Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, that was the issue that you raised at stage 1, Mr Findlay. I referred—it was probably a page and a half ago in my notes—to the integrated domestic abuse courts, or IDACs.

I have intimated some of it. We have had detailed feedback, Mr Findlay.

I appreciate that, in your amendment, you have attempted not to interfere with the independence of the judiciary or the Lord President. However, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has raised many practical issues with me—indeed, the subject came up when I had my first formal meeting with the new Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk last week. A number of issues have been raised and I have highlighted some of them.

If I may, I will go on to talk about what we are doing over and above the research, although that research is important in helping us to learn from other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, and we want that research to be published in time to support the next Government and the next Parliament.

Another reform that emerged from the workshops deals with the potential to make changes to court rules to ensure that civil courts get information about domestic abuse and sexual assault at the early stage of the civil process. Although court rules are made by the courts and not by ministers, the Scottish Government intends to send a policy paper to the Scottish Civil Justice Council. That paper will propose changes to court rules about the information regarding domestic abuse and sexual assault that is provided to the civil courts. A draft of that policy paper will be ready by the start of stage 3.

On the basis of the steps that we are actively taking to improve the interface between the civil and criminal courts, and because such significant change should not be dealt with by an amendment to this bill, I ask committee members to oppose amendment 78.

I reiterate that, in my engagement with stakeholders, there is always a commitment, from Government and from stakeholders—including the most senior ones—to move forward and to deliver more for victims, although within a context of ensuring that the rights of everyone involved in the court process are protected.

Notwithstanding Mr Findlay’s attempt at a very discreet amendment, putting a reform of such magnitude and scale into practice is a significant operation. He will not be surprised to hear that there are concerns about there having been no prior consultation. There are complex issues with court scheduling. We might not like that, but it is the reality. There is also concern about taking the judiciary away from specialist courts.

In short, it is my view that the amendment is not required. Obviously, I have discussed the matter with the bill team, which is supported by the Scottish Government legal directorate. However, I can make a commitment to Mr Kerr to have further direct conversations with the Law Society of Scotland. If that reassures him, I am happy to do so.

I am grateful to Ms McNeill. I point out that the process with regard to the Court of Session already exists in other legislation—namely section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, on being able to order the performance of a duty.

The purpose of my amendment 135 is to provide clarity on the right of the commissioner to make a referral or application to the court under the said legislation. I reiterate that that replicates the statutory enforcement powers that apply to other commissioners. In addition, I assure Ms McNeill that the Scottish Government proposed amendments 135 to 139 following our discussions with Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service officials last year. It was during those discussions that the Crown Office suggested that the bill be amended to require the commissioner to share reports with criminal justice agencies prior to publication, for example.

Yes.

That is okay.

Will you take an intervention, Mr Findlay?

In the interests of transparency, I note that amendments in this area are fraught with difficulties. I will not reiterate what I outlined earlier, but work is on-going with the Crown Office to look at how more victims—not all, but more of them—are informed.

I am relaxed about whether there is a further discussion for me to have with the Crown Office, one that I facilitate between the Crown Office and members, or something that we do collectively. I am always prepared to engage in more discussions. I am just being upfront and transparent: I think that amendments to legislation in this area are particularly tricky and difficult, and I am not in the terrain of making false promises.

I understand that argument. All that I was trying to portray is that, in the context of a sexual offences court, where, on the same indictment, there is a murder and sexual offences, there would still be the opportunity for that to go to the High Court or the sexual offences court.

Of course, the sexual offences court has unlimited sentencing power, so it can sentence people for up to life and make an order for lifelong restriction and all of that. I understand the point that is being made. What I am wrestling with is the experience of victims and complainers. Right now, we know that the system overall is not doing enough to support people to give their best evidence. I contend that that relates to issues of the fairness of justice. The whole raison d’être of the sexual offences court is to improve the efficiency of the process and procedures to deliver quicker decision making and improved judicial case management so that cases can be dealt with more quickly.

The evidence from elsewhere in the world shows that specialism assists with that. However, embedding specialism will improve the experience of everybody in the court. If we are concerned about the experience of victims and complainers in the court process, there is an issue with having a sexual offences court that has embedded specialism and then also having a cohort of victims and complainers who have to go to the High Court. I think that the issue involves quite a fine judgment, but that is why I have not brought forward an amendment at stage 2. However, I know that it is a live issue.