Seòmar agus comataidhean

If Mr Swinney has specific propositions to make to strengthen the obligations on various actors and agencies that have a responsibility towards victims, we look forward to receiving those.

At the moment, we are taking a belt-and-braces approach. I am very conscious of the fact that I have a manifesto commitment to deliver on the establishment of a victims and witnesses commissioner. Of course, as an independent committee, you will come to your own views and make your own recommendations. I can assure Mr Swinney, the convener and, indeed, all members of the committee that all recommendations will be given a very fair hearing.

I referred to the fact that, although the proposed introduction of a victims and witnesses commissioner has been broadly supported, there has been a lot of active campaigning on the matter, and there is never unanimity among any group. I met Mr Duffy not that long ago.

I refer back to my earlier comments. As a Government, we continue to invest heavily in victims organisations, whether through the equally safe fund or the victim-centred approach fund, which sits at £48 million. Of course, it is the job of the Parliament to hold the Government to account on what we are investing in victims organisations, and it is the job of the Government and ministers such as me to explain where we are investing the resource.

I hope to convey to the committee that, when we are providing £48 million for a victim-centred approach fund and £19 million for equally safe, the costs of establishing a victims commissioner, and the on-going costs, although not insignificant, are small in comparison.

I am not going to comment on the merits or otherwise of such a suggestion. I can see a logic to it in terms of efficiency or fairness, but I have certainly not been sighted on or involved in any deliberations around it. Nevertheless, it appears to be an issue of interest, so we will take an interest in it.

I do not know whether officials have anything practical to add.

It is, of course, absolutely fair and legitimate to scrutinise the costs of establishing a new commissioner role; indeed, I am conscious that today in the Parliament we will debate and vote on the establishment of a patient safety commissioner. From discussions that I have had and from representations that victims have made to me, I know that people feel that there is a range of commissioners already, but there is still no commissioner for victims and witnesses.

As I have indicated, the purpose of such a commissioner is to scrutinise the justice system and hold it to account in and around the implementation of not just the justice agencies’ service standards but the victims code. They will be required to publish and lay before the Parliament a report of their findings and to make recommendations for improvements.

That is a broader debate. I have not been intimately involved in evaluating the role and function of the wide range of existing commissioners and the effectiveness of their contributions. From my experience as a minister and as an MSP, I am very clear about the commissioners whom I have observed more or with whom I have had more dealings; the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, for example, has held us all to account very effectively at different points and junctures.

I accept entirely the member’s point about the primacy of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly of ministers. The role and function of commissioners do not in any way undermine or, indeed, replace any of that—that is for sure—but the question is what expertise and insight into the whole system they can bring. Again, it is my experience that the findings of commissioners quite often aid MSPs in holding the Government to account. I suppose that what I am driving at is the plurality of the system.

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.

I will ask officials to explain the research to Mr Findlay in layman’s terms.

The Government’s position, based on the research, is that we should look at that as a whole package. The consultation responses from all sectors, including those from people working in the legal sector and those from victims or their families, showed strong support for the idea that changing from a three-verdict to a two-verdict system meant that there was also a need to change the majority from a simple to a qualified one.

I can give an example of the importance of that. The Law Society of Scotland is not in favour of abolishing the not proven verdict but said in its evidence that, if we did so, we would really need to look at changing the majority. As I hope that I intimated to Ms Clark, there is an important relationship between moving from three verdicts to two and moving from a simple to a qualified majority.

No, we do not think so. At summary level, cases are presided over by a single judge—I am sure that we will get on to that later—so there is no jury. You are quite correct that, currently, sheriffs and justices of the peace can use the not proven verdict, which is given in about 1 per cent of those cases. The not proven verdict is given in 5 per cent of sexual offences cases and, for jury trials, 28 per cent of people who are proceeded against in rape or attempted rape trials will get a not proven verdict.