Seòmar agus comataidhean

I reiterate that, in my engagement with stakeholders, there is always a commitment, from Government and from stakeholders—including the most senior ones—to move forward and to deliver more for victims, although within a context of ensuring that the rights of everyone involved in the court process are protected.

Notwithstanding Mr Findlay’s attempt at a very discreet amendment, putting a reform of such magnitude and scale into practice is a significant operation. He will not be surprised to hear that there are concerns about there having been no prior consultation. There are complex issues with court scheduling. We might not like that, but it is the reality. There is also concern about taking the judiciary away from specialist courts.

In short, it is my view that the amendment is not required. Obviously, I have discussed the matter with the bill team, which is supported by the Scottish Government legal directorate. However, I can make a commitment to Mr Kerr to have further direct conversations with the Law Society of Scotland. If that reassures him, I am happy to do so.

I am grateful to Ms McNeill. I point out that the process with regard to the Court of Session already exists in other legislation—namely section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, on being able to order the performance of a duty.

The purpose of my amendment 135 is to provide clarity on the right of the commissioner to make a referral or application to the court under the said legislation. I reiterate that that replicates the statutory enforcement powers that apply to other commissioners. In addition, I assure Ms McNeill that the Scottish Government proposed amendments 135 to 139 following our discussions with Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service officials last year. It was during those discussions that the Crown Office suggested that the bill be amended to require the commissioner to share reports with criminal justice agencies prior to publication, for example.

Yes.

That is okay.

Will you take an intervention, Mr Findlay?

In the interests of transparency, I note that amendments in this area are fraught with difficulties. I will not reiterate what I outlined earlier, but work is on-going with the Crown Office to look at how more victims—not all, but more of them—are informed.

I am relaxed about whether there is a further discussion for me to have with the Crown Office, one that I facilitate between the Crown Office and members, or something that we do collectively. I am always prepared to engage in more discussions. I am just being upfront and transparent: I think that amendments to legislation in this area are particularly tricky and difficult, and I am not in the terrain of making false promises.

There will always be an argument to be made with regard to how we use our resources now to impact on change. I do not demur from that, but there is also the argument that there is a very strong case to be made for having a victims and witnesses commissioner to uphold and undertake specific statutory functions—those arguments are not mutually exclusive. We should bear in mind that criminal justice agencies are independent from Scottish ministers—and rightly so. After all, we do not want undue ministerial interference in independent decision-making functions. I contend, therefore, that there is a gap that can be filled by a statutory victims and witnesses commissioner who will fulfil statutory functions that cannot be undertaken by anyone else.

I acknowledge the concerns about finance that Ms Dowey has raised consistently throughout stage 1 of the deliberations on the bill, but I contend that, although the recruitment of a victims and witnesses commissioner and the establishment of their office will, of course, incur a financial cost, making such an investment only for the post to be removed a few years later would not seem to be a wise use of resources.

My instinct is to seek consensus where I can, but, on some issues, you are either in or out. When it comes to the debate on the victims and witnesses commissioner, I remain fairly in.

I urge members to oppose all the amendments in the group.

Convener, I had finished my remarks and I did not appreciate that I had a right to reply, but I will take a brief moment to respond to Ms McNeill.

I understand the points about resources. We have to carefully consider every pound that is invested. I hope that members will be cognisant of that as we proceed through stages 2 and 3, because cost is much more of a germane factor in some of the other amendments that we will come on to.

The financial memorandum sets out that approximately £600,000 would be required to set up the commissioner’s office and that there would be approximately £600,000 in recurring costs, which is not an insubstantial amount of money. However, to put that into context, the victim-centred approach fund is £48 million and, over the past five years, the justice portfolio alone has invested £92 million in victim support and related matters. There are ways to reduce costs, although it would be up to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to do that by sharing services or premises.

Finally, I understand Ms McNeill’s point, but in order to best serve individuals we also need a robust system that is held to account.

I am very mindful of the discussions that I had with Mr Greene early on after my appointment to the position of Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. At the time, he was a very active member of this committee. I say to him and colleagues that we will always do what we can to work together collaboratively. We have done our very best with the 50-odd amendments that Mr Greene lodged at the end of last week. I assure him that we are working at pace. We might not have all the answers today, but I hope that, as we proceed through stage 2, we can demonstrate a willingness to make further improvements to the bill and discuss other work that is in train and beyond.

On group 3, I agree with Mr Greene about the importance of ensuring that victims understand their rights and how the criminal justice system works. I strongly agree, in principle, with his amendment for a victims charter to be the responsibility of the victims and witnesses commissioner. However, I cannot support amendment 234 in its current form, as it would require the victims and witnesses commissioner to prepare and publish the victims charter and to lay it in the Parliament within 12 months of section 1 of the bill coming into force. The recruitment process for the commissioner cannot start until section 1 has come into force, and we anticipate the recruitment process taking between six and nine months. Assuming that a suitable candidate was appointed, the commissioner’s role might have been filled for only a couple of months prior to the deadline in the amendment, which would not allow the commissioner the time needed to develop and produce a charter.

My suggestion to Mr Greene is that he does not press amendment 234 and that we work together ahead of stage 3 on an amendment that provides that the charter should be produced within 12 months of the commissioner taking up their role.

Given that I agree with the principle of the commissioner being responsible for the charter, I urge Jamie Greene not to move amendment 236, which would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish the charter.