Chamber and committees

We have been conscious of that issue from looking at some of the policy areas in relation to improving the experience of, and the support that is available for, child witnesses. For example, the work around the bairns’ hoose is cross-portfolio work. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland role is a model of a commissioner working well.

It is correct to say that the victims code and the standards of service for which criminal justice agencies are held to account specify children. We have been working to ensure that the connectivity and links between the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the victims and witnesses commissioner are appropriate and that there is no duplication. For example, section 10 of the bill gives the commissioner powers to carry out an investigation, but not to duplicate the functions of others. The bill is crafted to ensure that we have clarity instead of confusion and that the victims and witnesses commissioner cannot go into the functions and duties of another commissioner or, indeed, another body. However, section 6 empowers the victims and witnesses commissioner to engage with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

We want to ensure that there is as much clarity as possible. If there are other matters that, in light of the evidence, we need to resolve or if further detailed consideration needs to be given, we will certainly do that.

That has been my experience as a minister in a number of portfolios. I appreciate that you want to establish as much information about the costs as early as possible: that is in the interests of transparency and accountability to Parliament and committees. However, given the work that goes on in and around a bill—particularly around implementation—and the purpose of scrutiny and evidence, there are times when financial memorandums are revisited.

As I have said, the purpose of the commissioner, which—we can establish this—is not an uncommon model for commissioners, is to look at and engage with, although not to act on, individual cases with a view to wider system change. It is not uncommon for commissioners to call for a change in policy or legislation or to call for action, but that is done at a system-wide level, based on the knowledge about and understanding of an individual case or many cases.

As I outlined in my answer to Ms Dowey, the commissioner will have broad powers to require criminal justice agencies to provide evidence on investigations that the commissioner undertakes. The commissioner could require agencies to provide clear information that they are compliant with trauma-informed practice and that they are adhering to the victims code and the standards of service. Like other commissioners, the commissioner would have a duty to publish reports and to make recommendations, which would all be on the public record. The commissioner could impose a requirement on agencies to respond to a report, and would have to publish statements on the responses that they have received to recommendations or reports that they have made.

That is a well-established model. The best example of where that has worked well is the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which has certainly been part of the dialogue and has contributed to many policy and legislative changes in the Parliament. Over the history of the Parliament, that commissioner has shifted and changed our dialogue on how we support children and young people. Victims and witnesses are seeking to achieve a commissioner that is on a par with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner.

The BTP does great work. As we all know—I am stating the obvious here—it works across these islands. It is important to stress that we will always have further discussions with agencies—the BTP and others—if they seek to do more, particularly in pursuit of the aims of the bill.

The purpose of our investment in the knowledge and skills framework for the justice sector is to provide practical guidance and support for the implementation of trauma-informed practice. It is clear that the BTP undertakes many initiatives to put that into practice, and we are happy to explore that more with it.

The bill builds on previous legislation. The agencies that have duties placed on them in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill are listed in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. We are of course cognisant that the BTP operates in other areas, and our legislation can only apply to operations in Scotland.

Our door is open if there is more that we can do to work with the BTP and to work in partnership. I am also conscious that we are the first jurisdiction in the United Kingdom to legislate to put trauma-informed practice into the very heart of legislation and our justice system. We will want to share that with others and work with others.

Our door is always open, particularly at stage 1. The purpose of stage 1 is to allow people to provide evidence, which is of benefit to MSPs and the Government.

I refer Mr Findlay to what I said earlier, which is that the definition aligns closely with the trauma-informed practice framework. It also adds to the existing list of principles that are contained in an earlier bit of legislation. However, if Mr Findlay or others want to be specific about what they think is missing, we can go and check the position.

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.