Chamber and committees

We heard a lot today about the significant benefit of survivors being part of the case, how important it is for them to have choice and control and how that might impact on convictions. That has been interesting.

On the issue of floating trials, which Rona Mackay picked up earlier, I would like some clarification. When we had the Lord Advocate before the committee last week, she expressed a desire that the use of floating trials for sexual offences cases be looked at, with a view to them not being part of the process for such cases. That was interesting to hear. From your engagement with survivors, do you have any further views to share on the use of floating trials and how difficult that can be for them? I go back to Sandy Brindley on that.

I will bring in Sharon Dowey in a moment, but I want to pick up on Sarah Ashby’s concern about judge-only trials. I was having a quick look through the submission from Rape Crisis Scotland, which has articulated things quite helpfully in respect of the scenario in which there is a judge only and no jury. It said:

“A written verdict could be a very positive development for complainers.”

In other words, if a case were to be heard by a judge only, they would have a responsibility to set out reasons for coming to the decision or the verdict that they came to. The submission goes on to say:

“A judge would be required to give reasons for a decision. Some survivors describe the lack of any explanation for a jury’s decision as distressing because it means they are never able to understand what happened.”

The written judgments from other cases seem to have added some weight to that.

Do you feel that such an approach might reassure survivors as to the merits of a judge-only trial? I am not putting words in your mouth; I am just interested in whether you feel that it might provide some reassurance.

Thank you, Hannah. That was well articulated.

I warmly welcome our second panel of witnesses. As I mentioned at the start of the meeting, it is very important to hear the views of survivors of sexual crimes who have personal experience of the criminal justice system, so the committee is interested in hearing your perspective on what is being proposed in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. On our second panel, we have Sarah Ashby, Hannah Stakes and Anisha Yaseen. Welcome to you all. We are very grateful that you have been able to join us this morning. I intend to allow around an hour for this session. If you would like to answer a question or come in on anything, please raise your hand or indicate to me and I will bring you in.

It might be helpful if I open with a question that I put to the first panel of witnesses, about trauma-informed practice. As you will know, the bill introduces a requirement that victims and witnesses

“should be treated in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice”.

Is that needed—and why?

To ask the Scottish Government how its budget for 2024-25 will help to develop the offshore wind supply chain to ensure that Scotland benefits from the reported global expansion of wind energy. (S6O-02960)

It is welcome that the Scottish Government is providing the support that is needed to stimulate and support the growth of the sector, which is particularly relevant to my constituency, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. That said, the reality remains that real-term cuts to the Scottish Government’s capital investment budget, which have been imposed by the United Kingdom Government, risk undermining our ability to invest in our energy transition. Will the minister outline how the full capital borrowing powers of an independent Scotland could make such investment much more achievable? [Interruption.]

Will the Lord Advocate explain how the role of the Crown Office makes Scotland’s situation different from that in England, and whether that will have any practical effect on how Scotland resolves the issue?

As a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, I thank Kevin Stewart for bringing forward for debate the issue of the future of modern languages provision at the university. It is a timeous debate, given that we will celebrate languages week Scotland later this month.

Like Kevin Stewart and other colleagues, I have engaged with individuals and organisations that are concerned about the proposal. I particularly thank Rhiannon Ledwell of the Aberdeen University Students Association for her tenacity, and the university principal, Professor George Boyne, for his openness and engagement on the matter. I also commend the work of the steering group, which is led by Professor Leydecker. I welcome the university court’s decision to continue to offer joint honours degree programmes in languages for now, but it is disappointing that single honours degrees will not be offered.

I echo many of the concerns that members have raised about the implications relating to equal access to language education in the north of Scotland, the recruitment and training of language teachers in the north-east and the reputational impact on the university and wider Scottish higher education.

I note the university’s analysis in its consultation paper that the provision of modern languages is not viable in its current form, but why is that the case? I was dismayed to note in the consultation document that steeply falling enrolment is a long-term UK-wide trend, despite national initiatives over many years to increase uptake of language learning in schools and, by extension, universities.

I will proceed, but I will come back to the member if I have time.

In recent years, there has been a 57 per cent drop in the number of higher and A-level entries in German and a 44 per cent drop in the number of entries in French, and there has been a 34 per cent drop in the number of higher education entrants nationally since just 2015.

While preparing for today’s debate, I noted with interest a comment in the foreword of the “Modern Languages Excellence Report”, which was published by Scotland’s National Centre for Languages:

“Unless the decline in modern language learning is reversed, Anglophone Britons will become one of the most monolingual peoples in the world, with severe consequences for our economy, for business competitiveness, for international reputation and mobility and for community cohesion at home.”

All of those issues have been raised by members.

We know the benefits of promoting additional languages and their importance in equipping the next generation of workers in Scotland and beyond with the necessary skills to contribute and compete in an increasingly globalised society. Scotland benefits from having a workforce that is fluent in multiple languages, be that through bringing in investment opportunities or addressing the job market demand for multilingual speakers.

As a north-east MSP, I specifically note the importance of having an energy workforce comprised of bilingual and multilingual speakers in helping to realise the Scottish Government’s ambition of Scotland becoming a global energy hub. There are many other examples to which we could refer.

How do we encourage more school-age children and young people to learn modern languages and to continue to higher education learning? The Scottish Government’s one-plus-two approach aims to ensure that every child can learn one modern language. Additionally, each child is entitled to learn a second language from primary 5 onwards. The opportunities for early learning seem to be there; for me, the question is why uptake is so challenging and what can be done to reverse the trend of diminishing interest in languages beyond curriculum for excellence. As Kevin Stewart asked, how do we make learning languages more attractive?

I note the huge range of work across Scotland to promote languages, including the work of Scotland’s national centre for languages, which supports parental participation in learning, languages in the workplace, study and work abroad and a range of other activities. More broadly, there seems to be a need for a more co-ordinated approach involving Government, local authorities, education institutions, industry and business. In that regard, I would be interested to hear from the minister about what action the Scottish Government is taking to turn around what is a worrying trend.

I have enjoyed listening to the insightful contributions made in the chamber today on this subject, and I agree with colleagues that it is crucial to make every effort to secure the continuity of modern languages provision at the University of Aberdeen, but that significant challenges exist around that. As Kevin Stewart highlighted, teaching languages is an investment.

I will continue to lend my support to the University of Aberdeen, its teaching staff and its students to ensure that the north-east still has access to modern languages course provision in a way that is not detrimental the university, its staff or its students.

Again, I thank Kevin Stewart for securing the debate.

Good morning and welcome to the second meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee.

We have received apologies from Katy Clark, in whose place we are joined by Neil Bibby MSP. We are also joined by Maggie Chapman MSP, Ash Regan MSP, Tess White MSP and Rachael Hamilton MSP. Before we move on, I ask MSP colleagues who are joining us for the first time to declare any interests.