Chamber and committees

That is why we have to ensure that the bill will deliver on, and will be implemented in accordance with, its aspirations. The devil is always in the detail—it is always about what happens on the ground.

It actually takes them further. It is much more comprehensive.

You must forgive me, Mr Findlay; I am trying to operationalise in my head how that would work in practice.

Yes, that is the recurring cost.

That touches on the point that the commissioner will not have the power to intervene on individual cases. They can, of course, signpost and engage with victims and witnesses, either individually or collectively. The purpose of a commissioner is to hold the justice system collectively to account. We would expect them to work very closely and carefully with other commissioners where we do not want duplication—around children would be the obvious example. The commissioner’s role is to identify and influence system-wide change. It is more about holding the system to account, therefore avoiding duplication with the roles that other organisations fulfil.

Ms Mackay is right to say that the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to increase the safeguards for vulnerable parties and witnesses in civil cases, extending the use of special measures and, in essence, protecting people who have suffered abuse from being cross-examined by the accused abuser. That speaks to all the evidence that we have heard, over a number of years, that people often feel less protected in the civil system—in particular, in family cases and other civil procedures when domestic violence can be a feature. The extension of the special measures in the bill is an important and significant step forward. It moves on from other comparatively recent legislation, in which special measures were enabled for a specific selection of family cases, and applies best practice across the civil system.

The Government has been engaging with stakeholders on that issue since around 2019. In the consultation responses, there was broad support for a victims and witnesses commissioner. Clearly, there is a demand for it from victims and victims organisations, although I hasten to add that we would not expect a unanimity of views. The purpose of that provision is to establish an independent statutory commissioner who would be accountable to the Parliament and whose role would complement, rather than duplicate, that of victims organisations, for example.

You mentioned the issue of funding. Currently, we invest heavily in victims organisations. We have allocated £48 million to the victim-centred approach fund and £19 million to the equally safe fund. The cost of establishing a victims and witnesses commissioner is laid out in the bill’s financial memorandum. No financial cost is insignificant, but the costs associated with that proposal are far less substantial than the amount that we are currently investing and will continue to invest in victims organisations.

What I can say, if it is helpful, convener, is that we understand that there are no live cases.

I do not know. I would have to go and check that information. If Mr Findlay wants a bit of an overview of how the bill will impact on issues such as prisoners and prisoner transfer, I could ask Ms McKinlay to provide that.

It is a Government decision, and the Lord Advocate is a minister of the Government.