Seòmar agus comataidhean

I press amendment 4.

Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I am grateful.

Having listened with great interest to what the cabinet secretary has said, and having listened to the discussion between Fulton MacGregor and Graham Simpson, I have to say that we should be thinking about this from the victim’s perspective. If they take the significant step of reporting a crime, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect to be kept informed of any progress. In fact, it is more likely that few victims would want an opt-out clause or system because they did not want to understand or know what happened to the accused person. It is entirely reasonable to have a system that informs a victim of such an outcome, and I cannot for the life of me understand why you would not put one in place, cabinet secretary.

My amendments 1001 and 1002 relate to persons who are accused of a sexual offence, the victims of alleged sexual crimes and their journey through the judicial system.

The issue goes back a number of years. I have worked with several constituents who have faced such circumstances, and in the previous session of Parliament I was on the Health and Sport Committee, which, as part of its consideration of the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill, took a great deal of evidence from victims of such crimes. Similar evidence was taken in relation to the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Bill.

It is not overstating things to say that victims’ journey through the judicial system is extremely arduous and that the system is very poor in that respect. Covid has exacerbated the situation exponentially, with victims’ cases being put back time and again. That causes stress and it has an enormous impact on their mental health, which is hard to witness. The trial of the accused in the case of one of my constituents has been put back five times with the result that she now feels unable to continue and the case has been quashed.

Reporting of the crimes that we are talking about is already very low, with conviction rates being even lower. The current system does little to encourage victims to come forward and to support them in doing so—in fact, I think that it does exactly the opposite. Many accused persons are using the Covid emergency to their advantage, to the detriment of the victim.

Over the past few years, Parliament has discussed such matters frequently, including as part of its consideration of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Bill and the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill. I have even had a meeting on the issue with the Lord Advocate. It is accepted across the board, and across the chamber, that there is a significant issue that has yet to be addressed. Despite that acceptance, however, there has been no movement on the issue to date. I therefore ask the committee to consider my amendments.

What I am trying to do is to indicate to the courts that, specifically in trials involving people who are accused of sexual crimes, given the stress that the victims of such crimes experience and the effect on their mental health, it should be possible for the period in which such trials can be held to be extended only in exceptional circumstances in which such an extension is justified. We cannot allow the accused to use such extensions to their benefit. I am looking for the committee to give a level of protection to the victims of such crimes, and I hope that members will agree to my amendments.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Thank you, convener.

I think that the cabinet secretary misses a huge point. As Pauline McNeill has alluded to, if you go into a court and watch court proceedings, you will find that it is normal for defence lawyers to walk into court and say that they need more time to prepare their case for their client. During Covid, they have been doing that multiple times and have been allowed to do so. All that I am asking for in my amendments is that we indicate to the court that the bar for extending the period has to be higher than that.

That would reduce the backlog that we so want to reduce. If we keep extending cases, as defence lawyers are allowed to do at the moment, the backlog will not be reduced. As I have said, victims of horrendous crimes are dropping out of proceedings, because of stress and mental health issues. My amendments are not about trying to reduce the capability of lawyers to defend or prosecute, but about making sure that there has to be a reason for extensions and that they are not just granted as a matter of course.

Good morning to the panel. It is good to see you in person.

I will start with Mr Humpherson. I have long talked about the need to create systems that are not just a collection of data. Our ability to collaborate, communicate and use the data in the most effective way is not where it should be, not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK. The pandemic has highlighted to a great degree that we need to do better. Where are we with that? What lessons have we learned? What actions have been taken to increase our background information technology system, which allows a colossal amount of data to be gathered and collated?

It would be really interesting to get the two of you together, as two significant players in this area, to understand where the disconnect is.

I have one further small question, following on from my colleague John Mason’s question, about how television and radio put information across as the science evolves. Early in the pandemic, Jason Leitch and Nicola Sturgeon said that the evidence for masks was not there. Of course, as the science evolved, the evidence for masks was there. Early on, those working in the public health environment would be saying that we should be careful what we say to people, but things can completely change. Are you susceptible to a certain amount of criticism, especially around free speech, if you prevent people from saying something that becomes the reality a wee bit later on?

I will be very quick.

Dr Phin, what impact did SARS and avian flu have on our thinking? I think that it was suspected that there could be 50,000 deaths from avian flu in the UK, but it turned out to be something like 464. Did that stat influence the way in which we approached this particular pandemic?