Audrey Nicoll
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Some consider that mobile phone use by children is so ubiquitous that bans in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative impacts. It seems that there is still some way to go to find a clear, evidence-based approach that safeguards children.”
“However, Ms Gosal’s motion reflects the concerns of many—parents, teachers, legislators, police officers and children—that overexposure to the use of mobile phones carries risks. I commend the work of many organisations to safeguard children in that space.”
“What an utter privilege and an amazing experience it has been to be a member of our amazing Scottish Parliament. I thank a number of people for making it happen: my loving husband, Alex; my wonderful son, Sam; my parents, Bill and Jean; and my sister, Susan. I also thank Maureen Watt, who has been a mentor and friend throughout.”
“I thank Pam Gosal for securing this debate on a Scotland-wide ban on the use of mobile phones in schools, and I congratulate her on her powerful and comprehensive speech.”
“Having entered politics later in life, I have often found it hard to understand why we think fractious discourse and debate serve the people of Scotland.”
“Amendment 41 agreed to. 17:45 Amendment 143 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Section 10F—Register of foster carers: procedure for regulations Amendment 42 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 10G—Register of foster carers: interpretation Amendment 43 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 144 not moved.”
The complete record
Every one of 432 lines we hold for Audrey Nicoll, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“Some people have suggested that, now that a larger group of older young people with more serious offending will be able to be detained in secure care, we will need to differentiate the approach in secure care on age grounds and we will need to separate those who are there on welfare grounds from those who are there on justice grounds. I am concerned by that. Does the minister agree that doing that would be unhelpful and that the founding principle of our care for children—that it is based on needs as well as deeds—still holds true? Natalie Don-Innes: I agree that that would be very unhelpful. Not only is there no evidence to support the separation of children in that way, but it would be unworkable in practice and run completely counter to the aspirations of the Promise.”
“It will also introduce new restrictions on the advertising, sponsorship, free distribution and nominal pricing of vapes across the UK’s four nations. I hope that that will help to prevent underage consumers from being targeted.”
“We are seeing a worrying increase in the uptake of vaping among young people. Will the minister give an update on the current UK Government plans for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the consequential legislative consent memorandum, which fell before last year’s election but if revived would see some control being introduced to the advertising and promotion of vaping products? Siobhian Brown: The Scottish Parliament gave unanimous consent to the UK-wide Tobacco and Vapes Bill in May, and I am pleased that the bill is expected to complete its passage within the current UK parliamentary session. New powers in the bill will empower the secretary of state to regulate product features, packaging ingredients and flavourings of vapes in Scotland with the consent of the Scottish ministers.”
“It will take vigilance, courage and collaboration to make that promise real, because we know that we still have work to do, despite the passing of both bills, but today, with this bill, we take an important step, and the Scottish Greens will proudly vote for it at decision time. 16:17”
“Their expertise must be embedded, not merely consulted. Passing the bill is only the beginning. We must now ensure that reviews lead to change; that recommendations are implemented, tracked and made public; that families are supported through every step; and that survivors see a system that learns from its mistakes rather than repeating them. Justice can never be static. It must evolve with empathy, grounded in the belief that every life lost to abuse is one too many. This bill, alongside the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which passed just a couple of weeks ago, can help reshape Scotland’s justice system to make it more compassionate, more transparent and more just.”
“The second part of the bill, which deals with the establishment of domestic homicide and suicide reviews, reminds us that justice is not only about courts and trials but about learning from failure. Both Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland have championed that reform because they know what is at stake: real lives, real families and real grief. Victim Support Scotland’s work with families bereaved by murder and culpable homicide gives it a unique perspective. It has rightly insisted that families must have a voice and must have choice and control in those reviews, including the right to request reconsideration when new information emerges. Scottish Women’s Aid has made it clear that those reviews will succeed only if they are independent and transparent, with equal representation from the third sector.”
“Victim Support Scotland has been clear that the reforms must make justice smoother, safer and more humane. The flexibility of virtual attendance, the use of digital evidence and the modernisation of documentation are not simply technical improvements; they are changes that can reduce trauma and delay. But, as Scottish Women’s Aid has warned, technology alone is not enough. Modernisation must be guided by trauma- informed, feminist principles, and survivors of abuse must have choice and control of how they participate in proceedings. The Greens support those measures because they show that efficiency and empathy can go hand in hand and that a justice system can be both effective and compassionate.”
