Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have taken on board the cabinet secretary’s points. She has amendments that should address my concerns. I have also taken on board the point that my amendment might overwhelm the system, which is entirely not the intention. I seek to withdraw amendment 89.

Amendment 89, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 90 not moved.

My amendment 90 would ensure that, when a prosecutor decides not to prosecute a person for an offence or alleged offence, that prosecutor must, as soon as possible, inform the victim of the offence or alleged offence of the prosecutor’s decision. That was first recommended in the “Thematic Report on the Victims’ Right to Review” back in 2018 but has still not been implemented. Victims of crime deserve transparency, and ensuring that they are informed of decisions that directly impact them and are likely to traumatise them is the right thing to do.

In her remarks, the cabinet secretary asked why we would not want a victims commissioner. If we had an endless budget, I think that we would welcome one, but I still have the concerns that I have raised when the committee first discussed the proposal.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee has said that the creation of such commissioners has been seen as an “easy win” for the Government, as it shows that it has done something. When this committee passes legislation, I want to ensure that it will make a difference to, and have an impact on, victims. We should not be doing something just because it looks good and would be a quick win.

My amendments in this group would ensure that trauma-informed practice and training worked in the best interests of victims across the justice system.

My amendment 86 would mandate that people who work with victims and witnesses in criminal investigations or proceedings should complete a training course in trauma-informed practice. That would ensure that victims of trauma were dealt with sensitively at a very difficult time for them.

My amendment 88 would require the Law Society of Scotland to include trauma-informed training in its training regulations, which would mean that a person would not be admitted as a solicitor until they had completed that training. I know that the Law Society has concerns about amendment 88 and has said that, due to the legal aid sector being in a real state of crisis because of the number of practitioners, it does not support further barriers to practising. I have listened to the Law Society’s concern about the proposal for mandatory training. It highlighted various commitments that it has made to recognising the importance of trauma-informed practice, including in relation to work conducted across LLB law courses in Scottish universities, which demonstrates progress in the field.

I understand the Law Society’s views, and for that reason I will not move amendment 88. However, the amendment has the best of intentions to improve the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Although I will not move amendment 88 at this time, we need to ensure that all solicitors—those who are new to the system and those who have been in practice for years—receive the relevant trauma-informed training, and that training must be kept up to date.

My amendment 87 would require five named criminal justice agencies to report directly to Parliament, rather than the victims commissioner, on whether they were performing trauma-informed practice up to the legislative standard. The five named agencies are the Lord Advocate, the Scottish ministers, the chief constable, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Parole Board for Scotland. It is important that Parliament has oversight over those agencies, so that concerns and areas of improvement can be addressed most effectively.

My amendment 93 would better define trauma-informed practice so that it would be carried out in the interests of victims and support their recovery.

I will speak to Russell Findlay’s amendments, convener.

The amendments in the name of Russell Findlay would remove the establishment of a victims commissioner from the bill. Although the proposal is well intentioned, we already have seven different commissioners in Scotland, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee has said that creating a new commissioner

“has ... been seen as an ‘easy win’ for the ... Government”,

as the Government can show that it has done something

“without the need to provide oversight or ensure effectiveness.”

I believe that the same logic applies in this case.

Concern has also been expressed over the potential overlap between a victims and witnesses commissioner and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. Despite the name of the proposed commissioner, they would have no power to champion or intervene in the individual cases of victims. That was highlighted by the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, who expressed concern about managing the expectation that a victims commissioner would be able to help people directly.

We have heard from organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that do not support the creation of a victims commissioner because they fear that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and impact on victim support service budgets. If we had unlimited resource, that would be one thing, but we must be realistic. At a time when there is huge pressure on the public purse, it is hard to justify the cost of almost £1 million that would come with the establishment and office running costs of a victims commissioner who will not be able to directly help individual victims.

As Scottish Women’s Aid and the Finance and Public Administration Committee have said, that money would be better spent both on improving front-line services and on practical measures that would directly benefit individual victims and witnesses. However, I know that the committee is likely to support the establishment of the victims commissioner, so my amendment 235 offers an alternative to ensure that the commissioner does an effective job in the way that victims deserve. It would sunset the office after five years unless the Scottish Parliament votes to make the role permanent before that time. That was recommended by this committee, which said:

“If ... a Commissioner post is to be established, ... we recommend that in the first instance it should be for a time-limited period in order to allow for an assessment to be made of the value of the role.”

I hope, therefore, that the Government will support my amendment to ensure that the commissioner is acting in the interests of victims.

I move amendment 1.

There are mixed views among people who currently support victims. Some of them support the creation of a commissioner, because they think that a commissioner would champion victims, but some do not, because they see it as adding another layer of bureaucracy.

Victim Support Scotland has said that it hopes that the money will not come from the support services that it already provides, but I do not think that we should be hoping—we need concrete assurances that the money will not come from the services that Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid already provide. If the money comes from those services, there will be a detrimental impact on victims and, instead of helping the people whom we want to help, we will end up making things worse for them.

Therefore, although I still have concerns, and I agree with all of Pauline McNeill’s comments, I am conscious that the amendments will not be agreed to, so I will not press amendment 1. However, I want to put all my concerns on the record.

I want to make a big difference for victims, and I am concerned about the substantial amount of money that will be required for a victims commissioner. I think that some victims have a mixed view of whether it will help or not, so I will not press the amendment.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The office of Victims and Witnesses Commissioner for Scotland

Amendment 2 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Functions

Amendments 95 to 97 and 3 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Civil function

Amendment 4 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Engagement

Amendments 98, 99 and 5 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5—Advisory group

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to work with others

Amendment 7 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7—General powers

Amendment 8 not moved.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8—Restriction on exercise of functions

Amendments 100, 101 and 9 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9—Strategic plan

Amendment 10 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

Thank you.

Okay.

Some stakeholders support the new commissioner and some are against the position. Concerns have also been raised about the cost. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape concluded:

“We also believe that the funding for new supported bodies would be better spent on improving the delivery of public services ‘on the ground’, where greater impact can be made.”

How will the introduction of the victims and witnesses commissioner affect the current commissioner landscape, which the Finance and Public Administration Committee highlighted as no longer fit for purpose?

I think that everybody realises the benefits that could come from having a commissioner, but, as you said, budgets are tight. It has already been said that some of that remit would overlap with the remit of one of the other commissioners. Would it not be as well to put a pause on the post until the full review has been done, or should we carry on?