 I have a very good morning and welcome to the 24th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have apologies this morning from Pauline McNeill and our first item of business today is our first evidence session on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill. We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and her officials. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary and her officials. I welcome Anna Donald, Deputy Director of the Criminal Justice Division, Lisa McCloy, Head of Criminal Justice Reform Unit and Nicola Guild, solicitor with the legal directorate at the Scottish Government. I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to two hours for this session. Before we get under way, I want to briefly say a few words about our forthcoming scrutiny of the bill. As a committee, we are very aware that it is a major piece of legislation containing a number of significant provisions. We are aware of our responsibility to take the time necessary to scrutinise the legislation properly in a balanced manner to hear from a range of views on the bill. Furthermore, we want to ensure that all aspects of the bill get proper scrutiny. We have decided to take a phased approach to our scrutiny to protect time for each part of the bill. Further details of that can be found on the Scottish Parliament website. Today's session with the Cabinet Secretary is a chance for us to set the scene on the bill to hear why the Scottish Government has brought forward those proposals. In future weeks, we will move on to taking detailed evidence from a range of interested parties on the bill. I would also like to acknowledge all those individuals and organisations who took the time to respond to our call for written views. Those are now published and available online. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement and then we will move to questions. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before committee this morning at the start of your deliberations on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill. This is landmark legislation. It is a bill that puts victims and witnesses of crime at the heart of our justice system. It contains an ambitious package of reforms to modernise processes and improve the experience of victims and witnesses, particularly in relation to sexual offences. It does so while continuing to safeguard the operation of key principles of the justice system and protecting the rights of the accused. The bill draws on a wide body of evidence. It has been informed by the work of the Victims task force and the independent cross-sector review into the management of sexual offence cases by Lady Dorian Scotland's second highest judge. It is informed by the Ground Baking 2019 Scottish Dury Research Study, which was led by leading academics. It follows two public consultations, which demonstrated broad support for the measures in the bill. Crucially, the bill has been shaped by survivors and victims and their families. They have told us that they often feel unheard and cannot access information and that they do not feel safe and often do not experience compassion. The bill therefore represents a transformative approach to build a more modern, responsive, sensitive and person-centred justice system that will ensure that victims of crime are treated with compassion and that their voice is heard. Trauma-informed practice is key to this. That means making sure that those working within our justice system recognise the impact of trauma and those that they deal with and where possible adapt processes to reduce the risk of re-traumatisation. The justice system has been widely engaged in this work, as is evidenced by the launch of the Trauma-Informed Knowledge and Skills framework earlier this year. The bill provides a legislative underpinning for the cultural and procedural change necessary to embed this practice. I would briefly like to take you through the rest of the bill's measures. There is clear and compelling evidence that the not-proven verdict is not well understood and can result in stigma for the acquitted and trauma for complainers. The bill will abolish the verdict to improve the fairness, clarity and transparency of decision-making in criminal cases. We have carefully consulted on the other distinct features of our jury system and concluded that, in a reform system, with only two verdicts, a requirement of two-thirds majority for convictions is appropriate to enhance the quality of deliberation, the bill also seeks to reduce the jury size. The bill increases protections for vulnerable parties and witnesses in civil cases by extending the use of special measures and by protecting those who have suffered abuse from being cross-examined by their abuser. It will create a commissioner who will provide an independent voice for victims and witnesses too. The bill also aims to ensure that justice meets the needs of victims and survivors of sexual offences, the majority of whom are women and girls, by addressing in a practical way the long-standing concerns about how the system operates for sexual offending. As the committee knows, the challenges that we face as a society to eradicate violence against women and girls are urgent and complex. Part of the solution is in making sure that we have a justice system that commands confidence. That means that a system that encourages victims to come forward, supports them to give their best evidence and holds those who commit those offences to account. The bill provides an opportunity to put in place a significant and meaningful reform. The creation of an automatic lifelong right to anonymity will protect the dignity and privacy of victims of sexual offences. The right to publicly funded independent legal representation strengthens rights of complainers and an especially intrusive aspect of criminal procedure. The sexual offences court will improve the experience of complainers through greater use of pre-recorded evidence, improve judicial case management