“I call on Maggie Chapman to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 16:13 Maggie Chapman: As we close the debate, I thank everyone who has shaped the bill: survivors, campaigners, practitioners and the organisations whose expertise has been essential, specifically Scottish Women’s Aid, Victim Support Scotland and many others. I thank, too, the members and clerks of the Criminal Justice Committee for their meticulous scrutiny of the legislation, and I thank the legislation team for all their work. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and her team for the various discussions that we have had about the bill over the past months. The bill is rooted in learning and listening. It reflects what can happen when we really listen to the experiences of victims and survivors.”
“On the other hand, it was recognised that many of those who experience domestic abuse do not report their abusers to the police. That is often an action of last resort, so a broader definition would create wider opportunities to learn through the review process and to prevent future deaths. I agree with the view that the impact of domestic abuse reaches beyond the relationships that are set out in the 2018 act definition and that the bill allows wider opportunities for learning and, ultimately, the prevention of future deaths. I very much welcome the provisions in the bill. They reflect the fact that Scotland’s justice system is determined to modernise and move with the times. I ask members to support the bill this evening. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches.”
“I note the conditions that the cabinet secretary outlined and welcome that amendment. I turn to part 2. Scotland does not currently have a statutory system to review deaths linked to domestic abuse, which means that the opportunity to learn lessons is lost. During stage 1 scrutiny, the scope of the review process raised questions in so far as it is broader than the current definition of domestic abuse, as outlined in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. The Criminal Justice Committee heard conflicting views on whether the definition in the bill was too wide in scope and should only apply to incidents that would fall within the definition that is in the 2018 act. Strong arguments were made by Emma Forbes of the Crown Office and Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid on that point.”
“A key point that the cabinet secretary made is the default arrangement, whereby attendance should be in person. I agree that Pauline McNeill’s well-intended amendment 58, which proposed a requirement for closer supervision of anyone attending court virtually, would have had monumental resource implications and would have been completely unworkable. I am pleased that, since the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Government has engaged with stakeholders, including the Lord Justice General, on virtual attendance. There is consensus that the current provisions have been in place for some time, that practitioners are familiar with them and that they work well, as currently framed. I very much welcome the Government’s amendment 9, on the addition of charges to an indictment.”
“The Covid-19 pandemic obviously posed a monumental challenge for the justice system, but, in doing so, it created an opportunity to modernise the justice sector through greater use of digital technology. The bill seeks to make certain processes permanent, one of which is virtual attendance at court, which has already been examined in detail in the debate. At stage 1, as we have heard, there was strong support for that from victims organisations, which cited trauma-informed practice and giving victims agency. However, the virtual attendance provision understandably raised a number of questions about scope, reliability of technology, appearance from custody and security—that is, ensuring that witnesses are not susceptible to any undue influence. The latter point was discussed earlier this afternoon.”
“I thank everyone who supported scrutiny of the bill through its passage to stage 3 this afternoon. As we have heard, the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill seeks to do two things: first, to provide a basis upon which our justice system can continue to modernise, specifically through embracing digital technology; and, secondly, to establish a review process that supports learning in the aftermath of a domestic homicide or suicide. I want to make a couple of points in the debate. On part 1, I note that justice systems value tradition; that is certainly no different in Scotland, where deeply rooted customs and formal rituals are highly regarded.”
“I was not sure how that would be done in relation to evidence that is given virtually, although I am aware that Victim Support Scotland has excellent suites where people can give evidence by commission. I suppose that my not being a practitioner means that I am unfamiliar with how that could be done to everyone’s satisfaction and in a way that meant that evidence that was given virtually would have the same level of solemnity as evidence that was given in court. We want evidence that is given by witnesses virtually to have the same value as evidence that is given by a witness in court—they might not want to give it otherwise. That is why I wanted to air the issue. I move amendment 58.”
“We want to ensure that, when people give evidence virtually, they do so in circumstances that are similar to the circumstances in which people give evidence in court. I imagine that, to give the oath virtually, they would do the same thing that they would do in court. My reason for initially pursuing the attendance of a court official—amendment 58 now calls for an official “appointed by the court”—was to ensure that someone checks that no one is in the room with the person who is giving evidence virtually. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will speak to that, because there should be no one in the room who might influence someone who is giving evidence.”
