Rape and Serious Assault Victims (Provision of Court Transcripts)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider an independent external evaluation of the pilot scheme that provides victims in rape and serious assault cases with access to transcripts, in light of reports of some waiting a year for transcripts of their court cases. (S6T-02446)
As I intimated to you, Presiding Officer, and to the member, I am answering this question because both the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety are unavoidably engaged on important Scottish Government business elsewhere.
The Scottish Government recognises that considerable delays in people receiving transcripts will cause distress, and we apologise for that. It is not good enough, and we are working closely with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to address the issue. The pilot was extended for a further year, so that lessons can be learned on delivery and on communication with requesters, which also needs to be addressed. The pilot has proved to be successful in that more than 87 applications were received from March 2024 to February 2025.
We will continue to work with the court service to ensure that any operational challenges are overcome. That includes an on-going evaluation process, which will rightly reflect the feedback from applicants.
Ms Clark will also be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs committed to working with members of the Scottish Parliament to consider an amendment at stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to create a statutory right to transcripts.
Over the weekend, three women who were raped by a controlling abuser described the scheme as “shoddy” and “insensitive”. I hope that the Scottish Government will consider a review. Will any evaluation or review that is done include feedback from survivors? Is the Government doing any work with victim support organisations to mitigate retraumatisation risks?
Clearly, all of that work must be trauma informed. It is essential that feedback from applicants forms part of any evaluation and that it includes the perspectives of organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland.
We regularly review the content of the application forms to address known and emerging challenges. Importantly, there need to be offers of support at the time of receipt of the information, because, as the member has indicated, how it is received can cause further concerns. How it is received is agreed in advance with the requesters.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has raised the issue of how information is received. Some victims are now saying that they received an email with the transcript without any notice that it was coming, after many months of waiting. Has the Scottish Government given consideration to improving personalised communication, particularly in cases with not guilty verdicts? A number of women are now raising that as a concern.
How the information is received clearly is an issue. That is why planning in advance is important. Of course, that can be done only on an individual basis. Some people have requested that they be emailed and some people have requested information in other forms. Paying attention to such requests, particularly the aspect of communications, is really important. I will ask the cabinet secretary to address the issue of receiving transcripts in cases with not guilty verdicts. Every individual’s situation is different, but the trauma that people perceive and have experienced has to be recognised.
Absolutely no one wants survivors to have to wait any longer than is necessary for a court transcript. I hope that that issue can be resolved as part of the evaluation of the pilot.
I welcome the commitment by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to work with me and others ahead of stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill on making the provision of access to transcripts permanent within the terms of the on-going pilot. However, I am a little concerned about the implications of another external evaluation for further progress on the pilot. Can the cabinet secretary outline how such an evaluation could impact the progress of the pilot?
It would be of concern if the evaluation were to delay making the pilot statutory. It is important that lessons from the pilot are used to improve how any statutory process would operate. Some of the emerging detail, such as the reasons for applying for transcripts, has reaffirmed how transcripts can play a role in a person-centred, trauma-informed justice system. It is vital that any revised system takes account of the experiences of victims, irrespective of how that is done. However, that should not be done at the expense of improving access to transcripts generally, which is what the cabinet secretary is aiming to achieve through the work on amending the bill.
Having to wait a year for a transcript is unacceptable by any standard. It also demonstrates that our justice system is neither modern nor digitised in any way. The cabinet secretary will know that I lodged an amendment at stage 2 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Criminal Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to establish a court transcript fund, which could alleviate some of these problems. Has the Government also considered whether the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which is also going through Parliament, might be the perfect opportunity to ensure that we have a modern, digitised justice system that is fit for purpose and looks after the needs of victims?
I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to address the second part of the question in relation to the modernisation programme. Digitisation has an impact across lots of public services, and how that is approached in the justice system is particularly important.
The expense of court transcripts is an issue, but some of delay that we are aware of relates to the redaction of personal information and the process for doing that. There is a process of improvement in relation to that system and how technology can improve the timescales for the provision of not only this vitally important new service but services generally. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that.
I recently met a constituent who had been raped in 2022. The case went to trial in 2024, but there was a not proven verdict. That brought home to me how dreadful the stress and the lasting trauma is, and that continues even today. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will convey to the cabinet secretary for justice the significance of obtaining the transcript and the need for continuing support when the transcript is delivered, because one must never underestimate the impact, particularly of a not proven verdict, on a victim.