and mandatory trauma informed training, and the new court will also help to reduce delays in cases coming to trial. The time-limited pilot of single judge rape trials will provide evidence and informed debate on how to deliver meaningful access to justice for complainers in cases of rape. I want to ensure that victims and witnesses are at the heart of our justice system and I would hope that the debate and discussion around the bill bears that in mind and is measured and constructive. The undertaking that I give to the committee and others is that I will do everything in my contributions and in my power to ensure that we have the debate of the very highest of standards. As always, I remain committed to working with members, partners, stakeholders and, importantly, people with lived experience to ensure that this legislation achieves its aims. I very much look forward to the committee's scrutiny of the bill. Thank you very much indeed, cabinet secretary. It is a very helpful overview. I am now going to open up to questions. I would ask members for the first part of our session if they could focus their questions on part 4 of the bill, which relates to the removal of the not proven verdict and also a change to jury size. I wonder if I can maybe just open things up and ask a question in and around conviction rates. The cabinet secretary has just set out a pretty wide-ranging rationale for the provisions around removing the not proven verdict and changing jury sizes. Some of that relates to—the public do not really understand—those part aspects of trials. They potentially re-traumatise individuals. On conviction rates, I am just interested in some more detail on the thinking in relation to how those changes might improve or change conviction rates in Scotland. It is very important to stress that the jury reforms are not about increasing or decreasing conviction rates. They are about the integrity of our system, the fairness of our system and the transparency in decision making. I have already intimated in my opening remarks that there are challenges in people having confidence in a verdict that cannot be explained and that is open to interpretation. The independent Scottish jury research demonstrated that, as a verdict, it was not understood by jurors that understanding of it varied. It was sometimes seen as a compromise verdict. It was used if people believed that someone was guilty, but there was not enough evidence. The evidence also showed that people did believe that the verdict came with associated stigma. Therefore, if we are moving from a three-verdict system to a two-verdict system, we have to make associated reforms to ensure that we keep a balanced system. Of course, removing the not-proven verdict is a historic reform, but we have to consider our verdict system in the round between the number of verdicts and moving from a simple to a qualifying majority and looking at the size of a jury. Our system is, in often cases, very unique. There is no other comparable system. However, the overriding message that I would want to convey is that this is about transparency of the decision-making process so that we can have as much confidence in the administration of justice and that our convictions and verdicts command confidence. It is in no way a blunt tool in any shape or form to either increase or decrease convictions. On that final point, you mentioned there being no other comparable system where you have three verdicts. Can I ask a wee bit about what happens elsewhere, if you like? Is a two-verdict model a common option in, say, international models of justice? Looking at what happens in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, I would be quite interested in that. Scotland is an outlier in having a jury of the size of 15 jurors and having three verdicts. Although we are all proudly proud of our very unique Scottish justice system, it is important to stress that our system has always evolved and learned from others over the centuries. There is no part of our justice system that is exempt from examination or, indeed, from change. I will open it up to the members and I will bring in Russell Finlay and then Sharon Dowie Russell. Thank you very much. Is it okay to open with a more general question about the bill, and then one specifically in part four? When the bill was first named as the Victims Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, was there original name for the bill? I think that that would predate my time as justice secretary. I do not actually know the answer to that. I do not know if officials can inform if there was another working title. In general, if I could say that it is not uncommon for legislation when it has been worked on internally to have a holding name and then for it to be changed, but I do not know if it had different origins. I think that there was a placeholder name, which I think was the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, but that obviously evolved to the point where the bill was introduced to Parliament to the current title. The reason I ask is that some victims groups have suggested that this seems like victims was almost an add-on in terms of naming in respect of the content of the bill, which would perhaps be consistent with that, but going to point four, the specific point, will removing not-proven and reducing jury sizes have any anticipated impact on conviction rates and what work has been done to assess this? Just in terms of the more general point, convener, I think that I would contend that the interest of victims is woven throughout this bill and in every part of this bill at its core is about improving the experience of victims when they are in contact with the criminal justice system in recognition that when people become involved as complainers, they are often at a time of trauma, and therefore there are a number of bold but balanced reforms in this bill that reflect that current experience of victims. In terms of Mr Finlay's question in relation to part four of the