“I know that that is in hand, but it is an important issue to raise at stage 3, even though it was not part of the conversation and debate prior to that. I give way to the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, Audrey Nicoll. Audrey Nicoll: I note the rest of Pauline McNeill’s speech following my request to intervene. I will simply point out that, with regard to amendment 58, I was not clear under what circumstances the court would require an official to be present at a virtual hearing—that is, with a witness or an accused. I am aware that, as the member says, a significant amount of work was done by the Scottish Government on that particular point following stage 2. I hope that some of that has been clarified. Pauline McNeill: I thank the member for that helpful intervention, which touches on the crux of the matter.”
“Will the member give way? Pauline McNeill: Yes, give me a minute. Amendment 2 will insert: “including what requirements must be satisfied by the location from which the person is to appear”. Before I allow the cabinet secretary to intervene, I will say that I am clear about the importance of virtual attendance. I will not move— Audrey Nicoll: [Made a request to intervene.] Pauline McNeill: Oh, I thought it was the cabinet secretary who asked me to give way, but it was Audrey Nicoll—sorry. Let me just finish my point. I am fully supportive of virtual attendance but I just want to make sure that this important issue is raised, because I have witnessed cases in which there have been very poor connections to the point that we could not identify the accused.”
“We have more long-term prisoners, who are each spending longer in prisons, and that requires decisions that are different from those that are taken in relation to some short-term prisoners. Over the past year, we have seen a more rapid increase in the number of long-term prisoners, which means that we have to take decisions about short-term prisoners in order to ensure that, at the end of the day, our Prison Service is capable of housing those who pose the greatest risk.”
“I note the cabinet secretary’s comments about the increase in the number of long-term prisoners—she mentioned the figure of 700. Can she advise whether the Scottish Government is aware of any research that indicates an association between the length of sentences that are imposed in Scotland and the increase that we have seen in our prison population? Angela Constance: Scottish Government information and data shows that a growing number, and proportion, of those in the prison population are serving longer sentences. In the decade up to 2022-23, the average length of custodial sentences increased by 31 per cent. In my statement, I said that the increase in the number of long-term prisoners compared with five years ago is 700 people. Given the 39 per cent decrease in recorded violent crime, that shows a change in the seriousness of cases.”
“I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s work to respond to the immediate priorities of energy businesses in my constituency and across the north-east, with £8.5 million of new funding for clean energy careers. It is vital that we continue to support the communities that, through oil and gas, provided energy security for generations and that, as the country accelerates towards a clean energy future, we ensure that those communities remain at the centre of Scotland’s energy future. Will the First Minister say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to support jobs and skills in the north-east, particularly in the face of Labour’s challenging fiscal regime?”
“We have provided £8.8 million to target long waits for gynaecology, £4 million to enhance general practitioner services and support access to long- acting reversible contraception, £1.5 million for miscarriage care and £1 million each year to broaden access to cancer screening. We have also invested more than £21 million this financial year by delivering the equally safe fund to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls. We will continue to do all in our power to seek the best outcomes for the health of women and girls throughout their lives.”
“It is deeply concerning that the United Kingdom Labour Government has been criticised by a coalition of charities that have said that women are “not a special interest group” and that they are being deprioritised, with targets cut in half and funding slashed south of the border. A range of women’s health issues appear in my constituency casework regularly. Will the minister further outline how the Scottish Government is prioritising women’s health and ensuring that women are supported through the Scottish National Party Government’s investment? Jenni Minto: I recognise what the member says, as my own constituency inbox receives inquiries on women’s health issues. As we move to the next phase of the plan, we will continue to invest in women’s health.”
“What action is the Scottish Government taking to incentivise our ambitious founders and scale-ups to remain right here, in Scotland?, Kate Forbes: I am pleased to hear that Techscaler is having an impact in the north-east, because the whole premise of the programme was to ensure that the initiative was not concentrated only in Glasgow and Edinburgh and would also be able to support entrepreneurs right across Scotland. That is what makes it such a critically important programme. The question of how we retain scaled firms is, in some ways, a nice problem to have, because it is symptomatic of the growing pains of a thriving but still emerging entrepreneurial economy. All scale- ups need access to three things: the talent, the capital and the infrastructure that is relevant to their businesses. That is what we are trying to deliver.”
