Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to Russell Findlay’s amendments, convener.

The amendments in the name of Russell Findlay would remove the establishment of a victims commissioner from the bill. Although the proposal is well intentioned, we already have seven different commissioners in Scotland, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee has said that creating a new commissioner

“has ... been seen as an ‘easy win’ for the ... Government”,

as the Government can show that it has done something

“without the need to provide oversight or ensure effectiveness.”

I believe that the same logic applies in this case.

Concern has also been expressed over the potential overlap between a victims and witnesses commissioner and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. Despite the name of the proposed commissioner, they would have no power to champion or intervene in the individual cases of victims. That was highlighted by the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, who expressed concern about managing the expectation that a victims commissioner would be able to help people directly.

We have heard from organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that do not support the creation of a victims commissioner because they fear that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and impact on victim support service budgets. If we had unlimited resource, that would be one thing, but we must be realistic. At a time when there is huge pressure on the public purse, it is hard to justify the cost of almost £1 million that would come with the establishment and office running costs of a victims commissioner who will not be able to directly help individual victims.

As Scottish Women’s Aid and the Finance and Public Administration Committee have said, that money would be better spent both on improving front-line services and on practical measures that would directly benefit individual victims and witnesses. However, I know that the committee is likely to support the establishment of the victims commissioner, so my amendment 235 offers an alternative to ensure that the commissioner does an effective job in the way that victims deserve. It would sunset the office after five years unless the Scottish Parliament votes to make the role permanent before that time. That was recommended by this committee, which said:

“If ... a Commissioner post is to be established, ... we recommend that in the first instance it should be for a time-limited period in order to allow for an assessment to be made of the value of the role.”

I hope, therefore, that the Government will support my amendment to ensure that the commissioner is acting in the interests of victims.

I move amendment 1.

There are mixed views among people who currently support victims. Some of them support the creation of a commissioner, because they think that a commissioner would champion victims, but some do not, because they see it as adding another layer of bureaucracy.

Victim Support Scotland has said that it hopes that the money will not come from the support services that it already provides, but I do not think that we should be hoping—we need concrete assurances that the money will not come from the services that Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid already provide. If the money comes from those services, there will be a detrimental impact on victims and, instead of helping the people whom we want to help, we will end up making things worse for them.

Therefore, although I still have concerns, and I agree with all of Pauline McNeill’s comments, I am conscious that the amendments will not be agreed to, so I will not press amendment 1. However, I want to put all my concerns on the record.

I want to make a big difference for victims, and I am concerned about the substantial amount of money that will be required for a victims commissioner. I think that some victims have a mixed view of whether it will help or not, so I will not press the amendment.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The office of Victims and Witnesses Commissioner for Scotland

Amendment 2 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Functions

Amendments 95 to 97 and 3 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Civil function

Amendment 4 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Engagement

Amendments 98, 99 and 5 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5—Advisory group

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to work with others

Amendment 7 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7—General powers

Amendment 8 not moved.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8—Restriction on exercise of functions

Amendments 100, 101 and 9 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9—Strategic plan

Amendment 10 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

Thank you.

Okay.

Some stakeholders support the new commissioner and some are against the position. Concerns have also been raised about the cost. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the commissioner landscape concluded:

“We also believe that the funding for new supported bodies would be better spent on improving the delivery of public services ‘on the ground’, where greater impact can be made.”

How will the introduction of the victims and witnesses commissioner affect the current commissioner landscape, which the Finance and Public Administration Committee highlighted as no longer fit for purpose?

I think that everybody realises the benefits that could come from having a commissioner, but, as you said, budgets are tight. It has already been said that some of that remit would overlap with the remit of one of the other commissioners. Would it not be as well to put a pause on the post until the full review has been done, or should we carry on?

Good morning, again, cabinet secretary. Your letter of 31 October outlines several proposed areas of amendment relating to the victims commissioner. Can you expand on the thinking behind them?

Good morning. I will come back to the sexual offences court, as I want to ask about training. You mentioned the specialism that will be in the sexual offences court, but we know that the court will exist in the same court system that we have now. Will you tell us a bit more about who will be trained? Will it only be the people who work in the sexual offences court or will we train everybody who works in the court system? How are we going to embed trauma-informed practice? Which agencies would be responsible for supplying and carrying out the training? What training will be received? Is it going to be a one-time course? Will there be refresher training?

I am just trying to work out how courts will get the training if we are using the court system that already exists. When I first read the bill, I understood that everybody in the court system would get the trauma-informed training. However, we then hear about the specialism that will exist in the sexual offences court. Will you elaborate on your intentions in that regard?

Thank you.

Good morning. In your response to the people’s panel report, you mentioned that

“improvement hubs”

are being established by Healthcare Improvement Scotland

“to design and improve pathways into, through and from”

rehabilitation, as well as

“Self-Assessment Thematic Analysis reports ... which will highlight key areas for improvement”.

Can you provide the committee with more detail on that work and any timescales for it?