The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 1-1-2-1-7, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on support for rape crisis centres and prosecutions. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press their request to speak buttons? I call on Kezia Dugdale to open the debate. Seven minutes, please, Ms Dugdale. I thank colleagues for staying for the debate on what I believe is a critically important issue. The motion before us has four key themes. The first is to recognise that there is a broad commitment across parties for the equally safe strategy and that much good work has taken place to improve the justice system. Secondly, the recent change in policy from the Crown on compelling reluctant complainers is a retrograde step, one that is heavily opposed by campaigners who believe that it will jeopardise both the wellbeing of survivors and their access to justice. Thirdly, that there is an alternative plan, one that shines a spotlight on the system itself rather than the victims of sexual offences. Tonight, I will detail a five-point plan that Rape Crisis Scotland has prepared. Together, we are calling on the Solicitor General and the Government to pause with their plans to compel witnesses and implement this plan first. The final section of the motion addresses the desperate reality that rape crisis services are under immense pressure and that they need adequate and sustainable funding. I know that many colleagues in the chamber who are due to speak will talk about equally safe and the funding position of services in their own area, so I will focus my contribution on the problem and the alternative solution. Let me start by saying that I am delighted to see the Solicitor General in her place and I have a huge amount of respect for her and the job that she does. I approached this debate in the full knowledge that she has spent a large part of her professional life working in the field of sexual offences. She is an impressive lawyer and a formidable prosecutor, but I believe that she is wrong on this. The roots of my belief are based on the work of Rape Crisis Scotland, which has for 40 years advocated on behalf of survivors of rape in front of politicians and parliaments and by the sides of victims in our courts. In addition to that, I have read this thoroughly. It is a thematic review of the investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes by the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland, published by the Scottish Government in November of last year. This report tells us that victims believe that the court process is utterly humiliating. One woman said that it was the most degrading experience that she had been through. Another said that the court was absolutely horrendous and that it was worse than being raped. The first key finding of this report is that there is a lack of information and support available to victims to have any confidence in the system. It goes on to state that communication with victims fell below expected standards in 47 per cent of cases. The Crown has an unrealistic expectation of victims' understanding of the system, that there is too much of an onus on victims to seek updates on their own cases, to find support, to deal with shifts and uncertainties in the scheduling of trials and to understand the environment over which they have no control. That is just a handful of the findings in an 85-page report. That is what we should be compelled to change. Rape Crisis Scotland has provided me with a personal testimony from a woman that they are currently working with. It is a live case, but I have checked the testimony with the Presiding Officers in advance and there is nothing in this statement that could be considered subjudice. The woman speaking for the first time about her rape said this. When it happened, the police were called for me. It was not a decision that I made for myself. I ended up speaking to them in my house at 5am, then spent the whole next day giving a full statement and having forensics taken. I was awake for nearly 48 hours and felt in shock as I spoke to them. I had not really had time to process anything or to think about what would happen next, but I was called a day later and told the perpetrator had been released on bail and someone would be in touch about a trial. That was when the reality of the situation hit me. I have thought about the possibility of giving evidence at a trial every day since then. What will it be like to give evidence? How long will it take? How will I be strong enough to answer questions? How can I cope with being cross-examined by a defence lawyer? I first met my rape crisis advocacy worker shortly after the attack happened. She told me that it would be possible to withdraw from the process if I needed to and that I would not be forced into giving evidence. When she told me that, I felt a sense of relief that I had some control over the process. When my advocacy worker called to tell me about the change, I immediately panicked and I thought that this cannot be happening. I am faced with the reality that there is a possibility. They might force me to give evidence. Living every day with that possibility is terrible. I know that it may be unlikely, but I cannot help but think of the worst-case scenario. If I was to go back and have the choice to report, knowing that there was no guarantee that I could withdraw if it became too much to cope with, there is a good chance that I would make the decision not to report at all. That is the testimony of a rape victim dealing with the justice system as it is today. If you prefer hard facts to the raw emotion contained in that testimony, please look again at the inspection report. It contains an indicted case review of cases that took over 10 months to get to court. It says that, in just under half the cases, there was no obvious justification for the lengths of time taken by the prosecutor to progress the investigation. The delays were caused by the disengagement of the victim in just two cases. I am at a complete loss as to how anyone could read that report and conclude that the answer is to increase the burden on the victim rather than seek to fix the broken system. The report itself even concludes that, if the victim is unable to give evidence or their ability is impaired by anxiety, fear, intimidation or a sense of isolation, it is likely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial. That is what we will be doing if we compel victims to give evidence. Here is what we should do instead. Rape complainers should not have to give evidence in court. Evidence and cross-examination should be pre-recorded. I was delighted to hear Lord Carlaway, Scotland's most senior judge, call for that approach on the radio this very morning. Two, a concerted effort must be put on reducing the delays and changes in court dates. Three, the Scottish Government should commission further research into the complainers' experience of the court process and the reasons for wishing to withdraw. Four, the rules over an individual's sexual history and character being used in court are now over 10 years old. They should be independently reviewed and updated. Crucially five, rape crisis services must be properly and sustainably funded. No longer can we ask them to do more with less. In conclusion, I do not doubt the Crown's intentions. We all want to see rape convictions vastly improved, but the belief of campaigners and the evidence presented shows that this policy will likely have the opposite effect, so I urge the Government and the Crown to think again. Open debate, speeches of four minutes, I call Rhoda Grant, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Ms Grant, please. It is difficult for me to believe that we are having this debate. We know that it is difficult enough for someone to report a rape. We also know earlier that it has reported the better chance of collecting evidence, but we also know that it can be days, weeks or even years before the survivor feels strong enough to come forward. People feel shame and wonder if they are in some way to blame. They fear the process of providing evidence to the police and they are uncertain about whether they will be believed and afraid of having to face an intrusive examination. Then they are giving evidence in court. What used to be a comfort to a survivor was that they were in control. They could withdraw from the process at any time they felt unable to cope. They could take it one step at a time. That control was not just a comfort, it was healing. Rape is fundamentally disempowering. It is when somebody else takes control of you and forces you to have sex against your will. That not only hurts your body but it impacts on your confidence and self-esteem, and taking back control is a big part of that healing process. However, that policy flies in the face of that. Instead of supporting restoration, it further demeans those who are already at a very low ebb.  The process indeed reinforces trauma. Survivors therefore need to have confidence in their control over the situation and their ability to withdraw should have proved too difficult." Reports of rapes are sadly low, and they will be lower still because of that policy. If the Crown Office wants to increase prosecutions, it will not do it by victim-blaming. Rather, it needs to give survivors reassurance to treat them with dignity, respect and, indeed, to protect them.  