“Yesterday, I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new energy transition skills hub in my constituency. It is a collaboration between North East Scotland College, ETZ Ltd and Shell that will power an evolving energy workforce and that will, I am confident, play its part in producing some of our future Techscaler talent. I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s update on the Techscaler international programme, which helps start-ups to go global and to access new markets overseas.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Nicoll. Your vote will be recorded.”
“However, without expanding the working-age population, it becomes a case of one employer taking skills from another employer in a circular way. The point is that, without devolution, which would allow a more progressive approach to visas and immigration, those issues will remain. Visitor Levy (Impact on Hotel and Tourism Sectors) 2.”
“The Scottish economy is currently part of a UK economic model that is less productive, with lower national income per head and greater inequality than independent countries that are comparable to Scotland. The UK’s relatively poor economic performance was evident before Brexit, which has made our economic prospects even worse. Can the Deputy First Minister outline how making decisions in Scotland, combined with our economic strengths, will lead to better outcomes? Kate Forbes: The member is absolutely right to highlight those points. As I mentioned in my opening answer, there are particular challenges around the working-age population. Time and again, when I speak to businesses about their growth aspirations, they talk about the importance of securing the right skills. That comes from investing in training and skilling our population.”
“Finally, I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s recommendation that “a new governance structure be introduced on a time- limited basis” in the next parliamentary session. I thank my colleague Ben Macpherson for leading the committee’s important review, and I look forward to following it in delivering positive change across our supported bodies landscape. 16:32”
“I acknowledge and agree with the view expressed by the Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, when he told the review committee—in the words of the report—that “it would be unrealistic to expect committees to respond to every report laid before Parliament.” He suggested that a structured approach, whereby each relevant committee would hold a dedicated session once a year, for example, might strike a more manageable balance. I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s findings and recommendations regarding the wider public bodies. In the case of the justice sector, there might be scope to extend the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny to other bodies, such as the inspectorates of prisons, policing and prosecution.”
“In relation to the recommendation that a two-tier approach be adopted to the establishment of new commissioners, I have no doubt whatsoever that both those offices would pass the test, so to speak. I welcome that recommendation, and I note the committee’s view that standardising functions would risk constraining the flexibility that commissioners need. Turning to the issue of governance, which was an area of particular focus in the review, I think that we are all agreed that there is significant room for—and, indeed, a need for—far more proactive scrutiny.”
“It would have been helpful to understand that framework when we were scrutinising the case for having a new commissioner. In short, we wanted to see clear evidence of the existence of a commissioner noticeably improving the experiences of victims and witnesses, which is why we requested a review. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner promotes the ethical and lawful use of biometric data in policing and criminal justice in Scotland, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates incidents involving public bodies in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of both offices, which undertake highly specialist but different functions in the justice space.”
“One witness told us that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner. We considered whether a commissioner would interfere with the ability of third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies where strong relationships already exist. However, on balance, we supported the establishment of a commissioner, while caveating that with the recommendation that the post should be time limited, to allow for its effectiveness to be reviewed. I also point out that, at the time of our scrutiny and while we were considering our proposal, the Criminal Justice Committee was unaware of the ministerial control framework, which I do not think has yet been mentioned today.”
“I note that the review committee’s report outlines the anticipated drivers that have led to the proliferation of supported bodies in place today. I agree with the direction of travel in relation to new commissioners and with the recommendation that a strategic mapping exercise should be undertaken to look at functions, areas of overlap and what the supported bodies landscape should look like in future. That said, I consider Parliament’s decision yesterday to create a new victims and witnesses commissioner to be the right one. When the Criminal Justice Committee considered that part of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we heard concerns that the cost of a new commissioner could be put to better use elsewhere and questions about whether an existing commissioner might be able to take on the role.”
“I am pleased to speak in this debate as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I preface my remarks by saying that they come from my own perspective, while drawing on the work of that committee. I pay tribute to the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for its detailed scrutiny, which was a really important and worthwhile piece of work. I also pay tribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its diligent work on this area. I gave evidence to that committee during its review of the supported bodies landscape. It is right that we review not only the number of commissioners but other important factors such as cost, functions, shared services, governance and effectiveness.”
