Seòmar agus comataidhean

A lot of groups out there, such as Victim Support Scotland, already deal with victims. Are we not listening to their voices? Are they not able to raise the issues with the system with us? Should we not be able to hear them, too? I am just thinking about the costs. Would it not be better if that money went to more of those groups?

That brings me on to my other question. Where is the money coming from? Is something else being cut to provide the money for another commissioner?

It is not an insignificant amount of money.

Finally, on implementation, you have said that the bill is being brought in to make the system more efficient. Part 3 of the bill refers to the Children (Scotland) Act 2020; although sections 4 to 8 of that act aim to address some of the weaknesses in the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, I note that they are not yet in force. Why have the 2020 act provisions not yet come into force?

I still think that the money could be better used to upskill the existing staff. However, if the bill were to be passed, what would the timescale be to get the new court up and running, and do you actually have the resource to do that?

No problem, convener.

Following on from Katy Clark’s question and the issue of the set-up and recurring costs, will the commissioner provide value for money and how will they improve the situation for victims and witnesses?

Thank you.

Ms McCloy has already answered much of my question on the reasoning behind changing the jury size. We are going from 15 to 12 jurors and when we had 15 jurors, if three stood down or were sick, we could still run the trial with 12. Now, we are going to have 12 jurors, but if three people come off the jury, we can still run with nine members. I was wondering about the reasoning behind that, but Ms McCloy answered that.

The other part of my question was about the pilot of having one judge as the jury for serious sexual offences. How would that work?

I will follow on from that line on questioning. We have a High Court and a sheriff court, so why do we need a new sexual offences court? The convener put it quite well when she asked whether we could improve and refine what already exists. How much will it cost to set up the new sexual offences court? Would that money not be better used for training and for victim support groups so that we can use the system that we already have?

You said earlier that we all share the aim of the guilty being convicted and those who are not guilty being set free, which I am sure that we all agree on. However, we are saying that we want victims’ voices to be heard, and one of the things that victims have said is that, in the end, they feel let down by the sentences. Therefore, is the bill looking at anything to do with sentencing for those who are convicted of an offence?

As you have said, there is a range of commissioners who hold the system to account. However, have you assessed whether the other commissioners are effective in their roles? Might this be a case of, “They’ve got a commissioner, so we want one”? Are the commissioners effective? They might be accountable to the Parliament, but we already have a cabinet secretary and a minister who are accountable to the Parliament. Why do we need to bring in another layer of bureaucracy?

The committee has noted the steps that Scottish Canals is taking to address the disclaimer opinion on its annual report and accounts for 2021-22. We have also noted its commitment to delivering a set of accounts free from a disclaimer opinion and to laying its annual report and accounts in the new year. However, it appears that Scottish Canals faces a significant challenge in meeting its public accountability responsibilities and complying with financial reporting manual requirements. Indeed, we heard as much in your opening statement. What contingencies do you have in place should you fail to do so?