We have seen that all too often, where in any other walk of life such aggressive behaviour and language would not be tolerated. We have to turn our method of prosecuting rape cases on its head. In order to allow survivors to come forward, we must act, but that is not the way to do it. The rape and sexual abuse service in Highland tells me that the time between reporting an offence and prosecution is still far too long. Survivors from the Highlands and Islands need to go to Glasgow or Edinburgh or Aberdeen to access a high court, meaning that there are long journeys overnight stays away from family and friends. They tell me that survivors have travelled to Glasgow only to be told that their case has been postponed. Others have been given less than 24 hours notice that their case is to be heard in Glasgow. They need to book travel, accommodation, time off and often childcare, which is almost impossible in that timescale. Would a woman be prosecuted if she was unable to turn up for any of those reasons? If the Crown Office will not budge on that policy, then the Scottish Government must step in and legislate to stop the travesty taking place. It is unbelievable that someone could report that they have been raped but could end up in jail themselves because they are overwhelmed by the assault and the prosecution process. That policy could lead people to break down or even take their own lives. We have seen such tragedies in the past as a direct result of rape victims' treatment in court. Yet the law did not change. Who is responsible for that? Who will be prosecuted for the consequential damage or loss of life? That policy must be scrapped. The Solicitor General must engage with specialists who can support women. They need to find ways of improving survivor's experience to encourage more people to come forward and then stay with the process. We must also have well-funded support services to help survivors through that process. Presiding Officer, that policy is unacceptable and we need to stop it now. I remind all members who wish to speak that they are required to press the request to speak buttons, please. I am looking at a member who has not pressed the request to speak button. I do not want to name them. I call Ruth Maguire, followed by Margaret Mitchell, please. Presiding Officer, I thank Kezia Dugdale for bringing this important topic to the chamber. When I first read about this change of policy in the press, I was shocked. I thought it sounded, frankly, awful. Sexual violence is a challenging and difficult issue. It is challenging to even talk about. Never mind to report and obtain justice where you have survived it. I acknowledge that there is a careful balancing act between the needs and views of survivors and the issue of wider public safety, an issue in which the state has a duty to uphold. I, along with some of colleagues in the chamber here, attended the briefing given by the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, and it did provide some reassurance. I left in no doubt that the Solicitor General comes at this matter from a position of extensive experience and that the safety and wellbeing of women are at the forefront of her decision making. I fully appreciate the Crown's desire and duty to see more rape cases prosecuted and more rapists brought to justice, in the interests of justice, in the interests of public safety and in the interests of women's safety. The Solicitor General made it clear, speaking in the chamber last week, that the focus of the revised policy is not to compel rape complainers to testify but to ensure that the decision and crucially the responsibility about whether or not to prosecute lies with the Crown. The public safety case for the Crown on prosecuting a dangerous, violent, repeat offender is obvious. However, it must only ever be in exceptional circumstances that a witness warrant be sought. It is crucial, absolutely crucial, that the complainer, the survivor's views, welfare and interest remain at the heart of the Crown's prosecution policy. To quote the Crown Office directly, it will always be a significant factor in the decision. Failure to live up to this and demonstrate those words in practice would quite simply be unacceptable. Although I might not agree with the motion that the policy needs to be reconsidered, I do agree that we must all redouble our efforts in addressing the reasons that survivors so often feel unable to continue with the criminal justice process. Confidence in our justice system must be improved. In November 2017, the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland published its thematic review of the investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes. It noted that, whilst there had been an increase in the reporting of sexual crimes, a high rate of attrition along with a low conviction rate, particularly for offences of rape and attempted rape, remained concerning. It also noted that secondary victimisation, experienced as a result of the trauma of the criminal justice process, is a feature associated with crimes of sexual violence. I am glad to hear that there is going to be on-going work with Rape Crisis Scotland as to how this change in policy will work in practice and how survivors will be supported. We in this chamber can also play a part in both highlighting the issues, challenging the system but also in making sure that our words and actions do not cause more harm. Victims or survivors of sexual crime must be treated sensitively and appropriately by the justice agencies at all levels and at all times. That policy may be the right thing to do, but if it does not go hand in hand with ensuring greater support for survivors of sexual violence throughout the criminal justice process, it will not succeed in achieving what we all want. Before I call Margaret Mitchell, I have 11 members still wishing to speak, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate back up to 30 minutes. I would invite Kezia Dugdale to move the motion without notice. The question is whether the debate will be extended by 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and I now call Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Daniel Johnson. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on support for rape crisis centres and prosecutions. I thank Kezia Dugdale for tabling the motion, which begins by welcoming the Scottish Government's broad commitment to addressing violence against women and girls. Under the equally safe strategy, there has indeed been significant work done in the Parliament, including passing legislation such as the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland Act, the abuse of behaviour and sexual harm Scotland Act and the domestic abuse Scotland Act, and setting up dedicated units within the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service to deal sensitively and effectively with rape, serious assault and domestic abuse cases. Domestic abuse is now an aggravated defence. In establishing this dedicated unit, not only is the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service finely attuned to the trauma rape victims experience and the sensitivity required in dealing with their case, but Scotland is acknowledged as leading the way in tackling domestic abuse and violence against women. Furthermore, it is essential that the independence of our Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service is protected, along with their ability to use prosecutorial direction to prosecute in the public interest. Here, while the potential for the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service to issue witness warrant in order to compel witnesses to give evidence is the longstanding capability, it is the first time that the policy, as it applies to rape cases, has been put into formal COPFS documentation. As Ruth Maguire stated, the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service has emphasised that the focus of the revised policy is not on compelling rape complainers to testify but to ensure the burden of prosecutorial decision making properly lies with the COPFS and to ensure that decisions are made after the most careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances. There is, of course, a balance to be struck between the interests of the complainer, who is, after all, a member of the public and the wider public interest. Equally, the reasons why complainers do not come forward requires further examination and research and to ensure that necessary support is in place to encourage victims to have the confidence to give evidence. Here, organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland are ideally placed to offer their experience of helping and supporting victims, but it and other charities who support must be adequately resourced. Unfortunately, the experience of Lanarkshire Rape Crisis Centre is not encouraging. Although the Scottish Government has provided funding over the past few years, it has been, without increase, increment or consideration for the amount and type of work being carried out with survivors of sexual violence across the two local authority areas of North and South Lanarkshire. Consequently, the staff are uncertain about their future employment and service users are uncertain if they will be able to access support in the long term. That is particularly concerning, given that some cases can take up to two years to progress through the criminal justice system. In conclusion, I therefore very much welcome the Lord Advocate's commitment, and the Solicitor General's, to continue working closely with support agencies, including Rape Crisis Scotland, to resolve those vexing issues. I rise to my feet with a considerable amount of trepidation. I am very mindful, as I speak in this debate, that I do not have experience in two critical ways. I have not been a victim of rape. I have not endured the most horrific of crimes. I can only imagine what it must be like to not only suffer the disempowerment that I think Rhoda Grant described, but then to have to go through that again in the court of law. I can only imagine how traumatising that must be. I can only imagine how difficult that must be to face and what you must do to bring yourself to go through that, to relive those experiences, just to ensure that justice is served. Nor am I a lawyer. I have not had to prosecute those cases, and I am very mindful of the difficulties that are faced by the authorities as they seek to do it. However, with that in mind, I am supportive and fully aligned with the comments that my colleague Kezia Duggan-Mittdale made earlier. I have huge concerns about the policies, both in terms of the way in which they have been framed but also in principle. I support her calls for the policy to be paused and the implementation of her five-step plan, but before I set out why, I would like to set out very clearly where I think that I am absolute lock step with what both the law officers are trying to achieve and what probably everyone in this chamber is trying to achieve. There has to be a very clear priority—three, in my view, clear priorities when it comes to dealing with cases of rape. First of all, we have to ensure that more victims come forward. That