“Over decades, we have seen meaningful change in culture, legislation and attitudes, but we need to do so much more. I urge members to support the bill. 15:58”
“It is supported by victims, stakeholders and leading members of the justice system. It provides a real opportunity to reform practice, process and culture by improving efficiency and effectiveness, reducing the number and frequency of unnecessary court adjournments and ensuring that cases reach trial more quickly. The status quo is simply not an option. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s view that the idea of creating specialist divisions of the High Court and sheriff courts “prioritises hierarchies, status and tradition over progressive and practical solutions that will improve the experiences of complainers in sexual offences cases.”— [Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 114.] There is so much more to say, but I will conclude.”
“I hope that that proves to be a small but meaningful option for survivors as they move on from their experience of sexual crime. There is no doubt that the not proven verdict has had its day and should be abolished. During scrutiny of the bill, some argued that the not proven verdict is a unique and historical feature of the Scottish legal system that should be retained. However, that is hardly a good reason for keeping it. Indeed, the Criminal Justice Committee heard compelling evidence about the devastating impact that that verdict—which cannot be defined—can have on victims. Even for the accused, it can be an unsatisfactory outcome and leave a lingering stigma. The creation of a specialist sexual offences court is a key reform in the bill and is informed by survivors, their families and many others.”
“She said: “when we talk about what happened, each one of us mentions the exact date that our case went to trial. We remember the date that we were raped, but we also remember the date that we went to trial, because they are as traumatic as each other.” Speaking as a member, rather than the convener, of the Criminal Justice Committee, and through the lens of a career in policing, I say that the bill presents a huge opportunity for us to create a contemporary and modern justice system that we can be proud of. There is not enough time to comment on all the provisions in the bill, so I will reflect on a couple: the removal of the not proven verdict and the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court. First, I thank everyone, including campaigners and colleagues, for their efforts in making the case for free court transcripts.”
“It is safe to say that the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has been long, complex and challenging—and rightly so, given the transformational ambition of the bill, which derives from the Lady Dorrian review, and which centres on delivering meaningful change for victims and witnesses in the justice system. I, too, thank everyone who contributed to the shape of the bill as it stands before us today at stage 3. The extensive debates at all stages reflected the breadth of the bill and our collective desire to shift the dial on the common and, often, justified perception that the system fails to adequately support those whom it is meant to protect. I will quote the words of a survivor who gave powerful evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 1.”
“The cabinet secretary was right when she said that there is no room for complacency—she is absolutely spot on about that. This is not and must not be an issue of party politics. I am not suggesting that it is—I respect the cabinet secretary too much for that—but I want to point out that the Scottish Labour MP Joani Reid has called for a grooming gangs inquiry in Scotland and that she and Labour are absolutely right to do so. My amendments mirror what the UK Labour Government has rightly done in England. Colleagues, I am giving the Parliament the opportunity to do the right thing here, to deliver justice for the victims of grooming gangs and to do all that we can to prevent the victims of the future. Do not let them down. Vote for my amendment 31, which I hereby press, and amendment 32.”
“Liam Kerr: The cabinet secretary has put that on the record, but I presume that she will agree that there is a terrifying lack of information about the true scale of the issue, who the victims are and who is conducting these crimes in Scotland. We are lagging behind England on the issue. The cabinet secretary puts to me the point about time and resources, but I put back to the cabinet secretary that Baroness Casey delivered her verdict on the matters that my amendments cover in a mere six months. The Scottish child sexual abuse inquiry commenced in 2015 and is still to report. My amendments are absolutely the ones that we need to get action now, which the cabinet secretary rightly demands. We cannot, and we must not, bury our heads in the sand on this vicious and pernicious practice of child sexual abuse.”
“Is Mr Kerr aware of the work led by Professor Alexis Jay, who was the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales and who currently sits on our national strategic group? She shares my view and has put on the record and stated to the media that she does not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation, given the significant time and resource already spent in the review that she led, the Casey audit and other reviews. She says that it is now time that “people should just get on with it”. I contend that that is what the Scottish Government is doing right here, right now—we are getting on with the work that we need to do to protect children.”