I reflect the concerns of anybody who has been involved in giving evidence in situations that can reassert their trauma. A trauma-informed system can help to address that. The member reflects why that is important in the first place. Providing the transcripts was intended to help to address some of the on-going concerns and to recognise that, at the time of giving evidence, the person might not immediately reflect on or remember what was said, for obvious reasons. Introducing the pilot was the right step; the issue is how to improve the process during the pilot as well as about what happens in the statutory system. I hope that the lessons that were learned during the pilot will help to inform continuous changes as of now and will ensure the strength of the statutory system, if the Parliament approves that when the bill is amended, for exactly the reasons that Christine Grahame set out.
Scottish Universities (Funding Model)
To ask the Scottish Government what practical steps it is taking to review the funding model for Scottish universities, in light of recent reports that the number of international students enrolled at Scottish universities fell by more than 10 per cent between 2023 and 2024. (S6T-02448)
The drop in international student numbers that was revealed last week did not come as a surprise to institutions, as they had already felt the impact of it. Although the specific numbers crystallised the scale of the issue, they did not introduce a new dimension. We were already alive to the issue.
For the past year, the Scottish Government and the sector have been working closely on international promotional activity that is aimed at mitigating the situation. We expect to see the results of that in the coming months. We have also been advocating, with the sector, for a Scottish graduate visa, and we need the United Kingdom Government to work with us on that.
On the specific issue of funding, thanks to the recent Scottish Government budget, which was passed with the support of Mr Rennie and his party, the university funding allocations for 2025-26, which institutions will receive sight of in the next 10 days or so from the Scottish Funding Council, will show an uplift in teaching price. As I indicated at an Education, Children and Young People Committee evidence session some months ago, in response to a question that was also from Mr Rennie, we are absolutely open to exploring the future funding model with our universities, albeit starting from the position that we will not reintroduce tuition fees.
That sounds like a step in the right direction. I accept that the UK immigration policy has not helped, but global factors have caused even more damage. Whatever the balance, it is clear that the funding model, which depends on high numbers of international students to subsidise our universities, is broken. Something has to change if we are to maintain the world-class reputation of our universities. Half of them had a deficit last year, and that was before the dire situation that has developed in Dundee. Does the minister accept that the financial model for universities is broken?
We recognise that the assumptions on which the financial settlements are predicated have changed, mainly through circumstances that are outwith Scotland’s control, as Mr Rennie alluded to. For example, damaging actions around migration and geopolitical events have impacted on a model that had worked previously.
For our part, the Government is committed to engaging constructively with the sector to future proof the funding approach. The University of Dundee situation is uppermost in all our immediate activity, but the cabinet secretary and I have had a preliminary conversation with Universities Scotland on the funding approach and have agreed to return to the subject before the summer.
We need to be clear that our support for free tuition is about more than ideology; it was founded on an equity-of-access approach. Beyond that, it is based on simple logic; we should all be mindful of the University and College Union survey of a couple of years ago that showed that, if tuition fees were to be reintroduced, as some suggest, two thirds of students would have at least to think hard about whether university was an option for them. That would potentially wreck the very foundations that our university offering is built on. Access to higher education that is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, needs to stay.
The minister knows that the issue is bigger than tuition fees; it is about the future of our universities and their world-class status. I hope that he accepts that, and I think that he understands that. If we use tuition fees as the blockage to a discussion all the time, we are going to get nowhere.
Can I take the discussion with the minister forward? What particular discussions will there be? Who will be involved? By when will the discussions be held? Will all the parties in the Parliament be invited? When will we see a conclusion?
We are absolutely open to having constructive cross-party discussions on the university funding model’s future, while recognising the changing circumstances that institutions find themselves in and what the sector’s future asks might look like.
As Mr Rennie knows, in addition to the work with the university sector, a Royal Society of Edinburgh conference, which will help to move the discussion forward, is coming up towards the end of May. The sector is keen to lead on the development of potential solutions, but my door is absolutely open to Mr Rennie and others who want to engage constructively on the issue and bring forward ideas.
When the facts change, people should be open to changing their minds. The reality is that the big four countries that host international students, including the United Kingdom, are all seeing massive reductions in the numbers who are attending. In Scotland, the number of international students has dropped even further.