is something that seems to be happening anyway, but we need to go much further. We need to give those victims and survivors confidence in coming forward so that we can ensure that people do get access to justice. Those people who have perpetrated these vile acts get brought to justice, but we also must ensure that there is a better experience of those people giving evidence who have been victims of rape. I think that Lord Carroll's intervention state is hugely useful. I think that those steps within Kezia Dugdale's plan are hugely important. Above all else, what we need to do is make sure that when the victims come forward, when survivors come forward, and any improvements that we make to their experience, we ultimately improve the conviction rate. It must be a priority that, when cases come forward, we see successful convictions. However, let me turn to why I have issues with the policy as it has been articulated so far. First of all, I have huge concerns about when reluctance turns to refusal. We have heard the issues set out by the law officers that they have to give up actions when witnesses are reluctant to give evidence. We have heard that there would never be circumstances in which a victim would be brought caught in the back of a police car, but what I have yet to hear is how that is framed, an articulation of when the person goes from simply being reluctant to actually refusing. Any policy in that regard has to set out very clearly how that would be understood, how that would be assessed, and how individuals who are reluctant, whether they are genuinely giving consent, because they have to be consenting to giving evidence in court. That has to be a fundamental principle if we are not simply going to disempower individuals further. However, where is that policy? Secondly, there is the argument about public interest versus individual interest. That is a classic utilitarian argument. I understand the overarching desire to make sure that we protect the wider public and the interests of the individual being balanced against that. However, we have to do so with huge sensitivity and huge caution. That is one of those fundamental principles, not just of the courts of justice, but of democracy. We cannot simply trump the rights of the individual around wider interests. Yes, there is a balance to be struck, but there needs to be an articulation about how that balance is understood and how it is undertaken. Fundamentally, that is about trust versus policy. It is vital that any policy has trust, that individuals coming forward trust the system and trust the process. If they feel that they will be compelled when they no longer wish to give evidence, I do not understand how we expect them to trust the system. Ultimately, that is about witnesses coming forward. If they perceive that they will be compelled to give evidence when they no longer wish to do so, I cannot say that that would do anything other than be a detriment to the principles that I said at the beginning in ensuring that more people come forward and have a better experience of the justice system. I am sorry, I must conclude. No, you really must. I will tell you why if you sit down please, Mr Johnson. If everybody goes over by one minute, then we cannot extend further and we will not get everybody in the debate. I have extended by 30 minutes and that is it. I have to ask speakers. There is a very serious debate. I appreciate it and I am reluctant to do it, but I must ask you to keep to your four minutes or we cannot have everybody in fact. I am now calling my apologies, but that is just the way it is. I call Mr Finnie John Finnie, who is called by Tavish Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. You are quite right in saying that this is a very important debate and it is a very emotional subject. Going back some time in my police days, I can say that there is an outstanding change in improvement in attitude and response from the police service in relation to this. I mentioned that earlier in the chamber this afternoon, the confidence that there is in Police Scotland about handling a lot of these issues. That is not just in relation to sexual crime but also in relation to domestic violence. Key to that is the link in with the prosecution, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service and the links that are there and the more humane handling that takes place. Part of the weakness is, of course, her courts. Like others, I was heartened this morning to hear Lord Carlawy speak, as he did, about the opportunities that may exist for recording the testimony and the cross-examination. There has been legislation that has been alluded to by my colleague Margaret Mitchell that has been dealt with in the building in recent times, the abusive behaviour and domestic abuse. It was a privilege to hear the private testimony of individuals and I have to say that it was harrowing. It shouldn't be that the state's way of helping an individual is to inflict more grief on them. Terminology is very important. Absolutely the public interest is fundamental. There were very compelling arguments made by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General when I attended the briefing recently. The obligation that is placed on all of us to act collectively in the public interest. Of course, key to that is the role of the complainer. That is the correct name. They are a complainer. Of course, the terminology is what survivors appropriate, but the legal context complainer. Key to that is the wellbeing of the complainer. Absolutely what is wanted is quality evidence. You do not get quality evidence when you necessarily compel someone, but it is a very fine balance and a couple of the speakers have touched on that. I would say that at the moment, as I understand victims of sexual abuse of rape, I am uniquely treated in any case by giving this level of say. That is not a say that is given to necessarily the victim of an assault or a housebreaking. It is important that that recognition is already there of the significance that is placed in that. The question of disengagement was touched upon in the briefing and the humane response that there is to disengagement. Disengagement can be for a number of reasons, and I alluded to that report. I think that there is a lot of information. I think that a crucial ask—all the asks were reasonable—a crucial ask that I think everyone would go along with was more research. It is to understand particularly what is involved there. I have to say that, if I have one disappointment, it is that although this is a well-attended member's debate, it would have been good if there were someone here, a minister here, who had responsibility for money to dish out. Of course, key to that is the support mechanisms that are put in place. It may well be that there is other pricing engagement. Today, I met with Rafe Crisis Scotland, and I have to say that, having met with Ms Brindley and the Solicitor General and the Lord Advocate last week, I do not think that there are poles apart here. However, I would say—and I mean this as gently as possible—that this is a bit of a PR disaster, because we all are wanting to increase the number of successful sexual prosecutions. Key to that is the quality of the evidence. As I say, there are opportunities that will come with Lord Carlawy. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will reflect on the points that have been raised there. Can I ask it that there is further engagement with Rafe Crisis Scotland? As I say, I imagine that everyone in this chamber is at one with where we should be going. Thank you very much, Mr Finnie. I call Tavish Scott to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you for starting us. First, can I endorse and agree with Kezia Dugdale's opening speech and the five points that she very powerfully made in Parliament this evening? There are not many times that a sensitive, tricky, difficult but intensely robust issue is introduced in that way, and it was very powerful and it is very important. I also want to recognise that the sister general and the Lord Advocate are here. Kezia Dugdale was quite right about the sister general's track record in this area, and that should not in any way be ignored by Parliament here tonight. However, I am sure that our law officers will want to reflect on what Parliament is saying here this evening and the power of the argument that has been presented to us by many constituents and by organisations that have already been named here this evening and consider carefully how to react to that. I can also entirely associate myself with John Finnie and Daniel Johnson's remarks about just being a member. John Finnie was reflecting his previous professional life, but there aren't many more harrowing things as a member of this place than to meet people who have been subjected. That is the time of the word to the pressure of the process that they are asked to go through and not think that there has to be some considerable change in Kezia Dugdale's set-out. I think that there are five very strong arguments for that this evening. I also want to associate myself with Lord Calaway's observations this morning. I thought that some of the observations that he made were very powerful indeed, particularly the point about the length of time. One of the cases that I dealt with at home in Shetland was over the length of time. Rhoda Grant was quite right about the geographical observation of those of us who were absent, the far-flung parts of this country, in terms of how far people have to travel and what that does. However, it was the length of time and how long this particular person had to deal mentally—never mind physically, but mentally—with the trauma and ordeal that she had been through that makes me think that many of the things that Lord Calaway set out this morning are right, need to happen and should be taken forward as a matter of some urgency. Can I make two points about Shetland rape crisis and Shetland women's aid, both of whom I am incredibly grateful to for their candor in telling me in no uncertain terms things that I should be aware of as a legislator and things that I should be aware of as a representative. One of the things that is not needed at home is to lose solicitors who have specialist rape and sexual assault abilities in terms of the role that they perform in Shetland, and that is one of the dangers that we face at the moment. They were quite clear about it, and the firm that we made lose in Shetland, who were frankly the only firm providing legal aid assistance to women in these circumstances, were going to lose them because of the legal aid fees. John Finnie was quite right. Michael Matheson was here earlier, and I am grateful to the justice secretary for being here earlier, but I hope that the Government will hear us loud and clear. Certainly, in my case, there are no two ways about it.  