Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener, and good morning, all. With the committee’s indulgence, I will be speaking on behalf of my colleague Russell Findlay, who has lodged several amendments. He has asked me to apologise for his non-attendance, which is because he sits on the Criminal Justice Committee and it is currently taking evidence from witnesses about other legislation.

Transparency is critical to the functioning of Scotland’s justice system. In recent years, more cases of a criminal nature have been directed to the children’s panel system, rather than being prosecuted in the criminal courts. That is likely to become more common. As we have heard, some of those cases already involve serious crimes of violence and sexual violence. In addition, the bill proposes that the age limit for children’s panel referrals will increase from 16 to 18, which will also generate more panel cases, some of which will be criminal in nature.

On 29 March 2023, the Criminal Justice Committee took evidence on the legislation. Russell Findlay asked Kate Wallace of Victim Support Scotland about a lack of transparency for victims in relation to the panel system. She said:

“One of the biggest issues that comes to us for people in that situation is that they are really surprised by the lack of information. A lot of effort is put into explaining the process to them but they do not get any information about their own circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult for people not only to understand what is happening to the perpetrator but to safety plan for their own recovery. That becomes really challenging when you operate in a total information vacuum.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 March 2023; c 15.]

Kate Wallace also said:

“Information-sharing provisions are needed so that people are clear about what information can and will be shared with people who have been harmed by a child or young person.

The types of information that will be shared need to be spelled out. If you go through an adult system, you have rights to information about updates to do with your case. For example, if someone escapes or absconds from a prison setting, you are entitled to that information. If you sign up to the victim notification scheme, you are also entitled to know when that person has been released. None of those provisions apply when a child or young person has harmed you. That aspect of the bill needs to be considered and provisions need to be put in place on it.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 March 2023; c 14.]

Russell Findlay agrees with Victim Support Scotland, as do I. Amendment 189 would help to fill the information vacuum that is experienced by crime victims.

Amendment 190, in the name of Russell Findlay, also relates to transparency. For victims or bereaved relatives, the justice system can often be unfamiliar and, I dare say, traumatic. The Crown says that

“Providing reasons for ... decisions is essential to retain confidence and to deliver accountability and transparency to those whose lives have been affected”.

In 2015, the victims’ right to review scheme was introduced by the Crown Office, which

“gives victims the right to request a review of a decision by COPFS not to prosecute a criminal case or to discontinue criminal proceedings that have commenced.”

Amendment 190 is necessary because it seeks to extend those same important rights to victims when the alleged perpetrator is not prosecuted but is, instead, sent to the children’s panel.

Members might find some context useful here. A 2018 thematic review of the victims’ right to review scheme was published by HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. It found that, over a particular one-year period, the Crown received one review request for every 306 cases in which a decision had been taken not to prosecute or to discontinue proceedings. Interestingly, around 10 per cent of those applications were successful.

It seems likely that there might be similar rates of appeals for the smaller number of cases involving young people. That is why such situations need to be covered in the bill. Victims cannot rely on ministerial assurances about what will happen.

I will therefore move amendments 189 and 190 in Russell Findlay’s name.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Do I take it from that that the minister is opposing amendment 189 on the ground that she feels it to be ambiguous, or is she minded to support it and simply seeks more clarity?

So, on that point, the minister believes that it is not open to people to request a review, as would be the case in the other courts. Is that the principle on which her position is founded?

With respect, you oppose amendment 3, and I am asking you to articulate your precise reasons for opposing it.

Very briefly. The minister said that establishing whether every subject child already had a solicitor for every hearing taking place under the 2011 act was a “logistical impossibility”, but does she worry that she is putting logistics over ensuring representation?

Good morning. The budget proposes a £28.5 million cut to the teaching grant for universities. Yesterday, the finance secretary hesitantly quantified that as equating to about 1,200 first-year student places, but others have suggested that the figure could be more than 3,500. Given that this is your portfolio, cabinet secretary, you must have calculated this: how many young Scots will not have a place at Scottish universities going forward?

One thing that is certain is that, working within the total capped numbers, funding to Scottish universities for each Scottish student place is less than the cost to the university of providing that place. It is 19 per cent less in real terms than it was in 2013-14, and it is about 21 per cent less than the funding for English universities. Given that, does the cabinet secretary worry that this budget will make Scottish universities ever more dependent on international students? If so, what plans does she have to address that?

The cabinet secretary is suggesting that her Government’s policies are making the universities ever more dependent on attracting international students while, in the same breath, saying that decisions taken elsewhere are making that more difficult to do. What is she doing to address that and ensure that Scottish universities are not dependent on international students?

You have already said that.