Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will follow on from the general theme of decisions to prosecute and the deals that take place. There is another important aspect, which is where the Crown has decided not to prosecute or to discontinue proceedings. I lodged amendment 239 because I feel that there is still much work to be done in that area, and I hope that the Government will accept some of the points that I am about to make.

Amendment 239 would put in legislation the victim’s ultimate right to be informed when a decision has been made not to prosecute a crime or alleged crime or to discontinue proceedings. The amendment would achieve that by adding a new section to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, which would state that, where a prosecutor decides to discontinue prosecution or not to prosecute a case, the prosecutor must, as soon as reasonably practicable, inform the victim of that. The definition of “prosecutor” could include the Lord Advocate, Crown counsel or a procurator fiscal. That could of course be expanded at stage 3 to make it more appropriate or to include any other relevant justice partner or stakeholder that the Government sees fit to be that point of contact.

Ultimately, why have we got to this place? I consulted on this very issue in relation to my original proposed member’s bill at the end of 2021. I refer members to pages 19 to 21 of the consultation document, which was published by the Parliament at the time. The question asked was whether we should enshrine the right of victims to be notified of a decision not to prosecute. Of the 146 individual responses, there was an 83.6 per cent positivity rate in answer to that question. That told me, even back then, that there was an appetite for change.

The numbers speak for themselves. At the time of that consultation, the only data available was from 2019-20, which showed that there were around 88,000 summary cases in court that year. Since then, I have had more up-to-date information from the COPFS. Its published data for the year 2022-23 shows that 13,000 cases were marked for no action at all and 24,500 cases were marked for no further action.

Of course, not every one of those 38,000 cases that came before the Crown would have had a direct victim, but there were a substantial number of cases in the system in which somebody made a decision not to proceed, and one can only assume that a vast number of those will have had an alleged victim somewhere in the process. That same year, only 192 victims exercised their right to request a review of the decision not to prosecute. Of the 192 who requested a review, only 29 cases had the decision not to prosecute overturned.

Of those 38,000 cases, two or three dozen led to a reversal of the decision not to prosecute. Why is that? Because the percentage of people who request a review is tiny. I suspect—in fact, I am led to believe—that that is because very few people are aware of their right to request a review. Many are in a difficult and traumatic position and are probably not aware of how to go about doing it. The procedure is published on the COPFS website, but goodness knows how many people get told about their right to review or how to go about exercising it, or how many are even fit and capable of doing so at the time. We should bear in mind that, at that point in a decision, we are generally talking about the first couple of months after a crime has been reported.

The Crown Office says that, when a decision is made, you can request a review. Anecdotally, though, the numbers seem to stack up and bear out my submission that not enough people are being told about a decision not to prosecute. However, we can fix that, and amendment 239 is one way of going about it. I would be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say.

I ask members and the cabinet secretary to listen to the views of Victim Support Scotland. When I asked this very question about notification in my consultation some three years ago—it was question 10 in my consultation document—its response was:

“We strongly believe that it should not be for a victim of a crime, or their family ... to actively seek information about whether the crime against them is being prosecuted. It should be for the ... (COPFS) or their representatives to proactively contact victims to inform them of such decisions.”

We can amend the bill in any way that the Government sees fit. I am not entirely sworn to my proposed wording. I have gone about this in the way that I think will meet the objective, although it might be argued that it is unresourceable or impractical; that it will be too difficult; that the volume of cases will make it unreasonable; and that people will not have given permission to be contacted. That is not the point—the point is that far too many decisions are being made at the moment, without victims, or alleged victims, being told about them. That has to change, and I am happy to work with the Government ahead of stage 3 on any amendment that it sees fit.

The word “transparency” is key here. One of the themes that has come up in my meetings with victims, of which I have had a few ahead of this session, and in my conversations with Victim Support Scotland—I suspect that the cabinet secretary will have had similar conversations—is about having accountability and transparency in the system. They are big asks. However, those are just words; how you go about putting them in legislation can be difficult. My amendment, and a number of other amendments to which I have spoken already and which I will probably speak to when we come to the next couple of groups of amendments, do exactly that through practical means and measures.

This is stage 2, so I am looking for the Government to look on these amendments positively and favourably. They are signs that we are serious about changing specific pieces of legislation to improve communication, transparency and accountability. That is what people are asking for. We can go about that in different ways, but this is one practical way of doing so.

I support other amendments in the group, although I appreciate that they might well need some work ahead of stage 3. I am willing to do the same with mine ahead of stage 3, because I believe that this is a fundamental change that we could and should make, and I look forward to hearing what the Government has to say about it.

I will be brief as I am mindful of time. At our previous meeting, the cabinet secretary talked about the reform of the VNS, the integration of systems and what seems to be an enhanced role for the victim contact team. Perhaps it could be the responsibility of the latter to notify all parties involved about the decisions that the Crown makes. Clearly, the resource issue must be addressed, but a responsibility needs to be set in black and white, too, for someone to notify people about what is going on with their case—ultimately, if a plea deal is made or a decision is made not to prosecute, someone must notify the victims of that. That could be an area of enhancement as part of the reform that is happening anyway.

Will the member take an intervention?

On the latter point, the victims commissioner seems like a good place for the charter to live, because, if we are to create a commissioner’s office, it is important that it is more than just an expensive quango—it needs to have teeth. If the commissioner’s remit is very much to have a social contract with the public, in that they know that there is an advocate out there who is looking after their rights and whose sole focus and raison d’être is to improve outcomes for victims, the relationship should be between the commissioner and the public—in this scenario, victims.

I have drafted another version of the amendment—amendment 236—which would place the onus on ministers instead of the victims commissioner. It could be argued that the charter should be the responsibility of ministers. However, when I have lodged such amendments in the past, there has been quite a lot of pushback from ministers. Both options are available for the committee and, ultimately, it can vote on either option. I am interested in hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Amendment 236 is a back-up, if amendments are agreed to that would remove the commissioner from the bill. I would still like to see the charter in place, so placing the duty on ministers is a fallback position. Personally, I am not that fussed. Victims want improved outcomes and all justice agencies to work together with a shared common goal. The charter is one method of achieving that. I will stop there and listen to what other members have to say.

I move amendment 234.

Happily so.

Thank you.

Will the minister give way?

Excellent. I am glad that you accept the recommendations.

Let us look at the key messages in the Audit Scotland report, which sit in the opening pages—pages 3 and 4—and set out what I would say is quite stark criticism of the Scottish Government. I will use the language of the Auditor General’s report, which uses phrases such as

“The Scottish Government ... has not yet set out a clear vision of how it will change public service ... models ... It does not ... have a good ... understanding of its cost base or made progress against audit recommendations”,

it

“has not provided the necessary leadership to public ... bodies to ... deliver ... reform”

and it

“has not been sufficiently transparent with the Scottish Parliament or the public about the current fiscal situation.”

Are those assertions correct?

That sounds a bit like you are criticising the methodology behind the block grant adjustments. Is that correct?