What is depressing is the response of the First Minister, who has made it clear that he is not prepared to even discuss any fundamental changes to the funding models. On the basis that no discussion can include all variables, what financial assessment has been done in respect of keeping the sector solvent? How much more public money would it take for that to be achieved?
I want to make a point about the level of the drop in international students. The situation in England has been compared with that in Scotland, but they are not comparable, because of the different education systems. I can go into further detail at a future date, when time allows.
The First Minister did not rule out changes to the future funding model—he was very clear about that, and rightly so. The return of tuition fees, which Mr Kerr perhaps favours, is not an option for this Government. Beyond that, we are willing to have a discussion with the sector. If the Conservatives want to engage constructively on the issue for a change, even they are more than welcome to engage on it.
I take the minister back to Willie Rennie’s second question, which was about whether the funding model is broken. It is important for Scotland—including the university sector and others—to recognise whether the Government feels that we are in a position in which the model is broken and needs to be fixed. The minister talked about what, who and by when, and he mentioned the RSE conference at the end of May, but does the Scottish Government accept that the current model is broken?
I do not accept that the current model is broken, but I accept that it is under severe pressure, largely because of circumstances that are outwith our control. I say very gently and with respect to Mr Whitfield that it is incumbent on us all not to add to the pressures that the sector is already facing.
One such additional pressure that has arisen is a £45 million ask as a result of Labour’s employer national insurance hike. I am happy to engage constructively but, collectively, we all have to recognise the pressures that are on the sector, wherever they have come from.
The minister says that the system is not broken, but we now have a situation in which, because of a cap, the number of Scotland-domiciled students who are unable to go to a Scottish university has increased by 84 per cent. That is a broken system for any of our constituents.
I will ask a question to be as helpful as I can to the minister. Will he commit to the Scottish Government commissioning an independent review of further and higher education to report before the summer recess—the point when he said that he wanted deliberations to take place—and then to having a cross-party discussion?
We can stand here and bandy statistics back and forth. I can point to the fact that record numbers of Scots are going to university in Scotland, which is a success story. I will take no lectures from the Conservatives—[Interruption.] Here we go, Presiding Officer. I just knew that that would be the reaction.
I will take no lectures from the Conservatives about taking responsibility, because, fundamentally, we are in this situation, first, as a result of the actions of their Westminster bosses in wrecking the international student market through their migration policy. Let us also not forget that the Conservatives sought to vote down the budget, which will provide welcome additional funding for the university sector.
Agricultural Support Payments
I declare an interest as a small farmer.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that the reported £203 million it spent on external advisers to help administer agricultural support payments to be good value for money. (S6T-02447)
The figure that the member has mentioned relates to spend that spans more than a decade. Most of the existing information technology systems that support agricultural stakeholders were developed for the common agricultural policy in 2015. The money has been used predominantly for the submission and processing of rural applications. The system availability for the scheme in 2024 was 99.92 per cent, and £475 million has been paid out so far, with the final total expected to be £555 million. Payment performance has steadily improved, with payments now being made sooner. Over the period, we have paid out about £5 billion in agricultural support payments.
We are not designing our future capabilities based on current IT, but we must provide the industry with stability and certainty as we develop new services.
I remind members that the £203 million is on top of the nearly £180 million that it cost the Government to build the system in the first place. At the current rate of spend, by 2030, the Government will have spent £500 million on an IT system and consultants.
Over the past two weeks, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee has heard from industry leaders who have expressed serious concerns about the future direction of agricultural policy. Jim Walker summed it up by saying:
“the way of delivering the support payments to agriculture is just not fit for purpose ... The computer system is knackered and has been for years”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 12 March 2025; c 5.]
Does the minister agree with Jim Walker that this costly system is not fit for purpose?
No, I simply do not agree with Jim Walker’s assessment. First of all, he is not an IT specialist and does not know what is going on behind the scenes. [Interruption.] I point out to Conservative members, as they barrack me, that, as I have said, 99.92 per cent of payments have been made on time. We have brought forward the payment period, so payments have regularly been made far before the deadline dates. It is normal to spend roughly 20 per cent of the IT set-up spend that was initially spent in the first place.