If we do not have them, the points that the Royal Government is making about geography will become even worse. I hope that the Government, if not the law officers, will reflect on that here tonight. Two final points. Shetland rape crisis is supporting in 1718, and this is maybe the point about why those services are so important. Margaret Mitchell reflected that from a different location in Scotland. They are supporting 52 survivors of sexual violence between the ages of 13 and 70, including a number of men, members of the LGBT community, along with women and girls. Finally, Shetland women's aid, who made two points to me. Women do not have confidence in the system, so unreporting needs to become reporting investigation and prosecution. Ask Tavish what it would do to you in terms of the trauma to your body and brain. Your natural body wants to block it out to go away and disappear. For that reason, and for many other reasons, we need to do a whole lot more. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. I call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Jenny Gilruth, Ms Baillie. Let me start by congratulating Kezia Dugdale on securing time for this debate and for her powerful contribution this evening. It is good to see the cross-party unity across this chamber to tackle the issue of violence against women and to address the flaws within our justice system in how it deals with reported cases. I also welcome the Government's commitment to the issue through its equally safe strategy, because both the physical and mental wellbeing of rape complainers should, without exception, be our number one priority. However, for too many rape complainers, their experience of the justice system itself is traumatic and the insensitivity with which some survivors of rape, domestic abuse and sexual violence have been dealt with is quite simply inexcusable. Up to 12 March this year, rape complainers could not be compelled to give evidence in court. However, of course, that has now changed, and the Crown Office can effectively compel reluctant rape complainers to give evidence through warrant or arrest. I accept that they may not wish to do so, but they can. The personal testimonies of women who have battled in the justice system to have the despicable things that they have gone through recognised is beyond heartbreaking, and Rape Crisis Scotland has issued warnings of the consequences that could result from the change in policy. I note my disappointment that the offer from Rape Crisis Scotland to work with the Crown Office on this following the consultation meeting on 30 August 2017 was not taken up. Rape victims already find it difficult enough to present the evidence for their case, and many find the hostility of the criminal justice process as a key factor in their reluctance to come forward. One victim found their experience of the justice system, as Kezia Dugdale has already said, but I think that it is worth repeating, that it was worse than rape itself. That surely cannot be tolerated any longer.  Their character comes under intense scrutiny, their story is pulled apart, usually far more than in the case of a non-sexual crime, and their willingness to continue the fight is often lost amongst the negativity of the system. Studies carried out by Rape Crisis Scotland have found that, with this new policy, there is likely to be an increase in women falsely admitting to having made up their testimonies as the only way out of the distressing ordeal. It is clear that, under the new policy, Rape Crisis Scotland will not be able to reassure clients that they will not be prosecuted for not appearing in court—something that they had previously found crucial to keeping women within the system. The fact that the process is so traumatic that women feel compelled to deny their own rape should make us all feel utterly ashamed. An additional issue in the criminal justice process in relation to how it tackles rape complainers is the lack of consistency. Rape complainers are often left for long periods of time before their cases are brought to court. There is a distinct lack of communication surrounding the locations and timings of hearings, both of which are often subject to a number of changes, and that simply adds anxiety to what is already a traumatic experience. Rape complainers deserve better. They have been given a voice by organisations like Rape Crisis Scotland, but far more needs to be done. Instead of pursuing this flawed approach, can I commend the five asks put forward by Rape Crisis Scotland to the Crown Office? For current and future rape complainers, we must ensure that the justice system provides closure to trauma, not a continuation of it. That policy must be scrapped. I call Jenny Gilruth. We are followed by Maurice Corry, Ms Gilbruth. Can I commend Kezia Dugdale on bringing forward today's motion on an issue that I know reflects her personal conviction and political commitment? I would like to focus my contribution today on the final section of the motion, which calls on adequate funding for rape crisis centres. Over five months ago, I raised the plight of Fife Rape and Sexual Assault Centre directly with the First Minister. Three weeks before Christmas, the organisation was unequivocal in its assertion that a 2.5 per cent funding cut from Fife's health and social care partnership was to blame for the closure of the organisation's waiting list. That was not a decision that the organisation took lightly. The First Minister was equally unequivocal in her response. She said, "...services like this are absolutely vital in protecting the most vulnerable women and children in our country. I hope all of us, whatever political disagreements we might have across the chamber, could come together and support the work that organisations like the Fife Rape and Sexual Assault Centre do for the benefit of Scotland." Exactly a month ago, I was delighted to hear that FRAZAC had reopened their waiting lists. I got in touch with Jan Swann, the centre manager based in Kirkcaldy. The waiting lists were reopened. Surely Fife's health and social care partnership must have seen the light, alas no. Despite additional funding from the Government, which is helping to support FRAZAC's advocacy service, local cuts via the core funding provided by the partnership continue to affect service provision. We are not talking about huge sums of money here. 2.5 per cent of FRAZAC's core funds equates to just £977. Rape Crisis Scotland's research reveals that what that actually means for victims of rape who live in Fife, the third-largest local authority in the country. On Monday 8 October, Fife had 83 people waiting to access a support service, the third-largest number in the country. The wait time for support does not match up, because rape victims in Fife can expect to wait up to 10 months for support. That is the highest waiting time in Scotland. It is completely unacceptable. However, numbers mask personal stories that mask suffering and pain. Just consider the eightfold increase between 2014 and 2018 for those aged between 13 and 15 years old. Or the fact that, since 2014, the total number of cases recorded by the service has increased from 213 to 280. The upward trajectory of women presenting to services across the country needs attention and encouragement. It needs financial support to enable a culture whereby women feel able to report rape or sexual assault when it occurs, not because the system compels them to do so. That has to be about a cultural shift. I appreciate that the Solicitor General has previously responded to questions on the Crown Office's changes on compelling reluctant complainers to give evidence in the Parliament. However, as Sandy Brinley of Rape Crisis Scotland has said, our view, having supported survivors the length and breadth of Scotland for years, is that the route to improving justice for rape survivors is not by forcing them to engage with a broken system but to fix the issues inherent within the system. Scotland has one of the highest rates of imprisonment for women in northern Europe, and I remain unconvinced that the Crown's actions will tackle that inequality. Rather, I feel that compelling reluctant complainers to give evidence in rape cases will compound a culture within Scotland's legal system, which too often makes female victims feel themselves like criminals. I understand the rationale behind the Crown's actions here. None of us would agree that a 5 per cent conviction rate is evidence of a system that works. Conversely, pushing women who have already been through horrendous trauma into giving evidence is surely not the answer. In closing, I hope that the Crown Office and Procreator Fiscal Service will now think again and listen to the views of women who have been through the system, because that is what they were told in the inspectorate of prosecution's thematic review that has previously been mentioned today. On opening the letter, the first thing that I saw was the name of the person who attacked me in black, bold letters. It was very distressing. In our court system, you are totally humiliated. It was the most degrading experience I have ever been through. Jackie Baillie is right that this is worth repeating. The court was absolutely horrendous. It was worse than being raped. Let's listen to these women's voices, let's listen to the experts at Rape Crisis Scotland and let's ensure that Scotland's legal system really works to support all victims of rape and sexual assault. I thank Kezia Dugdale for bringing forward to today's debate on this very important subject. I want to take the opportunity to note the work of rape crisis centres that work with people in my region, although not located in my region specifically. I have heard of the