���˿���

Not moved. Thank you. [Laughter.] I knew it was one of those words.

Amendment 1067 not moved.

The homelessness provisions in the bill are potentially game changing, but they could quite easily fall flat if they are not properly resourced and monitored. Pilots of some of the key provisions are being planned, and we will learn from those. Given the complexity of some of the provisions, it is important that we step back and review how things are working out at dedicated points after commencement and enactment, and that is what my amendments 1067 and 1074 seek to enable.

Amendment 1067 provides for a review of specific

“duties of relevant bodies ... within 2 years of the date that section 41 comes into force”.

It is about ensuring that the relevant bodies are working in the way that the bill intends them to work and that they have the resources and the connections and relationships that they need.

Amendment 1074 provides for a review of the whole of part 5 of the act

“within 2 years of this Part coming into force”.

Again, it is about ensuring that the bill does the things that we all hope that it will to tackle homelessness and provide support to people who need it.

I am open to conversations with the Scottish Government about whether the mechanisms and timescales in my amendments are the right ones, but I hope that we can agree today that the principle of review—the principle that we should seriously and rigorously review this section of the bill post commencement—is important, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in response.

I wholly support the other amendments in the group, in particular those in the name of Mark Griffin.

On a point of order, convener. I should have noted my entry in the register of members’ interests at the start of the meeting. Prior to my election, I worked for a rape crisis centre. I have said that at previous meetings, but I forgot to do so this morning. I apologise.

Good morning, convener, committee, and minister. Thank you for the opportunity to give a brief recap of my amendments 1022 and 1069 in this group.

Amendment 1022, which was worked up with Scottish Women’s Aid, expands the definition of domestic violence to cover coercive control and other aspects such as threatening, degrading and violent behaviour. We feel that that is important because certain groups of people, particularly young people and, often, women with children, might feel that they cannot leave an abusive situation as they would be intentionally making themselves homeless. We need to ensure that they have the support and protections that they need.

Specific examples of abuse and violence perpetrated by someone who is not a partner or ex-partner also need to be included in the legislation—indeed, that is the second part of amendment 1022. The more we can identify domestic abuse in our homelessness systems, the better we can help victims and survivors and support them to move on and build better lives. That is helped by having the wider definition.

Amendment 1069 seeks to understand how this section of the bill will work. We know that it is important to monitor how these measures will support women with children at risk of homelessness, and the amendment, therefore, sets out a review mechanism to ensure that we capture information so that we can see what is and is not working and improve things for the future.

I am in two minds about this, but given what the minister has said and the future that Bob Doris’s amendment may or may not bring, I will withdraw—or rather, not press—my amendment at this stage.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that, before I was elected, I worked for a rape crisis centre.

My amendments in the group all deal with different forms of support that I and others believe that survivors need. If it is okay with the committee, I will take a bit of time to speak about each of them. First, amendment 266 on independent legal representation makes provision through regulations for ILR for complainers throughout criminal proceedings. In the paper “Without Fear or Favour: A Voice for Rape Survivors in the Criminal Justice System”, which she published 14 years ago, Professor Fiona Raitt from the University of Dundee said:

“With the exception of Scotland and England and Wales, every country in Europe gives complainers in rape cases some form of entitlement”

to ILR. She went on to say:

“The accused’s right to fair trial is paramount in our legal process. The prosecutor is bound by that principle. Because the Crown has to take account of the accused’s right to a fair trial, then when his interests are place[d] in competition with the woman’s interests, hers will always be trumped. An independent representative is not constrained in this way. Her sole consideration is the interests of her client.”

This is about justice and the right to participation in a genuinely just justice process, as well as the right to privacy.

I believe that the provisions in the bill are welcome, but they are not sufficient. COPFS is doing much more, which is also welcome, but it represents the wider public interest, which is not always that of the complainant. It is clear that things that happen before a trial begins can dramatically affect how that trial proceeds. For instance, relevant decisions are made at pre-trial hearings, so the complainer needs representation then, not just at the trial itself.

Overall, the patriarchal and misogynistic biases that are still embedded in our society, which are only too obvious in our justice system, especially when dealing with crimes of power such as sexual offences, are structural injustices, so they need structural solutions.

The committee heard that there was strong support for ILR, as indicated in the stage 1 report. As Lise Gotell from the University of Alberta said when discussing the Canadian experience, ILR can protect an array of rights and interests, guard against distortions that are caused by discriminatory biases and

“help to prevent ‘second rape’ where complainants’ privacy interests and dignity are sacrificed at the altar of a narrow conception of fair trial rights.”

I ask members to support my amendment 266, which would enable ILR to be provided.

My amendment 267 calls for the provision of legal advice from the point at which a complainer first gets in touch about an offence with the police, victim support services or any other people, as indicated in the amendment, and for a year after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings. Rape Crisis Scotland has specifically called for that. It said that independent legal advice

“should be extended to include legal advice for complainers of sexual offences in the lead up to the trial, to assist them to better understand the process and feel better prepared for giving evidence. This is a proposal that is supported by both Rape Crisis Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.”

That proposal would help complainers to feel supported throughout and to feel a part of the criminal justice process. As the committee heard at stage 1, survivors would very much value that support.

To add to what I said on amendment 266, it is clear that independent legal advice works. It has been available in Northern Ireland for some time, and has been extended in recognition of its success. It is surely only right that complainers are supported to understand the process and be properly prepared for any trial and that it is important to continue that advice after a case is dismissed or abandoned.

Absolutely—yes. The report could gather useful information in advance of the pilot scheme. That would inform the pilot scheme, which would then provide additional information for a wider roll-out. Alternatively, if we went straight for ILR, as my amendment 266 asks for, it would provide that foundational information. The report would have value regardless of what else happens with other amendments in the group, but it could be a useful starting point for Katy Clark’s amendments or my amendments.

Turning briefly to the other amendments in the group, I broadly support the intentions behind them, and I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s remarks as to how we can progress with the support.

Finally, I stress that it is important that we understand that there is a distinction between advocacy, advice and legal representation. There might be overlaps, but those three things are different and each of them needs to be addressed.

It is just on that point, if I may.

Can you give a little bit of an explanation about your rationale for limiting the amendment only to rape? Do you not think that there would be value in including other sexual offences?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?