Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government proposed abolishing the requirement for corroboration in criminal cases during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. At that time however there was no parliamentary consensus. The Scottish Government therefore asked Lord Bonomy to carry out an independent review to consider what additional safeguards may be required if the corroboration rule was removed.

Since the Bonomy Review reported in April 2015 the Scottish Government has taken forward a wide range of criminal justice reforms, including many to improve how the justice system deals with allegations of sexual offending and to improve support for victims. Lord Bonomy’s recommendation to study jury reasoning and decision-making has also been taken forward and landmark Scottish jury research was published in October 2019. Findings from the research were explored at a series of engagement events held in Spring 2020 and the possibility of abolishing or reforming the corroboration rule was one of the themes discussed. There was opposition to reform amongst a number of stakeholders, including the legal profession. A summary of engagement events was published in December 2020.

I met with Opposition Justice Spokespeople in December 2020 to discuss corroboration and there was collective agreement that the issue requires further exploration. The Scottish Government is committed to building consensus on reforms in this area, and to engaging further with justice partners and opposition parties to develop a shared understanding of the evolving legal position and implications and potential unintended consequences of any legislative reform, while continuing discussions with those with direct experience of the justice system, including survivors.

Based on the current guidelines issued by the Chief Medical Officer on 5 February ( CMO(2021)03 - COVID-19 vaccination programme: bringing forward priority cohorts (scot.nhs.uk) , and wherever practical health boards should seek to vaccinate patients in the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) priority group who are in hospital prior to their discharge.

The recommendation for patients admitted to hospital for non-COVID illness, is not to give a vaccine until the patient recovers from their acute illness. The Chief Medical Officer advises that patients should be only vaccinated once they have recovered, so any side effects are not confused with symptoms of the disease they were admitted to hospital for. This is a standard recommendation in the Green Book for all vaccines and applied across all UK countries.

Operational policing decisions are the responsibility of the Chief Constable but Police Scotland have confirmed that they have no plans to increase the number of patrols around schools.

I refer the member to the answer to question S5W-34861 on 25 February 2021. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx

The Care Experienced Bursary (CEB) is available to eligible full-time further education students and higher education students studying at undergraduate level.

To be eligible to claim the CEB, students must have been looked after by a Local Authority in the UK, before the age of 18.

At this time, students who have experienced care outside of the UK do not meet the eligibility to access this particular bursary.

There are no current plans to change the eligibility criteria for the CEB, however, as with all student support policies I will keep this under close review.

The following table lists the number of requests made for the Patient Transport Service (provided by the Scottish Ambulance Service) in the NHS Lothian area from 2011. The Scottish Ambulance Service does not have this data for before 2011.

The Scottish Government does not hold this information at specific site level.

This information is held locally by NHS Lothian.

Those who have received their first dose, will get the second within the 12 week period. This approach has been supported by the Scottish Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties as well as including immunology specialists. The JCVI and the Scottish Government keep the science related to covid, including vaccination, under constant review.

The Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints wrote to the Corporate Body on the evening of 17 February 2021 seeking an urgent decision by the SPCB, as the publisher of parliamentary material, on whether the submission on the Ministerial Code phase of its inquiry made to it by the former First Minister Alex Salmond could be published.  The Committee had decided earlier that day by a majority that it could not publish the submission due to legal restrictions imposed by the Lord Justice Clerk at the High Court of Justiciary under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond dated 10 March 2020 (as varied on 11 February 2021).  As the Committee’s decision not to publish was not unanimous, it agreed – also by majority – to refer the matter to the SPCB for consideration.

The SPCB discussed the matter at its meeting on the morning of Thursday 18 February and reconvened that afternoon to give it further consideration.  Having considered advice received from officials the SPCB reached a collective decision on the matter, Andy Wightman MSP having recused himself from the afternoon meeting and the decision given his membership of the Committee. In doing so, the SPCB was fully aware of its legal obligations to abide by the terms of the court order and, after careful consideration of all factors, the SPCB decided on balance that it was possible for the submission to be published. It then referred the matter back to the Committee for publication in line with its written statement on handling of information and evidence.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, noting press coverage of the SPCB’s decision, wrote to the SPCB on 22 February reminding the SPCB of the terms of the court order recognising that decisions on publication are a matter for it.  On the publication of the submission by the Committee on the evening of Monday 22 February, the COPFS again wrote to the SPCB. In response, the Presiding Officer called an urgent meeting of the SPCB for the following morning to consider the terms of that letter. Clarification on that letter was sought from COPFS and received and was available for the SPCB’s consideration at its meeting on Tuesday 23 February. 

The SPCB is unable to publish that letter or its contents as the Crown Office requested it be treated as confidential. The SPCB respects that request given the sensitivity of the contents and the terms of the order. After due consideration of its contents and mindful of the balance of judgements it had undertaken in relation to its earlier decision, the SPCB  decided that, while the submission could still be published, some of the content of the former First Minister’s submission required to be redacted.  Andy Wightman again recused himself from this decision. The submission was immediately removed from the Committee’s webpages and a redacted version was posted in its place. 

The SPCB takes it duty to support parliamentary scrutiny and to promote public transparency very seriously indeed but is acutely conscious of the need to act lawfully in all circumstances. These obligations do not always necessarily sit comfortably together. The SPCB, which is a six-member committee with representation from nearly all the parties in the Parliament, recognises that this is a matter of some complexity and also of great concern to fellow Members and others. It has sought to undertake its responsibilities with care and diligence throughout its handling of this very challenging issue, at the heart of which is the protection of the identity of the complainants.

Each decision of the SPCB in relation to this matter has been taken collectively and with great care.