bill, I won't reiterate what I've said to the convener that these jury reforms are not about increasing or decreasing convictions, it is about transparency and being able to command the fullest confidence in the administration of justice and all aspects of our justice system. What we know from the very substantial independent Scottish jury research that took place over two years involved 900 mock jurors and it was able to isolate factors so that it could consider the very unique aspects of a jury system. It was specifically able to look at issues of size, majority and the impact of moving from three verdicts to two verdicts. Unlike many other studies, they were able to examine the detail of the deliberations of the mock jurors. It was established that moving from three verdicts to two verdicts in isolation could increase convictions to ensure that there are the appropriate safeguards and balance in their system. I believe in terms of our consultations responses that there is support to move from a simple majority to a qualified majority. To understand the simple layman's terms, the Scottish Government's motivation was not to improve or change conviction rates, but the studies suggest that that would be the likely consequence. The study suggested that if you change one part of our verdict system, if you move from three verdicts to two verdicts, if you do that in isolation, that would increase the prospect of convictions. The study demonstrated that it was imperative that the three aspects of our jury system that they are reformed in tandem, that it is all interrelated, is the one system. The study also showed that once you take everything into consideration, there would be no material change to conviction rates. It showed that you needed to have a balanced approach to the purpose. The purpose of the reforms is to maintain confidence in a system so that that improves the experience of complainers, that the system is transparent and easily understood by everybody. We all have a shared interest in the justice system, but we also have to ensure the integrity of the system and that it is balanced and protects the rights of the accused. I am still not entirely clear if the changes proposed will likely change the conviction rates. I have said repeatedly that the reforms to the jury system are not designed to either increase or decrease. It is not about the intent, it is about whether the research shows that that is a likely consequence, but that is not clear. I will ask officials to explain the research further to Mr Finlay and Leam in terms. The Scottish jury research that the cabinet secretary has already explained clearly found that the structure and framework of the verdict system and the jury system, the number of verdicts and the number of jurors and the majority required those influence outcomes demonstrated that you cannot look at them in isolation. You have to look at it holistically to consider that if you change that structure in one area, what impact it might have across the board. The assessment that we have made following the findings of that research and two other independent studies that were referenced in the policy memorandum was that if you remove one of the verdicts and finely balanced trials, you would increase the likelihood of conviction. Considering that evidence, looking at the structure and framework in the round, it is our assessment that the other elements have to be adjusted. The Scottish mock jury research also provided very robust evidence in terms of the quality of deliberation for juries in terms of jury size. It looked at 15 member juries and it looked at 12 member juries. Our assessment is that evidence was compelling that a smaller jury number that exists in many other jurisdictions have juries of 12 would lead to more effective deliberation. It would lead to fewer members of the jury not participating and it would lead to fewer dominant jurors. Looking at reducing the jury to 12 and taking the verdicts to two verdicts available, when considering the simple majority as we have now would obviously be 7 out of 12, whereas we were not satisfied that that maintained the balance and integrity that the cabinet secretary has referred to. A qualified majority moving from 7 out of 12 to 8 out of 12 was appropriate. That still recognises the differences in the Scottish legal system compared to many other jurisdictions that require unanimity or close to unanimity, but given the other distinct features of the Scottish system, the assessment is that the package of reform proposed maintains the integrity of the system. I hope that that will help to get to the nub of Mr Finlay's question. In terms of the current system, there is not any data on what individual juries opt for in their decision making. No other system has moved from three verdicts to two verdicts, because no other system has three verdicts. In terms of some of the hypothesis that Mr Finlay has, understandably, questioned on, there is no data. It does not have a crystal ball, but it is the overall balance and integrity of the system that is crucial. To recap, there is no intent to change conviction rates with the legislation. The limited data does not really tell us, but the best assessment is that this will not have a material change to conviction rates. Is that reasonable? I think that that is a reasonable summary. I will now bring in Sharon Dewey and John Swinney. I think that Mr Finlay has answered quite a lot of the question that I was going to have. It was more around the reasoning behind changing the jury size. We are going from 15 to 12 jurors, and before we had 15 jurors, where if three stood down or were sick, we could still run the 12 jurors, and now we are going to have 12 jurors, but we can still run the nine. If three people come off. I was just wondering more about the reasoning behind it, which Ms McLeod has answered before, but also the other bit about the trial that we are doing, where it would be one judge in a jury for serious sexual offences, so I am wondering