Chamber and committees

We have a lot more work to do. You are a chancer.

We have a long journey to go on together, Mr Findlay. We will be pals by the end of it.

I was about to mention Chief Superintendent Derek Frew’s comments, Mr Findlay.

I will ask officials to speak on that point, but in part 5 of the bill there is an obligation on all the actors and players in the sexual offences court to be trauma informed. We will discuss that part of the bill later. There is also a desire and a commitment for the judiciary to be trauma informed.

I will always work with members and stakeholders to discuss their concerns. I am always in the business, I hope, of demonstrating that we will look at the art of the possible. That is quite a difficult area—and I say that for reasons of transparency.

Part 3 of the bill is about improving access to special measures. We have heard over a number of years that people in the civil courts have felt far less protected, particularly in and around where domestic violence or abuse is a feature of the case.

Our approach thus far has been that where civil protection orders are in place—an interdict or a non-harassment order—or where there are convictions or, indeed, live proceedings, those will trigger the special measures automatically. The court would have discretion in other circumstances. I am always happy to discuss and consider further. I am also aware of evidence that the committee got from the Family Law Association that expressed some caution.

I remember our exchange well, and I can indeed see the attraction or potential benefits of such an approach, bearing in mind that one of the core concerns is the lack of information and the lack of connectivity if different courts have different information and different procedures going on.

I have certainly discussed the issue further with officials. It would be a major and substantive piece of work—I am just being up front and direct about that. That does not mean that there is no merit in exploring it, but it might limit what could be achieved via an amendment. If you are talking about integrating courts in certain circumstances, that would certainly require full consultation with stakeholders and, indeed, with the Lord President, given his unique duties and responsibilities.

We are planning some workshops to look at the issue more fully. There is not the fullest of evidence. There is some evidence on this from the States, but there is not a wide range of evidence. We will continue to look at the issue with our stakeholders in the workshops, which will take place next year.

We would also have the desire to look at the issue in and around court rules. I know that more recent changes to court rules have focused on doing more to get the right information to support earlier action, particularly in family cases. Measures around initial and full case management hearings have been introduced. If there is further information, I would be happy to provide that to you separately.

I am keen to manage expectations, Mr Findlay, bearing in mind some of the discussion that we have had about cost and the need to be in a position to implement legislation. What I do not want is for amendments to be agreed and then, once we have royal assent, for us to be left sitting with the issues of how to implement some of this in practice. It is about not putting the cart before the horse.

I thought that you were going to say something else then.

It is a completely different function from the role and purpose of the front-line services. Ms Dowey is right that investment in a victims and witnesses commissioner should not be taken from front-line services. Of course, we operate within a fiscal envelope. I understand and am respectful of the fact that people have a duty to test the costs and the detail in financial memorandums for any new proposal.

You quoted the finance committee. I can confidently say that the approach to consideration of a victims and witnesses commissioner has not been “casual”. Work has taken place over a number of years, including work by the victims task force and Victim Support Scotland, as well as our consultation on the bill. I dispute any inference that our proposal to bring forward a victims and witnesses commissioner is, in any way, “casual”. The proposal is a direct response to a direct demand from victims and witnesses.

The commissioner’s role is designed to complement and not to duplicate the role of front-line services. I will give some examples. The commissioner has broad powers that front-line agencies do not have, including powers that will require agencies to provide information to determine whether they are compliant with the updated victims code and standards of service.

The commissioner will also have a duty to publish reports and recommendations and will have powers to require agencies to respond to any report that is made by the commissioner. The commissioner is also required to publish any statements that the commissioner receives from agencies in response to recommendations.

Therefore, the role of the commissioner is very much about structural and systemic change and is distinct from the role of individual agencies that support individuals or provide front-line services.

There are two parts to my answer. I wrote to the committee in response to the convener’s letter. Those are fair points. I hope that I have managed to give some reassurance that intensive work is under way. We are living with the reality of a major global pandemic, which undoubtedly interrupted our justice system and the implementation of legislation. However, I want to give the committee the assurance that that is something that I will always test because, although it is true that we are still living with the consequences of the pandemic, I am conscious that folk get a bit weary of hearing that. I will always want to absolutely test pace and progress, and I hope that I have given some reassurance to the committee on legislation that is still being implemented.

There are some complexities with regard to the timescale for special measures. Members will know the purpose of the special measures. One area—the creation of a register of solicitors—will require particular detailed work; it will require regulations, consultation and a considerable amount of work. The bill puts particular responsibilities on the Government with regard to who we engage with—for example, the Faculty of Advocates—and requires us to take certain actions.

We need to establish the register of solicitors and we need to recruit solicitors. Consultation would be needed on and round that, prior to any regulations being brought forward. That piece of work underpins the policy drive, with regard to special measures, to prevent people in certain circumstances from representing themselves or leading their case in the civil courts. That goes back to Mr Findlay’s point about abusers being able to use civil courts as a platform to further torment people who have been victims, such as victims of domestic abuse and violence. If people are not able to represent themselves, they need to be represented. That is about fairness in the system; we cannot compromise the rights of any particular party.

With regard to part 3, we are probably looking at around two years. I put that on the record now.