I know that some members will use a committee session as an opportunity to beat the Government, but the reality is that the system works and is making the payments. The most important thing to our farming community is that the payments get into people’s bank accounts on time and in full.
The Government might have made some payments, but it is costing a lot of money to do that. I do not think that the minister really gets it. Every year over the past eight years, the Scottish National Party has squandered more than £25 million on IT consultancy fees. That money could have been used instead to double the sustainable farming capital fund. There is a lack of coherent agricultural policy, there is harmful new rural legislation and there has been a real-terms cut to the rural budget. In the light of the serious concerns that have been raised not by me but by agricultural leaders at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, will the minister spell out what immediate action he is taking to ensure that our essential farmers and crofters will be supported in the future?
I find it ludicrous that the member is saying that we have squandered £20 million when we have been making payments on time and in full every year, well before we were required to do so. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the minister.
The Government has done nothing other than support the agriculture sector time after time. Every time that there has been an issue, we have found solutions to it, so I find the member’s questions absolutely ludicrous.
We have interest in the question, and I would be grateful if we made sure that questions and responses were concise.
The purpose of the payment system is to ensure that money goes into the pockets of farmers and crofters. The Scottish National Party decided that our agriculture sector deserved that money and that it was worth while, while other parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom decided to take that money off the farmers. Will the minister reiterate how the Scottish Government’s rural payments system has ensured that money gets into our agricultural sector and the rural economy on time and as quickly as possible?
As part of our transparent approach, we publish an annual payment strategy. The targets in each iteration of the strategy have been met, and payment performance has improved year on year. Indeed, we are paying under the basic payment scheme earlier than ever. I would be happy to provide the member with the data behind that in writing.
It is crucial that the sector has financial consistency, unlike what we have seen from the sustainable farming incentive down south. In addition, the Scottish Government provides funding streams to farmers and crofters via the crofting agricultural grant scheme, the croft house grant scheme, the less favoured area support scheme, the Scottish suckler beef support scheme, the Scottish upland support system and the fruit and veg aid scheme, none of which has an equivalent in England.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I am part of a family farm in Moray.
Does the minister regret that, when Fergus Ewing was the cabinet secretary, he did not scrap the £178 million failed system and implement a new system that was estimated to cost £34 million? Would that not have saved the minister the extraordinary amount of money that he has had to pay in the past 10 years?
I am not quite sure what Edward Mountain is asking when he asks whether I regret what Fergus Ewing’s decisions were a number of years ago. I know that, when he was in office, Fergus Ewing made an exceptional effort to make sure that the system worked. He got the payments out and into the bank accounts of farmers on time, which is exactly what farmers require. What they do not need is this.
The computer system is flawed, as was highlighted in a damning Audit Scotland report from back in 2017. Policy is now being devised to fit the computer system rather than the system delivering the Government’s policy. How will the minister ensure that policy is delivered? Would it be cheaper to scrap it and start again?
I do not think that it would be cheaper to scrap it and start again, because I do not think that there is any need to scrap it and start again. As I have already stated, we are getting the payments out on time. The payments that we are making to the services that are helping to sustain the system are in line with what would be expected for such agreements. The system is doing the job that we require it to do. We will definitely have to update it as we establish new schemes as we go along, but that is no reason to chuck the baby out with the bath water.
At the 12 March meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, concerns were raised about the lack of effective implementation and about the constraints that the outdated information technology system created. Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland stated:
“The biggest single constraint on policy development and, therefore, its implementation ... is the ability to deliver. There is a fundamental issue with the IT system and everything that goes with that.”
With reference to future policy, Kate Rowell, chair of Quality Meat Scotland, said:
“Unfortunately—and this brings us back to the computer system—there seems to be no way of implementing that list.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 12 March 2025; c 20, 13.]
The minister continually tells us that he listens to the industry. If he is, indeed, doing so, why are industry leaders always wrong while the minister is always right when it comes to concerns about the IT system’s limitations?
I refute the basis of the question. It is not the case that the industry is always wrong and the minister is always right—the fact is that we have a system that we know is working. We know that the system is getting the payments out. We know that farmers are being paid and they are being paid ahead of time. I will repeat that all day, if that is what I have to do.
This attack is based purely on something that the Tories have decided. They have an unwarranted and unjustified attack line on the Government. The payments continue to get made.
That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment or two for front benchers to organise.
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report