amazing work that they are doing to support rape victims in the west of Scotland. The Glasgow and Clyde rape crisis centre, which do outreach work in eastern western Bartonshire, the Argyll and Bute rape crisis centre at Basin de Noon, and the Star Centre located in Kilmarnock. Amongst others, they are doing amazing work in west Scotland. I am sure that they have the gratitude of absolutely everyone in this chamber today for that work. Moving on to the subject of compelling reluctant complainers in rape cases to give evidence in court, it is a very difficult topic and I have had to spend a lot of time thinking about it in the run-up to this evening's debate. I think that we can all agree that this is an area where we need to strike the right balance. What we have come up against is a difficult task of attempting to juggle the needs of rape victims and their welfare, the needs of prosecutors doing their best to protect the public from serious sexual offenders, and the needs of the courts to have enough information and evidence to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think that the balance that the Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have sought needs to ensure that rape victims are not put off from coming forward and that they feel supported. Of course, the reason for doing this is obvious. The latest official statistics show that just 39 per cent of those taken to court were found guilty, done from 49 per cent in the previous year, which is the lowest conviction rate since 2008-09, when it was 37 per cent. The drop came despite the number of in-court proceedings last year, rising by 13 per cent. We all know that this is a massive issue that we need to address, but by going around that, by compelling witnesses to appear and give evidence against their wishes, I fear that it will not help the overall situation. It makes it worse by reducing the number of women coming forward to the police in the first place to tell them that they have been raped. In an interview with BBC Sandy Brinley, which has been referred to before, of the rape price of Scotland, I said that, I quote, "...one of the key reassurances we are currently able to give people is that if they don't feel able to proceed that their wishes will be respected, but that will be gone. I do have concerns about the unintended consequences of this policy around women, not seeking help from the police or charities out of concern of being forced to give evidence in court, and I know that that would concern the Government as well." Kezia Dugdale's motion speaks admirably of the need to reconsider this policy, and I think that this would be the most appropriate course of attention at this point. When you have the charities like Rape Crisis Scotland telling you that you are going around something in the wrong way, it is important that the Government listens to that advice. In conclusion, what we need is to create an environment where it is easier for women to come forward and tell their own story in court and by supporting them in that process before, during and after the hearings. In that way, we can ensure that the conviction rate goes up, proper justice is delivered and that victims receive the care and support that they deserve. I thank my friend and colleague Kezia Dugdale for bringing this hugely important motion before us this evening. Until recently, public discourse around rape and sexual assault was shrouded in false assumptions and stigma, many of those still exist and endure. I carried some of them myself and I am ashamed to say, but I am very glad to say that joining the task force on violence against women, as I did some three years before I was elected, helped me to understand the profound and dehumanising impact that rape and sexual assault can have, not just on women but on men as well, but predominantly on women. It was in that group that I was proud to play some role in shaping Equally Safe, which has been referenced a number of times today. That work was also underpinned by my membership of the task force on child sexual exploitation. Many of the themes that we discussed in that task force were apposite to some of the solution around changing the culture. I mean the understanding of safe relationships, consent and respect that we need to grow and germinate within our children and young people as they understand the environment of relationships and what healthy relations look like. Our response to rape has to be a whole-systems response, but I am very glad that Kez Dugdale has focused her motion today on our criminal justice response. It is, I think, very easy when we have members' debates to use them as a forum to bemoan the situation, to wail and gnash teeth and cry foul about the many things that are wrong with the situation, but I think that Kez's five-point plan represents a very powerful index of positive action that we can take forward and our criminal justice colleagues can take forward to make things all the better. I welcome, as many have said, the president of the court of session, Lord Carlaway's response this morning, in part perhaps to this evening's debate, on making it easier for people to come forward and give evidence outside of court. I certainly lend my support to that. I want to touch on something that Daniel Johnson articulated very well. That dichotomy of that utilitarian need to see more rape cases brought to justice and the needs of the individual complainant. That was something that came up in our Equalities Committee inquiry into human rights in the Scottish Parliament, in that we have competing human rights in that. We have the macro meta narrative of the human rights of our society, not to have rapes continue, but we have the rights of the individual to be protected from being retraumatised. That is why I am compelled that the advice and the policies of the Crown Office procurator fiscal in compelling reluctant complainers are absolutely—whilst ment of the best intentions—will have unintended profound human consequences for the individual. It is not hard to understand how they got there. The fact that we have something like 1,800 rapes reported in the last year, yet only 270 brought to prosecution, is a scandalous statistic. It is a terrible statistic, but part of the reason is not people's reluctance to come forward. It is their confidence in the system. The fact that those 270 cases that were reported resulted in 125 convictions should undermine anybody's confidence in the system and not add to that. My friend, Tavish Scott made the point very well that you have a colossal amount of time to wait before you have your day in court, before you have that moment to tell your story, but at many points along that journey you are being retraumatised. I thank Kezia Dugdale once again for bringing this important debate to the Parliament tonight. I am sure that we are continuing to support that. Her five-point plan represents a really positive and progressive step to taking this debate forward. Thank you very much, Mr Cole-Hampton. I call Claire Baker, followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Kezia Dugdale for securing this important debate. I think that there is a strong recognition in the chamber this evening that we must do all we can to dramatically improve the situation that victims of rape are experiencing, from the support that is provided to them, from the public perception and understanding of the crime to the way in which our criminal justice system deals with those heinous crimes. It is hugely frustrating that the conviction rate for rape remains significant lower than for other crimes, and those are cases that do have the required corroboration. Research has currently been undertaken into jury decision making, and it is important that that includes the role of the jury in rape cases and can help inform any reforms going forward. I recognise the commitment of the Crown Office and the Solicitor General, who has spent her career fighting for justice for victims of rape and sexual assault, but the recent change in policy is very concerning. Rape prices Scotland remain concerned about the policy leading to victims retracting their complaint and the policy not recognising that the criminal justice process itself is what is causing the problem. I attended the Crown Office briefing in Parliament the other week, and what struck me as the Solicitor General talked about the experience of supporting a reluctant rape complainer was the degree of experience, expertise, empathy, judgment and commitment that could convince a victim who does not want to present evidence in court to continue with that trial. In the chamber last week, the Solicitor General said that she had not come across a case where that would be used in the last 10 years. The situation where a victim would be arrested, even in prison, seems so unlikely and against everything that the Crown Office is wanting to achieve, that it then appears unnecessary unless it is to act as a threat or a warning to the victim, which in itself does not justify itself as a way to treat victims of rape. As Jenny Gilruth has described, Fife Rape and Sexual Assault Centre had to close its waiting list in December after being overwhelmed by rising demand for their service. In Fife, 893 sexual crimes were reported last year, but we know that the real figure is higher. Person Can Ross Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre contacted me yesterday. Between April 2017 and March this year, their support service has seen an 8 per cent increase. As funding becomes increasingly challenging, they have had to cut a support post and their waiting times are increasing. It replied to me when I raised the situation in Fife that Angela Constance said that the Equally Safe Delivery Plan commits to a review of funding and commissioning, and that needs to be fully recognised. The need to address waiting times, funding pressures and staffing difficulties. The Fife Centre manager, Jan Swann, also spoke to me about the difficulty that they have recruiting support workers, volunteers and fundraising. It is not an easy field to work in. Fife has well supported charities with many volunteers who are working in food banks with children and family groups or with older people's groups. However, it is more challenging for rape crisis centres to recruit