Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to ask a question about the proposed register of solicitors. The Law Society of Scotland’s submission raises concerns about how that register would work in practice. Those include a concern about how much detail will potentially be left to secondary legislation. Does Stuart Munro want to pick up on that and add any other comments? I will then seek the views of Jonathan Campbell and Jamie Foulis on the concerns that have been raised.

Okay. Thank you very much.

As no one else has any comments to make, are members content that we write to the Scottish Government on whether the intention is for the pilot to be retrospective and for it to be open to the survivors who first raised the issue, and that, in doing so, we flag the other points that members have made, in particular around the application form and the need for the process to be trauma informed? I imagine that that will be at the centre of that piece of work. We will also note the comments that Pauline McNeill made on simplifying the process of transcript production. Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next agenda item is discussion of the annual report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. Specifically, Laura Paton, inspector of prosecution at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, has raised several concerns over the current model for the provision of forensic pathology services in Scotland. Those concerns are outlined in the annual report, extracts from which can be found in paper 4. Laura Paton has described the efforts to reform the forensic pathology system as

“ad hoc, rather than transformational”,

and she notes the COPFS’s preference to move towards a national forensic pathology service.

We are invited to consider whether to ask COPFS, the national health service and the Scottish Government for their views on the points raised by the inspector of prosecution, and to ask whether there are any further plans to review the current model for providing forensic pathology services in Scotland. I ask for members’ views on our proposed course of action.

I will intervene at this point and pull members back to part 1, focusing on the victims commissioner. I do not like being too precious about questioning, but can we pull it back so that members have the opportunity to explore part 1 first? I apologise for interrupting you, Stuart Munro.

No, that is fine.

Thanks very much. Pauline McNeill, I will bring you in.

Before I bring in Russell Findlay, I come to Stuart Munro. The Law Society’s submission welcomed the proposed restriction on the commissioner intervening in individual cases. Are there any additional points that you would like to make about that, following the response from Jamie Foulis?

I will ask a final question and then we will move on to look at embedding trauma-informed practice.

We heard concerns from Scottish Women’s Aid that a commissioner post would essentially add an additional layer of bureaucracy into the system. It might limit what it described as fairly positive current access for organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid to policy makers and justice agencies. Do you have a view about how a victims commissioner might interfere with or change the current process of communication?

A very good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies this morning. Pauline McNeill is running a little bit late and will, I hope, join us shortly.

Our first item of business is the continuation of evidence taking on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. As a reminder, we are in stage 1 of our scrutiny of the bill, in which we are focusing specifically on taking evidence on parts 1, 2 and 3, which cover the establishment of a victims and witnesses commissioner, the embedding in the justice system of trauma-informed practice and the extension of special measures to civil cases. We expect stage 1 to run until about mid-November, after which we will move on to consider other parts of the bill.

We are joined by a panel of witnesses from organisations that represent the legal profession. I welcome Jamie Foulis of Balfour and Manson, who is a member of the Family Law Association; Stuart Munro, who is convener of the criminal law committee of the Law Society of Scotland; and Jonathan Campbell, who is president of the Edinburgh Bar Association. Welcome, to you all.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow around 90 minutes for this session. Before we get under way, I ask members to be succinct with their questions and panel members to be succinct with their responses. If we can, let us try to work through parts 1, 2 and 3 in turn in our questions.

I will begin with a question on part 1, which deals with the proposed establishment of a victims and witnesses commissioner. In broad terms, are you supportive of the proposal for a statutory victims and witnesses commissioner and, if so, why? We will begin with Jamie Foulis.

Thank you very much. As we still have a number of members who want to come in, I must ask for fairly succinct responses. I call Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Katy Clark.