���˿���

I have read John Watt’s comments—

I have already answered that, and the Parole Board is part of the remit; the Parole Board, as a legal entity, is a listed agency.

In short, yes. There has been a series of reports, dating back to about 2017, including a thematic review of investigation and prosecution services, a close look at justice journeys and a review of victim care that was undertaken by Lesley Thomson KC, as well as other work. Then we have Lady Dorrian’s work, in which she said that trauma-informed practice is a central way in which the experience of complainers can be improved. I believe that the bill will help to bring forward that system-wide change.

As I said in my opening statement, we can never remove risk entirely, because people will have to recount very difficult traumatic experiences, in some shape or form, as part of their going through the justice system. However, where we can, we will seek to reduce the risk of retraumatisation and ensure that people can continue to be engaged with the justice system and not fall out of the process by supporting them appropriately to give their best evidence. That is not compromising anybody else’s rights, but it is in the interests of justice that complainers and witnesses can give the best of evidence. At the end of the day, we all just want to get to the truth in any individual case.

A cornerstone of our justice system is fairness, and it has to be run in a way that does not disregard the welfare of people who participate in it.

Yes. Again, there have been lots of discussions with lots of stakeholders and people who operate in the courts on a daily basis. As you would expect, I have engaged with the Faculty of Advocates, criminal defence lawyers and victim support organisations. The purpose of Lady Dorrian’s review was to look at how we could improve the experience of victims who are going through the justice system without compromising the rights of the accused. There is always a balance to be struck there.

I will not repeat what I said about the series of reports that make up a body of evidence about the system as a whole. We have had lots of powerful personal testimony about the emotional toll of being a complainer or a victim, as I am sure that the committee has.

There are criminal defence lawyers who have been absolute champions of the trauma-informed approach. I am thinking particularly of Iain Smith, with whom I had dealings when I was Minister for Drugs Policy.

Our system ultimately needs to be fair to everybody, and we need to have that balance.

The bill requires the Scottish Prison Service to comply with the new principles on trauma-informed practice in its work with victims and witnesses. The SPS mainly interacts with victims through the victim notification scheme, which has been subject to a full, independent review. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety and I will come forward with our conclusions and our response to that review either by the end of the year or at the turn of the year. That review focused on communication with victims and how there could be a more person-centred approach, as well as people’s rights to engage with particular processes.

Other work that is relevant in that regard includes a workstream under the victims task force on communication, specifically written communication. That is important for organisations including the Crown Office and the Scottish Prison Service because we will all have heard testimony about the nature of written communications which, at times, can be somewhat impenetrable. More broadly, the Scottish Prison Service is involved with the “people at heart” approach to communication. Although the trauma-informed approach for prisoners is not in the bill, which is about victims and witnesses, it is part of the SPS corporate plan.

They are not specific to the legislation, but they are specific to the issue of integrated domestic abuse courts.

That is a good place to start, convener. In response to your question, I want to reiterate and expand on what I have said about the case for a victims and witnesses commissioner and the support for our proposition. I also want to acknowledge some of the concerns about costs and your point in relation to the Lord Advocate’s powers.

We are all operating in a fiscal reality, of course, but there are provisions in the bill that enable the victims and witnesses commissioner to share back-office functions. A number of commissioners already do that.

The bill does not disqualify an existing commissioner from being appointed to the new role. Any commissioner would need to comply with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body around things such as the office location. Many commissioners are located in shared premises in Bridgeside house in Leith, in the existing Scottish Government estate, or in the existing public sector estate.

On the case for a commissioner, the bill is about the need for an independent voice and a champion who will challenge criminal justice agencies. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that the role also brings an additional statutory mechanism that enables voices and experiences to be heard. A key role of the commissioner will be to monitor compliance with the victims code and the standards of service, including the requirement for agencies to actively demonstrate trauma-informed practice, and, in that manner, to monitor how the rights of victims and witnesses are being respected. The commissioner will, of course, be accountable to Parliament.

The proposition has been developed over a number of years through the work of the victims task force, which produced a paper back in 2020. Victim Support Scotland produced a paper entitled “Making the case for a Victims’ Commissioner for Scotland”. Its case hinged on the need for victims and witnesses to be heard and to be able to influence systemic change and change at the strategic level.

I was also struck by the correspondence on the bill from Lynn Burns. She said that the role was an opportunity for a commissioner to represent all victims, which is different from the role of individual agencies, and that, in many ways, it would be a “first step”—that is probably why it is in part 1 of the bill. She described the role as a “conduit” at a strategic and systemic level between Government, justice agencies and people who are affected by crime.

With regard to the Lord Advocate’s powers, I am clear that there is nothing in the bill that in any way interferes with or disrupts the Lord Advocate’s constitutional powers with respect to prosecution decisions or her other functions. The bill simply acknowledges the role of the Crown Office and the fact that it has functions that have an impact on the treatment of victims. In my view, a victims and witnesses commissioner should be able to make recommendations, but only in respect of the Lord Advocate’s functions in relation to the treatment of victims, not in relation to those powers that only the Lord Advocate has the constitutional authority to undertake.

The legislation provides for a distinct role of victims and witnesses commissioner; it does not disqualify an existing commissioner from taking on that role. I ask our lawyer or perhaps Lucy Smith from the policy team to confirm that I have articulated that accurately for the record.

The money is going to have to come from somewhere and, after the session that we had last week on pre-budget scrutiny, I think that we are all well apprised of the challenges that we face. I still contend that there is added value and, therefore, merit in investment in a victims and witnesses commissioner, because it will hold criminal justice agencies to account on how they implement and put into practice trauma-informed approaches.

Again, we have carefully looked at that, bearing in mind the operational independence of our courts and prosecutors, and that it is not in anybody’s interest for those processes to be interfered with. Ultimately, the victims and witnesses commissioner is about amplifying the voices of victims and witnesses to ensure better and consistent system-level change.

The commissioner can engage with individuals and can consider the individual experiences of people, but that is to improve understanding of the national picture. Bearing in mind the discussions that we have had so far about concerns about duplication and costs, I am satisfied that the commissioner, as is the case with other commissioners, will not take on or intervene in individual cases.