���˿���

I think that this is reflected in the Government’s response, but the proposal is that any review of the effectiveness of the commissioner’s role would come back to the Parliament.

That is a difficult question to answer. I have my own views, but the committee did not necessarily discuss that issue collectively. One of the ideas that sits underneath the proposal is that the commissioner will give victims and witnesses a voice that they perhaps do not have at the moment. I cannot remember whether this point was made in one of the submissions on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, but it was thought that the commissioner would have a key role in engaging with victims and witnesses through their work in scrutinising policy, legislation and the work of stakeholders. That could certainly be an area of focus when scrutinising the effectiveness of such engagement, the form that it takes and the value of it.

As you say, we suggested that, should the Government establish a commissioner, one option, given the current landscape, would be to make the post time-limited, with a view to a piece of work being done to evaluate and scrutinise its effectiveness. We did not particularly consider a time period, as we felt that that could perhaps be refined in the further stages of the bill, once there had been a consideration of an optimum time that would allow the commissioner enough time to embed, and for outcomes to be seen and the value of the role to be established. However, as you quite rightly say, there is a financial aspect as well.

Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for the invitation to attend your meeting this morning.

As you have said, the Criminal Justice Committee engaged in fairly extensive scrutiny of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. It is a significant bill of six parts, part 1 being the proposal to create a victims and witnesses commissioner, and we took evidence from a range of witnesses, including organisations already involved in supporting victims and witnesses, bodies in the justice system and a number of lived-experience witnesses. A few issues that came out of the evidence led us to conclude that we, as you have said, remain to be convinced about the case for creating the victims and witnesses commissioner post.

Perhaps I can run through two or three of those issues. The first was duplication. As I have said, a number of bodies already do significant support work, particularly with regard to victims of sexual crime, and it was suggested that there was the potential for a commissioner to overlap with—or perhaps intrude on—the extensive work of those existing bodies. In fact, Scottish Women’s Aid commented that it felt that its relationships with the likes of Scottish Government policy makers were already very good and productive. In fact, Scotland is held to be a bit of a standout in that regard.

The next issue was cost. The financial memorandum sets out start-up costs of around £640,000, I think, with recurring costs after that, and there was certainly a feeling that that money could be put to better use. Sandy Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland said that she would prefer to see resource going to supporting legal representation for victims than perhaps to supporting a victim and witnesses commissioner.

The third of the key issues that came up in our evidence was the potential overlap of a victims and witnesses commissioner with the role of existing commissioners, specifically that of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. In fact, in her submission to the committee, that commissioner highlighted some concern about her role in supporting children’s rights and interests overlapping with that, potentially, of a victims and witnesses commissioner.

Obviously other issues were raised, convener, but I would say that those were the key ones.

We were coming from the evidence that we heard. There was a lot of support for the proposals for a victims and witnesses commissioner, particularly from some organisations that already work with victims, less so from those that work with witnesses. We tried to reflect the reality of the situation that we are in financially and recognise the existing support for the post of commissioner.

Again, it comes back to the fact that there is an absolute acknowledgment across individual sectors, Parliament and the Government that things need to change.

The committee came to that conclusion as an option in the event that the Scottish Government is clear that it wishes a commissioner post to be established.

No. Thanks again for the opportunity to meet the committee today.

I have one final point. The first recommendation in the report relates to improving

“leadership behaviours across the organisation”.

I was interested in your comments on equality and diversity training being resumed in 2021. Was the change in the delivery of equality and diversity training anything to do with the amalgamation of the eight forces into one? As I understand it—and from Rona Mackay’s reaction, this is her understanding, too—that is a key part of probationer training in particular.

Thanks. That was helpful.

I will hand over to you.