Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely. I watched with interest the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Plastow, giving evidence to this committee two or three weeks ago. As he described it, the work that he does is “quite niche”. It is certainly of great interest to everybody.

I would whole-heartedly support the option of going out to visit the commissioner. As you know, it can sometimes be difficult to bring commissioners or other witnesses to a committee because of tight work programmes. You will know that the Criminal Justice Committee has a significant workload relating to bills. I whole-heartedly support that suggestion.

You mentioned the police bill. We can start with that. We have already taken evidence that suggests significant failures not just in the conduct of police officers and others, but in the way in which those alleged acts of misconduct have been dealt with internally. A lot of reasons seem to be emerging about why that may be happening with specific regard to Police Scotland.

In answer to your question, I again cite the victims and witnesses commissioner proposal. Part of that has been based on what feels like a failure to date to grasp the nettle and respond to concerns and perceived failings in the conduct of organisations. That bodies should be held to account is a very understandable public interest. If that requires a legislative change or the creation or establishment of a commissioner who can represent the public, I understand that sentiment.

Through our work, the Criminal Justice Committee has interacted with a range of issues relating to the experiences of victims and witnesses. When we were scrutinising the proposal for a victims and witnesses commissioner, what came out in the evidence was the historical challenge that victims experience when they enter the criminal justice system.

In answer to your question, I would say that we are probably looking at a more systemic challenge. However, it is possible that that challenge has been enhanced by where we are at the moment, as experiences of poverty, cases of poor mental health and pressures on families have arisen from the economic space that we are in. Perhaps it is a bit of a hybrid of both.

As you have said, the Scottish Government’s position is that there is a gap, particularly with regard to the scrutiny of criminal justice bodies. A number of bodies already engage in scrutiny—for example, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary of Scotland, HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. To a certain extent, there is already a degree of scrutiny in and around criminal justice and its impact on victims and witnesses.

As I said in my first answer, a range of well-established organisations such as Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland and potentially even cross-party groups engage in scrutiny to an extent, and their work circles back to the question of where we are going in Scotland with regard to improving the experiences of victims and witnesses. It all starts from the baseline of everybody recognising that the experience of victims and witnesses in the justice system is very often poor and traumatising and that things need to change.

That is a valid point. However, I will cite a recent example of a third sector body. The committee has engaged with Rape Crisis Scotland on the issue of access to court transcripts when a victim of a sexual offence feels that accessing the transcript of a trial will perhaps support closure and coming to terms with what has happened. However, at the moment, it is extremely costly to purchase, if you like, or access court transcripts from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.

We have done a piece of work with Rape Crisis Scotland, and I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government has now put in place a pilot where, in certain circumstances, a transcript will be made available at no cost. That is one example where there can be a little bit of power to the elbow of organisations such as—

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.