of leaving his keys in his car. His comparison was a good one; after all, no one has the right to take that car. It does not matter how a young lady chooses to dress when she goes out or whether, later on, she is drunk or flirting; no one has the right to attack her.

Marlyn Glen made a good point about consent: what, indeed, is it? A person might very well be quite willing to have sexual relations with another, but that person, whether male or female, might suddenly decide to change the rules and say, "Hang on a minute. I think we should do something different." If, at that point, the first person says, "Wait a minute; I don't like oral sex" but the other person pushes the issue, that is rape.

The law simply cannot afford to be unclear and confusing. Instead, it must provide a robust framework that is fit for the 21st century and which inspires confidence in the justice system—I am sure that the interesting points that Nigel Don raised in that respect will be taken on board. A harrowing truth is that many rape convictions are lost because victims do not come forward in time, or fail to come forward at all. No victim should be dissuaded from coming forward to report such crime because they see the law as being unclear or unsympathetic.

We seek to strike an extremely fine balance: although new convictions cannot be artificially engineered through legislation, we need legislation that secures convictions where appropriate. At the same time, the accused's rights must be protected, but not at the expense of the victim's confidence in the justice system and not if it hinders the course of justice.

I fully support the report's well-measured recommendations, but we must remember that any legislative change must be carefully considered. We support the motion.