³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

You are right that a number of inspectors sit within the criminal justice space, as you have mentioned. Again speaking personally, my instinct is that they work independently. Having read quite a number of reports of HMICS, I think that the position that it takes on issues feels quite independent and probing. Some reports that I have seen published by HMICS have been quite challenging. It is expected, of course, that recommendations that are made by HMICS, for example, are actioned. That model appears to do what it says on the tin.

Another example is a recent report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland about how cases of domestic abuse are processed through our court system. There is certainly some good practice, but areas were highlighted as requiring attention. I am confident that the commentary around that will be scrutinised and that consideration will certainly be given to implementing the recommendations that are made.

As I highlighted in an earlier response, the criminal justice space has inspectorates and also has third-sector organisations that work tirelessly and do valuable work, ultimately, to make the experience of victims and witnesses better. Maybe it is right that we have a broad range of scrutiny processes, some of which are fulfilled by the third sector and some of which are accountable to Parliament. Perhaps we should welcome that model in Scotland.

I agree with everything that Clare Haughey set out. As you say, there will be greater public awareness of some commissioner roles, such as that of the members of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, and less awareness of others, such as the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. Why would the public know about that last one? Having said that, his work is highly relevant to where we are going with biometrics.

I concur with Clare Haughey’s comment that it would be good if your committee could consider the public’s general awareness of commissioners and their roles, purposes and responsibilities. I am sure you will do that in your work around scrutinising the landscape.

I would be happy for that to be explored. We are perhaps at a point where we need to look at models that promote best practice. I suspect that one size does not fit all. I am not familiar with the position of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, but I would welcome that, and I expect that that will be part of your committee’s scrutiny of the issue.

I can come in on that. My committee’s scrutiny of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill has just got under way. Last week, we took evidence on issues relating to training in Police Scotland. If we cast our minds back, I think, 10 years ago to when eight police forces became a single force, we can see that we looked at the potential for that process of amalgamation to involve, to a certain extent, some cost cutting and some fine tuning of service delivery. Areas of operational delivery that were seen as non-essential were changed, and we looked at police training and leadership.

Having worked in that world—I declare that I am a former police officer—I note that there is perhaps a perception that things such as equality and diversity training are desirable but not necessarily essential. However, several years on from that change, issues relating to misconduct by police officers seem to be catching the public eye, and we are now looking at the bill that I mentioned on the back of Lady Elish Angiolini’s extensive review of the handling of police misconduct and complaints.

That piece of work would be timeous and worth while. The preparation period before coming to the committee today has been quite enjoyable for me, as I have been able to examine the landscape around commissioners. It is not a pick-and-mix situation, but a number of models came out in some of the evidence that you took. The landscape of commissioners has emerged organically. Perhaps we are at the point at which, in the spirit of efficiency and transparency, a fairly robust, overarching review is entirely appropriate.

I can speak only for the Criminal Justice Committee. A significant aspect of the scrutiny work that we do—that is, the work that does not involve the scrutiny of a bill—ultimately circles back to the experiences of victims and witnesses. An obvious example is the work that we do on violence against women and girls. However, we are currently considering the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, and you could argue that that bill is seeking to put in place arrangements to improve the experience of individuals who encounter Police Scotland officers and find themselves in a position where either they have made a complaint about a policing matter or a misconduct investigation is being carried out. You could argue that, ultimately, that circles back to the experience of victims and witnesses, too.

I would say that a broad range of work is already taking place, but, in the context of my committee, much of our work lands in the space of improving the experience of victims and witnesses.

Yes. I think that we set out in our report that one option would be undertaking a piece of work to evaluate the effectiveness of the commissioner over the period of the existence of the post. Obviously, that would need to be set against criteria that the Parliament considers are appropriate to measure what we are looking for the commissioner to undertake and to achieve. The success of that work could then be measured.

That is a really important point to raise. I am aware that Dr Plastow commented on his engagement with my committee. Without making excuses, I point out that the issue is the capacity of our committee. As you have acknowledged, we are a legislation-heavy committee.

We will be speaking to the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner later in the year, and I regularly follow his work, because it is of real public interest. I am aware of the compliance reports that he has submitted. Would I like the situation to be different? Absolutely, but the challenges of our workload make things difficult. That just reflects where we are with parliamentary work.

I will make one point in relation to the Criminal Justice Committee’s potential follow-up scrutiny of the role of a victims and witnesses commissioner. Perhaps there is a case for other committees having a role in scrutinising the work of that commissioner, given the cross-cutting and overlapping issues that they might be engaged with.

That is a big question in the criminal justice space. If I can go into committee mode for a moment, what came up in the evidence that we took across the bill—as you know, the bill is about improving the experience of victims and witnesses, which at the moment is not good enough—was that it is extremely difficult to effect positive change across that whole system. Take, for example, the proposals around trauma-informed practice. Lots of good work is going on now and we know that agencies are embedding that, but we are still not there yet.

The question that I would put back to you is, how, across separate agencies, do you effect a whole-system approach? You can do that in ways that do not cost money and do not involve passing new legislation or creating a victims and witnesses commissioner. An example might be post-legislative scrutiny, which might be an option if that process within the Parliament could be effected more frequently and more effectively.

We know that hard choices have to be made in relation to the public purse. Again, I suppose it comes back to taking provision from one area to enhance the provision in another area. In the criminal justice space, that is incredibly difficult.

I am not sure that I have given you a concrete answer, because it is such a huge question, but those are a couple of points that come to my mind that my committee would agree with.

That view was articulated not just by the now First Minister but by other witnesses, who questioned the extent to which the commissioner could influence change and would be able to require change. We heard that view fairly broadly during our evidence taking on the proposals for a commissioner.