volunteers for what can be difficult work. We need to think about how we can support their efforts. However, what we really need to think about is how we stop this crime, which is only on the increase. I visited Perth Rape and Crisis Centre's 10-year exhibition last year. It was an exhibition to make you angry, emotional and uplifted. There were messages of hope and recovery, but also a clear demonstration of the injustice of sexual assault and rape. They do outreach work into local high schools, challenging ideas of young people and encouraged them to interrogate their views on sex. They are speaking to the next generation to try and change their prejudices and behaviour. That is work that is not core-funded, but it is essential if we are to see change. In closing, one of the most affecting displays in the exhibition was a rail of women's clothes. Representing the clothes that women wore when they were raped. There was a flannel knighty, a pair of jeans, a wedding dress. Those are clothes that reflect women of all ages and all social classes. That is a crime that reaches all parts of our society, one that we must confront, and one for which victims need to have justice. I, too, congratulate Kezia Dugdale on securing time to bring this vital and important issue to the chamber. This is a complex and emotive issue. The recent change of policy by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of compelling and reluctant victims in rape cases has clearly been met with opposition and concern from charities, individuals and MSPs alike. As members will be aware, on 25 April, my colleague Christina McKelvie sought assurances from the Solicitor General that victims would not face potential prosecution for ignoring a witness warrant if one was sought by the Crown. However, the Solicitor General was unable to give this reassurance. I understand that this would and could only happen in the most exceptional of cases, and that only after careful assessment and consideration of all circumstances would any decision be taken. The Crown states that the victims' interests, welfare and views are at the heart of prosecution policy in relation to victims who are reluctant to complain and that the policy underlines the importance of exploring the reasons for such reluctance. However, it is vital that we do in no way alienate, discourage or traumatise women with the bravery to come forward and reveal what has happened to them. In 2016-17, 1,755 rapes and 123 attempted rapes were reported to Police Scotland. However, those figures are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg. Many women understandably feel scared and unwilling to report an attack for a host of reasons. Is it therefore vitally important that women who report rape on sexual assault and intend to proceed through the criminal justice process must be supported and feel that their case is going to be dealt with appropriately and with understanding? A major reason that many victims choose not to report rape is the criminal justice system itself. For those who do, lengthy delays in cases coming to court and lack of meaningful communication often lead to those women feeling that they can no longer cope and they lose heart and have to withdraw. It is inherently wrong that people who have already been through such a traumatic experience and have shown the resolution and resilience to report rape may face the possibility of being presented with a warrant. Such a policy could see such women being punished by the very system that is supposed to protect them. While figures for many crimes in Scotland are going down, the number of reported sexual offences continues to rise. Reported sexual offences have been in a long time upward trend since 1974 and have increased every year since 2008-09. Sexual crimes are at their highest level since 1971, the first year for which such comparable crime groups are available. That is due in large part to the fact that, increasingly and rightly, women feel better able and supported should they report the crime and take it forward through the justice system. It is consequently our responsibility to ensure that women feel safe and have confidence that their case will be dealt with sensitively should they wish to report what has happened to them, not fearing prosecution should they later wish to withdraw. The Scottish Government's strategy equally safe has clearly set out the violence against women and girls in any way, shape or form as no place in Scotland. For over a decade, the Scottish Government has helped to form a justice system for survivors of gender-based violence, which ensures that they are responded to appropriately and with sensitivity and understanding, and I welcome the deliberations of Lord Canaway this morning. We must continue going forward in order to build a safe and successful Scotland for everyone. Presiding Officer, I understand that the Crown is committed to continue working closely with Rape Crisis Scotland and with other agencies to improve the experience of victims. I welcome that on-going work with Rape Crisis Scotland. I hope that the Crown takes on board the important discussions and points that are made here today across this chamber to ensure that every woman in Scotland feels supported should the worst ever come to pass, particularly regarding the very system that is designed to protect them. I thank KZD for taking the urgent action to secure cross-party support to allow this important debate to go ahead tonight. I also pay tribute to her for her tireless work in giving voice to women everywhere, but especially to survivors of sexual violence. I also associate myself with the remarks that have been made in acknowledging the accomplishments of the solicitor general. That debate is not an easy one to take part in, but it is a timely one. It has taken place against the wider social movement around me too, and I believe that her women's experience of sexual harassment and sexual violence has been spoken about more than ever from Hollywood to Holyroods in every school and workplace in community. It feels as a society that we are making tens of steps towards a culture change, and I am optimistic about the pace of the progress that we are making. It was therefore with anger and disbelief that I reacted to the news that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had a policy shift compelling so-called reluctant complainers of sexual violence to give evidence. Like other colleagues here tonight, I attended the briefing that was delivered by the Lord Advocate and the solicitor general on that policy change. None of us doubt the commitment to seeing dangerous perpetrators of sexual violence being put behind bars in order to protect women and deliver justice. However, when so few reported rapes make it to prosecution and conviction, I do understand the desire to see justice and to protect women from harm. However, as colleagues have said tonight, in doing so, we cannot neglect the wishes and the wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence. We know that sexual crimes are under reported.  We have heard and we know that rape survivors worry that they will not be believed, worry that they will somehow be blamed about what they are wearing, but we have heard powerfully from Claire Baker that it does not matter what you are wearing, it is never the fault of the victim. Women worry that they will be compelled to relay the most intimate details about their lives in court. It is a brutal system, and we see one high profile example after another in the UK and beyond where rape survivors are subjected to a hostile court environment and perpetrators are acquitted or given a sentence that does not seem to reflect the seriousness of the crime. I listened carefully to the solicitor general a few weeks ago, and I wanted to be persuaded, and she was very persuasive. She talked about how women can feel empowered by giving evidence and that engaging women and re-engaging women is approached in an emotionally intelligent fashion. I believe that people in the legal profession, in the judiciary, believe that that is the way that they are approaching it. However, we have to listen to rape crisis Scotland. We have to listen to the women's voices who are not being listened to, and I am concerned that we have reached a place where we have a disconnect, where rape crisis Scotland wanted to engage, wanted to be part of a consultation and feel that that has not happened. I think that I am the last speaker, and I will not go over time, but I want to say that we need to press pause. We have a five-point plan developed by rape crisis Scotland and Kezia Dugdale, and we are at a place today where the confidence of rape survivors is going to be at an all-time low. We have to press pause in order to get this right. Thank you very much, and I commend the solicitor general to close the debate. Up to seven minutes, please. I too thank Kezia Dugdale for bringing this matter to the chamber and for giving me an opportunity, which I feel is really important now, to clarify what this policy is and what it is not. I say again from the question answered last week and from the briefing that this is not a policy to compel rape victims to come to court. Can I just add as well that this is not a Scottish Government policy, this is a policy of the Lord Advocate as head of the independent system of prosecution in Scotland at whose side I stand four square, and for as long as I've got breath in my body, a law officer will continue to do all that I can to vindicate the rights of victims of rape and to pursue justice for those who perpetrate it. The change in prosecution policy is not about compelling the victims of rape to give evidence, it is about being clear and honest with complainers and those who support them that the decision whether or not a case is prosecuted is a one for the crown. That being the case, and it has to be the case, not because I want it, not because I think it's a good idea, but because law and ethics tell me that it is necessary. That decision has to be taken by the crown. It's then about making sure and making clear that the views, interests and wellbeing, welfare of the victim is at the heart of decision making by the crown. So that if a witness, if a victim being supported by rape crisis or not, because of course not all of