���˿���

My amendment 90 would ensure that, when a prosecutor decides not to prosecute a person for an offence or alleged offence, that prosecutor must, as soon as possible, inform the victim of the offence or alleged offence of the prosecutor’s decision. That was first recommended in the “Thematic Report on the Victims’ Right to Review” back in 2018 but has still not been implemented. Victims of crime deserve transparency, and ensuring that they are informed of decisions that directly impact them and are likely to traumatise them is the right thing to do.

In her remarks, the cabinet secretary asked why we would not want a victims commissioner. If we had an endless budget, I think that we would welcome one, but I still have the concerns that I have raised when the committee first discussed the proposal.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee has said that the creation of such commissioners has been seen as an “easy win” for the Government, as it shows that it has done something. When this committee passes legislation, I want to ensure that it will make a difference to, and have an impact on, victims. We should not be doing something just because it looks good and would be a quick win.

My amendments in this group would ensure that trauma-informed practice and training worked in the best interests of victims across the justice system.

My amendment 86 would mandate that people who work with victims and witnesses in criminal investigations or proceedings should complete a training course in trauma-informed practice. That would ensure that victims of trauma were dealt with sensitively at a very difficult time for them.

My amendment 88 would require the Law Society of Scotland to include trauma-informed training in its training regulations, which would mean that a person would not be admitted as a solicitor until they had completed that training. I know that the Law Society has concerns about amendment 88 and has said that, due to the legal aid sector being in a real state of crisis because of the number of practitioners, it does not support further barriers to practising. I have listened to the Law Society’s concern about the proposal for mandatory training. It highlighted various commitments that it has made to recognising the importance of trauma-informed practice, including in relation to work conducted across LLB law courses in Scottish universities, which demonstrates progress in the field.

I understand the Law Society’s views, and for that reason I will not move amendment 88. However, the amendment has the best of intentions to improve the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Although I will not move amendment 88 at this time, we need to ensure that all solicitors—those who are new to the system and those who have been in practice for years—receive the relevant trauma-informed training, and that training must be kept up to date.

My amendment 87 would require five named criminal justice agencies to report directly to Parliament, rather than the victims commissioner, on whether they were performing trauma-informed practice up to the legislative standard. The five named agencies are the Lord Advocate, the Scottish ministers, the chief constable, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Parole Board for Scotland. It is important that Parliament has oversight over those agencies, so that concerns and areas of improvement can be addressed most effectively.

My amendment 93 would better define trauma-informed practice so that it would be carried out in the interests of victims and support their recovery.

Good morning. I will come back to the sexual offences court, as I want to ask about training. You mentioned the specialism that will be in the sexual offences court, but we know that the court will exist in the same court system that we have now. Will you tell us a bit more about who will be trained? Will it only be the people who work in the sexual offences court or will we train everybody who works in the court system? How are we going to embed trauma-informed practice? Which agencies would be responsible for supplying and carrying out the training? What training will be received? Is it going to be a one-time course? Will there be refresher training?

I am just trying to work out how courts will get the training if we are using the court system that already exists. When I first read the bill, I understood that everybody in the court system would get the trauma-informed training. However, we then hear about the specialism that will exist in the sexual offences court. Will you elaborate on your intentions in that regard?

Thank you.

Okay.

Some stakeholders support the new commissioner and some are against the position. Concerns have also been raised about the cost. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape concluded:

“We also believe that the funding for new supported bodies would be better spent on improving the delivery of public services ‘on the ground’, where greater impact can be made.”

How will the introduction of the victims and witnesses commissioner affect the current commissioner landscape, which the Finance and Public Administration Committee highlighted as no longer fit for purpose?

I think that everybody realises the benefits that could come from having a commissioner, but, as you said, budgets are tight. It has already been said that some of that remit would overlap with the remit of one of the other commissioners. Would it not be as well to put a pause on the post until the full review has been done, or should we carry on?

Good morning, again, cabinet secretary. Your letter of 31 October outlines several proposed areas of amendment relating to the victims commissioner. Can you expand on the thinking behind them?

Thank you for that. Mairi, have you got anything else to add?