Seòmar agus comataidhean

The money is going to have to come from somewhere and, after the session that we had last week on pre-budget scrutiny, I think that we are all well apprised of the challenges that we face. I still contend that there is added value and, therefore, merit in investment in a victims and witnesses commissioner, because it will hold criminal justice agencies to account on how they implement and put into practice trauma-informed approaches.

Again, we have carefully looked at that, bearing in mind the operational independence of our courts and prosecutors, and that it is not in anybody’s interest for those processes to be interfered with. Ultimately, the victims and witnesses commissioner is about amplifying the voices of victims and witnesses to ensure better and consistent system-level change.

The commissioner can engage with individuals and can consider the individual experiences of people, but that is to improve understanding of the national picture. Bearing in mind the discussions that we have had so far about concerns about duplication and costs, I am satisfied that the commissioner, as is the case with other commissioners, will not take on or intervene in individual cases.

Thank you, convener, and good morning.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill puts victims at the heart of the justice system. Parts 1 to 3 of the bill are essential to the delivery of that ambition. I will briefly go over the aims of those parts.

Part 1 of the bill, on establishing an independent victims and witnesses commissioner, will give victims an independent voice to champion their views and hold justice agencies to account. Part of the commissioner’s role will be to monitor how agencies are complying with the standards of service and the victims code.

There is long-standing and clear demand for the role from victims. The issue has been discussed at the victims task force for a number of years, and our public consultation revealed that there is strong support for the role. The bill delivers on a commitment that was made to victims and the wider public via our manifesto and our programme for government to establish such a post. The role will benefit victims and witnesses of crime by providing a statutory mechanism for their voices and experiences to be heard.

Part 2 of the bill aims to put trauma-informed practice at the heart of decision making in the justice system, to improve people’s experiences of justice, and to help them to participate effectively.

I have followed the committee’s scrutiny of those parts of the bill with interest, and I am pleased that there has been universal agreement among the committee’s witnesses that the justice system must operate in a trauma-informed way.

The committee has heard from experts about the ways in which trauma can affect people, and victims and survivors have spoken powerfully about the lasting impacts of trauma and how the justice process itself can be retraumatising. We cannot remove all risk of traumatisation from the justice system, but the bill will put in place measures that aim to minimise that risk. If people are treated in trauma-informed ways, that can help to keep them engaged with the justice process, help to ensure that trauma does not prevent them from participating effectively, and help them to give their best evidence. As well as significantly improving the experiences of witnesses, that can improve the quality of the justice process for everyone involved.

The bill builds on work that is already being done by justice partners, and it aims to embed the principles of trauma-informed practice within our justice system. It includes a definition of trauma-informed practice to help to ensure a consistent understanding and a consistent approach. It requires justice agencies to make efforts to reduce retraumatisation and to publish standards on trauma-informed practice.

The bill also requires the judiciary to take trauma-informed practice into account when scheduling court business, and it empowers the courts to set rules that are designed to ensure that proceedings are conducted in trauma-informed ways.

Part 3 of the bill covers special measures in civil cases. Special measures protect people in court who might be vulnerable. The provisions are a reflection that domestic abuse can arise in civil cases as well as in criminal cases. The existing legislation on special measures covers civil cases as well as criminal cases, but there have been requests over the years to improve the legislation on special measures in relation to civil cases. The Children (Scotland) Act 2020 includes provisions to enhance special measures in some cases. That act was, of course, about just family cases. The bill is an opportunity to extend the provisions to cases generally.

The bill is central to the delivery of our vision for justice. It brings forward proposals for transformational change to the system, which have emerged from respected review processes and directly from victims. The Government is acting on the evidence and on what we have heard from people with experience of the system. It is important that the bill is the Government’s response to what we have heard from victims.

I look forward to the committee’s questions.

When a financial memorandum is produced, it is based on the detailed evidence that is available at the time. I stress that we have engaged extensively with our stakeholders and partners, who will ultimately have operational responsibility to deliver many aspects of the bill.

We were very transparent and up front about the financial memorandum. The costs are far easier to define for parts 1, 2 and 3, which we are discussing this morning. There are other parts of the bill—Mr Findlay is right to point to that—for which estimates and minimum costs have been given. That is in recognition of variables and operational decisions that have yet to be made.

That is an on-going process. I have received correspondence from the finance committee in that regard, and we will continue to engage.

There are a number of issues there. I acknowledge that, in the same way as households up and down the country are challenged because of the cost of living crisis, public services across the board are challenged on the back of a decade of austerity. I should point out the Scottish Government’s record of investing in justice and that we have continued to make year-on-year increases in investment—

I am focusing on fire, because it is a general point that is applicable to fire. The fire budget for this year increased by £14 million in comparison to the previous year, and the budget for this year was certainly in a better position than was the case at pre-budget scrutiny, so there is a very important role for pre-budget scrutiny.

We will, of course, continue to work with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Ministers continue to receive assurances from His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland and chief fire officers that we have a safe service. There are, of course, choices and challenges to address—no one disputes that for one moment—but we have continued to make year-on-year increased investment in fire services. Indeed, comparing the current budget to that for 2017-18, investment is £55 million higher. Of course people are entitled to argue for more. If we invest more in one area, there will be an issue for Parliament to identify where that comes from, bearing in mind that the Scottish Government as a whole has to operate within a financial envelope and that our abilities to raise revenue are somewhat limited.

That is an important staff welfare issue. The Scottish Government is engaged on the issue with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. There are operational procedures in place around decontamination, particularly for some of the more rural stations. It is important that, as a Government, we have contributed to research on the health impacts for firefighters and we are supportive of additional health screening.

I dispute whether the service is underfunded. You are right to point out that people will always make a case for more—that is the function of pre-budget scrutiny. It is rare for any organisation to address all its capital needs within one year. When the Deputy First Minister publishes the budget, she will also publish multiyear indicative spend for resource and capital in the longer term. That does not replace the annual budget process but it allows people to plan ahead. Capital is extremely stretched. Capital funding has been maintained at £32 million for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but there remains deep pressure on capital budgets.

Indeed. I say this with the greatest respect to the many valued stakeholders who have come before the committee and given detailed evidence, in person and in writing, but when I add up all of their asks, I can see that I cannot meet them all. I am just being dead straight with the committee when I say that. That means that we will have to do things differently and leverage in incentives within the resources that we have to see where people can do things such as spend to save.

Our journey with public sector reform is not over. There will still be examples, whether in justice or across the public sector, of services being delivered in a way that might meet the needs of an institution or organisation but not of individuals. It is the perennial challenge of how we support people earlier on in their life’s journey to prevent problems further down the line.