the victims we deal with have advocacy workers, we deal with a wide range of victims with a wide range of issues leading to reluctance. Their views and welfare are at the heart of our decision making. If they become reluctant because they can't cope, because they have mental health issues, if it will harm their wellbeing, that is a massively important factor, of course it is. In the balancing exercise that we have to undertake, in the public interest, on the one hand bringing perpetrators to justice, protecting me, you, our daughters, our sisters, our mothers from future victimisation on the one hand, and looking at the impact of giving evidence on the victim and the other, that balancing exercise is one that we need to take in the public interest independently. It is the right thing to do and this policy is all about doing the right thing. Before the policy change, complainers of all kinds, whether supported or not by advocacy workers, effectively had a veto on the prosecution of serious sexual offenders. If they stated that they were reluctant, that was an end of the matter. That was treated as decisive. Often, given that understanding, the reasons were not explored. In that context, we had a situation in which very, very, very difficult decisions had to be made. I thank the Solicitor General for taking an intervention. I am listening very carefully to what she has to say, so I invite her to respond to the reality of the testimony that I put forward, that, for women who have been raped, the idea that they could be compelled, having that knowledge in advance, means that they may not report at all and she would have no cases to prosecute. We have discussed this with rape crisis and we will be working with both rape crisis and Police Scotland, because it is absolutely essential that, in dealing with victims and encouraging them to come forward in supporting them in that process, they are not threatened, they do not feel threatened by the risk of compulsion or imprisonment. That would be wholly inappropriate and we do not want to see any chilling effect on the willingness of victims to come forward. The fact of the matter is that the responsibility for taking decisions and prosecution lies with the Crown. For all other cases, murder, serious organised crime and child cases, the end option involves the power in appropriate cases to compel the witness and to seek a warrant and to enforce it. I repeat, Deputy Presiding Officer, that will happen in the most exceptional and rare circumstances. The work that we are doing with rape crisis here in saying that it is our decision to prosecute, nevertheless, we will engage with you, we want to hear from you, we want to know why you are reluctant and we want to take steps to re-engage and support or take that decision, which I have taken in the last few weeks since 12 March, to take that decision, not to carry on with the prosecution. That will continue. He wants to intervene a wee while, but it is an intervention that you seek. Are you taking it, Solicitor General? You are. Solicitor General, you say that this policy is not about compelling witnesses, and yet you say that the courts reserve the right to do so. Those are exactly the words that I think send a real chill to victims considering. Could you just agree with me or say whether you would consider or not actually giving the right of witnesses the right of victims to refuse to give evidence? I understand that you want to explore the possibility of continuing when the express reluctance surely ultimately there must be a right to refuse to give evidence if you are a victim of rape. Solicitor General? No, I cannot agree with that. The difficulty with that is legal and ethical and comes down to positive obligations and convention rights, which we are subject to.  I am running out of time. I can give you a little extra. We must conclude by 6.20, but I think that it is important to allow this debate to run, and I appreciate that from Solicitor General. John Finnie. I am grateful for your taking the intervention, Solicitor General. Do you like to comment on how you would view the quality of the evidence that would be obtained in those circumstances with that level of compulsion, please? I cannot envisage a situation where we would compel a witness whose evidence was going to be of such a quality that there would be no prospect of a conviction and no public interest in requiring her to come to court. You are right to identify the quality of evidence as an issue, which we will take into account when looking at all the factors. However, if we have a serious sexual offender who is a risk to others, who has previous convictions, who may be getting out in parole, if we do not prosecute, whatever, we have to balance the risk of not proceeding against the risk of proceeding. Johann Lamont. It is to assist people who are not as expert in the law, but who, in all of my adult life working with organisations like rape crisis, the very strongest message is that the system makes it worse. Can you explain to me why a message that says that the reason we have got low conviction rates is because of the victim and not because the system is going to help? That is not the message that we have given and that is not the message that we intend. It is not the message that we hope our friends and supporters at rape crisis and the police will add. I entirely agree that part of the solution to that is to improve the system and by working hard, very hard with colleagues to address those parts of the process that lead to reluctance and cause such pressures for the victims. I, too, welcome Lord Carlawy's ambitious statement this morning regarding pre-recording of evidence. That would be a worthy and really useful goal. However, in the meantime, we have to work with the system that we have and, as prosecutors, we have to protect the women and children in our society and we have to take the right decisions for the right reasons in deciding whether to prosecute and whether to require a complainer to give evidence. That is not a policy of compelling complainers. It is not a policy of compelling complainers.  It should not be and it cannot be in terms of ECHR and positive obligations. It cannot be the decision of the complainer. That is all. I wonder whether the law minister would take a brief intervention. It is up to you, Mr General. Simply because I have no experience of the law, so it would be helpful if you could clarify what has changed between before 12 March when you could not compel witnesses and now have previous solicitor generals or law advocates been operating the law inappropriately? I am afraid that it is very important, but we must conclude on the button at 6.20, so you are concluding a mark on that, please. Since 12 March, when we got the policy together, having consulted widely with rape prices, with other agencies, with senior prosecutors and so on, what had happened and what we took account of was developments in the European Court of Human Rights, which made it clear that states and state prosecutors did not take action in relation to offenders who were at risk of causing harm. Because of a lack of engagement by the complainer, where that was the reason for prosecutors not to take action, that man later went on to kill the complainer's mother and rape her, the European Court of Human Rights found that the state had failed in its positive obligations, so that is the legal context for a European dimension. I may say that looking at it, this is a policy and a practice that is held by our colleagues south of the border and many other European jurisdictions. It was about doing the right thing and supporting complainers, supporting victims. The last thing that we want is for a message to go out to chill their willingness to come forward. I would be very happy to continue this conversation. I am sorry that some of you were not able to come to the briefing, but that in itself was too short for MSPs. I thank all members and the Solicitor General. It is such an important matter that members may wish to consider speaking to their business managers for another context for this debate. Thank you all very much.


Just what is an economy? Is it the whole of our system of commerce? Is it the combined productivity of the nation? The answer is bigger than that, and the economy, our economy, is the heart of the American dream. It is our day-to-day decisions on what we do as sovereign citizens to live in these United States and to prosper from what we decide to commit to our commercial purposes. Our economy is what we do, not what non-citizen businesses do. In our constitutional agreement, we set two specific economy management duties upon our congressional representatives. The first is to coin money and to regulate the value of it. The second is to monitor and manage interstate commerce. You should note that neither of these has anything to do with managing the economy. The first deals with managing the value of money. The knowledge that government cannot regulate its value was not available in the knowledge of finance existing in 1776. The closest we come is managing the supply of money so that its value to our commerce is assured. Interstate commerce was again managed for our purpose, assuring that it does not favor some citizens at the expense of others. Government is to provide us, we the people, with two economic services. The first is to assure that our money has value. The second is to assure that citizens in the several states are equally protected in their commercial transactions. We have greater knowledge today concerning the operation of an economy, and it is not found in the modern study of economics, the science of operating an economy. Our economy is not some independent operating entity. Any more than our government is a sovereign independent from the people. Our economy is just the collection of what we the people do to secure the benefits of freedom and prosperity to ourselves. The performance of our economy, and I stress that it is ours, is through what we choose to commit to productive efforts, and in the value we recognize and what we gain for our efforts. It is a simple cyclic performance. On the operating side, the economy receives our committed time and effort, and uses these up in producing and delivering the goods and services that we get to receive. Likewise, our performance effort receives these goods and services. We, to gain what we value, commit our time and effort to commercial enterprises. Money is the value marker. It is the means for our transfer to the economy to gain the goods and services that it produces for us, and it is our means for the economy to pay people for contributing their time and effort to economic operations. That's it. Like government itself, we as sovereign citizens are the only real party in interest. Our economy only does what we do as our part of assuring that we receive what we value in goods and services.  