Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will try to summarise my concern. I would never demur from the acknowledgement that there is much more to do. In broad terms, my concern about the amendments is that they take us into an area of prosecution that can, at times, involve overreach. The water is being somewhat muddied by the fact that we are trying to build a system that is based on ensuring protection for victims, whether that is through a reformed victim notification scheme or other measures. This is a particularly complex area for us to dig into and it needs much more thought.

There are also limitations, including under the Scotland Act 1998; Mr Greene will be well aware of the limitations for ministers and parliamentarians in that regard.

By and large, I accept that. However, I point out that, particularly in the context of legislation, blanket approaches can be problematic. I will not rehearse the arguments that I have made about that.

We have already touched on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, under which victims have the right to request information about their case, including when a decision has been made not to prosecute or to discontinue proceedings. I will not repeat what I have said about the work that the Crown Office is currently undertaking. I know that members of the committee will be aware of the specific right to access the victim’s right to review scheme. There has also been discussion about Police Scotland’s your care card.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support any of the amendments in the group, and I urge the committee to oppose them.

Well, that was the issue that you raised at stage 1, Mr Findlay. I referred—it was probably a page and a half ago in my notes—to the integrated domestic abuse courts, or IDACs.

I have intimated some of it. We have had detailed feedback, Mr Findlay.

I appreciate that, in your amendment, you have attempted not to interfere with the independence of the judiciary or the Lord President. However, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has raised many practical issues with me—indeed, the subject came up when I had my first formal meeting with the new Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk last week. A number of issues have been raised and I have highlighted some of them.

If I may, I will go on to talk about what we are doing over and above the research, although that research is important in helping us to learn from other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, and we want that research to be published in time to support the next Government and the next Parliament.

Another reform that emerged from the workshops deals with the potential to make changes to court rules to ensure that civil courts get information about domestic abuse and sexual assault at the early stage of the civil process. Although court rules are made by the courts and not by ministers, the Scottish Government intends to send a policy paper to the Scottish Civil Justice Council. That paper will propose changes to court rules about the information regarding domestic abuse and sexual assault that is provided to the civil courts. A draft of that policy paper will be ready by the start of stage 3.

On the basis of the steps that we are actively taking to improve the interface between the civil and criminal courts, and because such significant change should not be dealt with by an amendment to this bill, I ask committee members to oppose amendment 78.

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?