“Liam Kerr: Martin Whitfield is right that there can never be too much data on these crimes. In any event, I am calling for a one-off urgent report into a specific area by precisely the commissioner who is being set up to address victim issues. However, Martin Whitfield makes exactly the right point. How can extra collaboration between a victims commissioner, a children’s commissioner or anyone else who has expertise in this area— just as Audrey Nicoll rightly pointed out—possibly be a bad thing? It is absolutely a good thing, and that is a persuasive argument as to why members should vote for my amendments. 15:15 Angela Constance: It is important that we get the right type of data, and that work is of course under way.”
“That is true, and we absolutely support that work, but that does not in any way preclude this investigation from being carried out. Is there anyone in the chamber who will object to having too much data on this vile crime? Martin Whitfield: In the rebuttal of Mr Kerr’s amendments, mention was made of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the potential for conflict between commissioners’ roles. The member has also just talked about whether it is possible to have too much data in this area. Is this not a case where the amendments would lead to right-minded, thinking and intelligent people with expertise coming together to identify the correct person to do the work, as well as to identify the sources of data that are not yet available and that clearly are not coming through the strategic group any time soon?”
“He is wrong. That inquiry is vitally important—on that we agree—but it looks only at the issue of the abuse of children in care. It does not look at grooming gangs, and it will consider only events that happened from 1930 to 2014. Operation cerrar, which I referred to earlier, took place in 2016, so it would not be covered, neither would the grooming gang that was convicted in Dundee this year. The cabinet secretary goes on to suggest that giving the victims commissioner a responsibility to carry out this work would not be the most effective way—in her words—of addressing the issue. As I said in my earlier response to Audrey Nicoll, the commissioner can appoint anyone, and I suggested to Audrey Nicoll that that might even be Baroness Casey. The cabinet secretary then argues that some work in that area is already under way.”
“That is an issue that has been repeatedly raised by stakeholders who—rightly— would prefer focused action to more layers of research and review when those are already in place. I am sure that Liam Kerr will understand those arguments. I hope that he will realise that his amendments are not the right route and that he will not press them to a vote this afternoon. If he does, I urge Parliament to reject them. Liam Kerr: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. I will put on record that I am genuinely grateful for the cabinet secretary’s collaborative approach throughout the whole bill process, which I appreciate. In dealing with the objections to my amendments 31 and 32, I will start with a response by the First Minister at First Minister’s questions last week, in which he claimed that the child sexual abuse inquiry will be sufficient.”
“It should also be noted that stakeholders have already cautioned about the need to ensure that the roles of the victims and witnesses commissioner and the existing Children and Young People’s Commissioner complement one another and that they are not in competition and do not create inefficiencies in their important work to scrutinise and uphold children’s rights in Scotland. In my view, amendments 31 and 32, as well as not being the right route to address the issue, would risk unnecessary duplication in those roles. I stress that the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group and Police Scotland are active in that area now. The creation of duplication would not represent an inefficient use of resources—resources that could be better directed towards improving prevention and victim support services.”
“However, all members will agree that there is no room for complacency in relation to these hidden and underreported crimes. Police Scotland is reviewing historical and current cases of this nature, and that is essential, expert work that is being undertaken now—work that Audrey Nicoll, an ex-police officer, alluded to when she spoke of the expert nature of the detail that was involved in that work. That work by Police Scotland will be reported to the strategic group. That group has already considered the implications of Baroness Casey’s audit and is looking at each of its recommendations. It will discuss agreed actions, including the findings of Police Scotland’s analysis, at a meeting next month.”
“I want to know that we have expertise on and knowledge of this sensitive and crucial issue, and the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group is best placed to provide that. The group is already working at pace to strengthen workforce identification of abuse, improve data collection and information sharing to better understand prevalence, and enhance multi-agency co-ordination to improve our collective response to this abhorrent crime. Police Scotland has advised that there are no current investigations in Scotland involving offences against children and young people that would mirror the investigations that are described in the United Kingdom Government “National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse”, which was conducted by Baroness Casey.”
“The national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group was established in 2024. That is work that is under way now, not in three years’ time. It is an expert group of key statutory, third sector, academic and, crucially, service delivery organisations, and it is best placed to assess and make recommendations for additional action to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is better placed to do so than a victims commissioner, whom the Conservatives had doubts about establishing and who, following commencement, will need to be recruited and will have a variety of duties to deliver, not least the delivery of the charter that we debated and agreed to in group 1.”