What is this service that our government is supposed to provide? Is there some measurable difference between success and failure in providing it? By our constitution, it is to assure the value of the money we use, and it is to service our performance cycle with our structured economy. Our government is how we manage our economy, assuring that we receive good value from what it produces, and assuring that our commitment of time and effort gains value results. Our government can provide management to regulate our economy for our purposes of wealth and prosperity. Government is to regulate the economy, not sovereign citizens. Government, regulation is to minimize any waste of citizen resources consumed in our economy. It is to maximize the value of goods and services that we receive from our economic operations. To put it in more concrete terms, it is to assure that the food offered to us is safe for our consumption and serves our human needs and wants for food. It is to assure that the medical services we are offered are valuable in meeting the medical needs. It is assuring that any offered entertainments are delivered in an environment where we are safest citizens. It is assuring that the roads, bridges and public pathways are available to serve our needs and wants. It is to assure that money we earn through committing our time and effort is valuable for gaining the goods and services that our economy provides. Inflation of money marks the failure of government to maintain the value of money for our use. Success in government will be measured by an increase in the value, the value we can gain in goods and services from what we earn. It is all about us. The economy that does not serve us serves nobody. The government that supports inflation is not serving us. The government that causes inflation is violating its purpose for existing. Our performance tool is elimination of waste, managing our economy so that it does not require our time and effort without contributing to what we receive. It is managing our economy so that it produces what we value and what we earn can purchase it. For type one waste, we have economic demands upon the time and efforts of people that are consumed without contributing to economic performance. In this, we have a new economic rule that economy output has value only as citizen values output. If the people do not value some good or service enough to pay for it, then it has no value. We also have to address invisible services. Services that should not be directly observed and received, but have value when they do not have to be a concern for ourselves. This would be such as potable water when we turn the tap or light when we flip the switch. The more we have to concern ourselves with receiving this value, the less value we receive. If we drive our car and have to dodge potholes, then the public road is a problem rather than a service. It is most valuable when our roads are safe to use. These are highly valued services. Type 2 waste is when services are not provided, when the benefit is just not there. Delivery of public dollars and foreign aid is an example of type 2 waste, where value is delivered to non-citizens. There is no way to even authorize such behavior without going directly to the people and having such an overwhelming support as might justify it as value to we the people. A potential for charity as a valued service would be to have the need published the government provides for delivery of private donations. Then it would be the people with their personal value decisions that would determine the amount of aid based on the purposes to be served. This is the difference between a sovereign government that acts on what leaders decide and a representative government that supports its sovereign citizens. Government waste is when the efforts of people are consumed by government without appropriate services, as in the time and effort required of people in preparing their own tax returns. It is currently in the vicinity of a billion man hours annually, and the citizens get nothing for that expenditure. Waste is when people have to register to get the benefit of public programs. How is it that leaders do not know who they are required to represent? Is it any wonder we do not have effective representation? Who do they think they are representing? Waste is when you cannot practice a profession without joining some private organization or paying a fee to test whether you meet government standards. Waste is when you cannot buy or sell your own property without engaging private experts to deal with your government on your behalf. Waste is when government mandates safety equipment for your car for which you must pay, just in case you crash it into a tree. This is government cost instead of service. We have many opportunities to gather and direct our leadership. I am reminded of a Florida situation where government demanded vehicle inspection for Florida residents, but not for the huge tourist industry. It was the people who had to demand an end to the interference of well-meaning political leaders who would burden the citizens they were to represent. The pollution-based and safety-based regulation of Florida citizens did not provide a valued service when others could ignore its strictures. Should the leaders have created value, some service to assure that Florida vehicles were safe? It never seemed to occur to the leadership that they might serve the public. Government is how we manage our economy, and it is not supposed to be part of the economy. Money does not have natural value to anyone. It has value only as it is useful to citizens. It has value as it is earned and as it is spent. The purpose of government regulation of money is to assure that people have value in what they commit to economic pursuits and corresponding value in what they receive. People are the purpose of money. Our value is in our satisfaction of our needs and wants for the productive results of our economy's operation, the time and effort we expend on productive activities, and what we get for spending it are the only true measures of economic performance where the economy is not serving us, it is not serving anyone. I once came on a suggestion that we have two money systems, a dollar for inside the United States and a different dollar for foreign exchange. The values would be the same, but the cash inside and outside the borders have to be converted in order to be legal tender. The government would not otherwise honor foreign U.S. money inside the nation, nor honor internal dollars presented outside our borders. Illegal trade would be halted almost immediately, as the monetary conversion would require government involvement. Earnings by illegal aliens would be paid in internal dollars, but would have no value if transferred into foreign lands without government acceptance. It would kill any foreign illegal drug trade almost immediately. There would be no way to get large amounts of spendable money to foreigners without government involvement in the conversion. Proper management of money assuring its value for the benefit of citizens is possible. When we address managing money, it is managing the supply of money to ensure that it keeps its value to people. We are the purpose for having an economy. We, through our decisions to commit our time and effort to productive pursuits, are the ultimate source of economic value. Even precious metals have no value unless we value them. How much farmland can we buy with an hour of our labor? This is a sort of measure that tells us how good our economy is in serving us. How much is the average labor hour we commit worth in gold and silver? If the amount of these earth-based commodities is going down, then our time and effort is worth less to us. Our government is to manage our economy for our purposes, not for the benefit of the economy. It is to represent us, the sovereign citizens, whose authority creates and empowers government. We are the only party in interest. Our general prosperity is one of the things that can bring us together to agree on what we require of our leaders.


Nice read. Nice read. There's one thing here that we read. Check this out. This part. Let's check this out. If we can get above our three-dimensional infinite body and mind like in an airplane, we can see past, present, and future at one time. This is something that you experience with psychedelics. Okay? This is something that I put a video out. I did an analogy with the cornfield. Basically, I was talking about... I believe I put out that segment. It might have been from... I think I put it out anyway. It's called the cornfield analogy and I was talking about psychedelics and why drugs, entheogens, psychedelics, psychoactives have... governments have made them illegal. Meaning, the reason is, is because it gives us a higher perspective. Right? So, the analogy I used was, if you've ever walked in a cornfield, I have. I did that in geophysics, hydrogeology, stuff like this. When you walk in a cornfield, you're okay up to here. Cornfield, cornfield, cornfield, cornfield. As soon as the cornfield goes above your eyesight, where you can see you're lost. Your whole ability to navigate is gone. Right? If you're able to go above the cornfield, then your navigation is there. Right? So, that's why you go uphill if you're ever lost in a cornfield. Go up so you can get a higher perspective and at least see where you are. Right? So, my analogy was, the reason that drugs have been criminalized in the Western world, most of the world, is because they give us a higher perspective on reality. And this is sort of what's going in that direction, which I really thought was pretty damn cool. Right? Interesting read. Interesting read.