how that would work. I will ask if you can pause that question and we will come to that part of the bill in our next question. I think that it is important to reflect a little bit on history, in that jury size has actually varied over the years. It was much lower in 15 during the Second World War, for example, so it has changed over the decades and at different points in time in history. The core of the evidence is that, with reducing from 15 to 12, you have higher levels of participation and lower levels of members not participating and lower levels of the domination of some members. In essence, reducing the size is just about responding to the evidence that says that it improves that process of deliberation. It is not really any more complicated than that. I will ask Lisa to respond to Ms Dau's other question about when the qualified majority is sliding and exists in most circumstances when jurors perhaps have to be excused partway through the process, but there are one or two exceptions. That is correct. Just now, at the moment, there are 15 members of a jury, but some circumstances arise where a jury member, after being impanelled and after the trial starts, has to drop out for whatever reason if he becomes sick and so on. Just now, the framework allows those trials to continue so long as there is a minimum of 12 jurors that can continue to sit in the case and hear the case. That is important to avoid unnecessary re-running of trials, to avoid unnecessary trauma that would cause to everybody involved, accused to victims and to witnesses. It keeps the system going to allow for the fairness of the procedure to be protected but to keep the administration of justice going. The approach that we have taken in the bill reflects that. There will be similar circumstances in which trials start and the whole number of jurors are not able to continue. It allows up to three jurors to fall away and the trial to continue. It builds in a process of a bit of judicial oversight to make sure that that is still in the interests of justice. In our current system, where there are fewer than 15 jurors, we still need an absolute number of eight to convict. If, for example, the jury size was to fall to 12, you would need eight out of 12 remaining jurors to convict. That is proportionally increasing the majority that is required as the jury size goes down. The bill takes a slightly different approach and maintains the proportion required rather than the absolute number, so it maintains the minimum of two thirds required, where it is 11 or 10 jurors, but where it gets to nine jurors, that would have taken us to a majority of six out of nine. We felt that, where it is a smaller number of jurors reaching a verdict, a stronger safeguard was required, so it is seven out of nine required in those circumstances. It broadly reflects current practice, which allows jury numbers to fall after a trial has started, but it changes to maintain the principle of a qualified majority rather than to stick to an absolute number, as you have at the moment. I am going to bring in John Swinney, followed by Katie Clark. Thank you very much. Without doing this every week, I remind the committee and those observant that I sat in cabinet when the bill was constructed and was consistent with what I said to the committee. It might be a collision of interests a couple of weeks ago, but I will not return to that every week when we are having this discussion. I wonder if I could just ask about the risk of unintended consequences arising out of the reduction in the jury size. There will be cases where jurors are judged not to be appropriate to sit in particular trials, people become ill and have to stand down. I wonder if there has been consideration given to the potential unintended consequences of reducing the jury size, there being examples of individuals having to step down or falling ill, and getting to a point more regularly in the criminal justice system whereby trials cannot proceed because numbers have become too low in individual trials. The good intentions of the bill, which are to strengthen the position of victims to reduce trauma, might inadvertently be put at risk of increased trauma by the fact that, in reducing the size of juries from 15 to 12, we might increase the risk of absences or loss of jurors impacting on the effectiveness of the jury system. It is a logical question that Mr Swinney poses. I will ask officials to comment. I am not aware of the research throwing up any unintended consequences of that nature. Nor am I aware, but I stand to be corrected in terms of every other jurisdiction that has a jury size of 12, bearing in mind that Scotland is unusual in having a jury size of 15, that there are significant issues with trials being abandoned because of problems with the jury continuing. I will, of course, seek to double check that, but I am not aware of any concerns. No, thank you cabinet secretary. That was one of the reasons that we maintained the margin of three. It is currently a margin of three people that are able to fall for a trial to continue. That is one of the reasons that we maintained that to make sure that there was not anything unintended. We did speak to partners about the issue and I do not think that there is any data published about it, but it was thought to be quite rare where a trial falls because more than three people currently are unable to continue to serve. Obviously, that depends on facts and circumstances, and I am sure that it was a very live issue during the pandemic, for example. The reason for asking that is obviously that the degree of risk of that happening increases if it is three out of 15 or three out of 12. That becomes a greater degree of risk. I wonder if consideration has been given us to the extent to which that may well be a factor in influencing the confidence that people can have that trials will proceed given the potential turnover of jurors. It has not been turned up thus far in terms of the deliberations. Obviously, Mr Swinnell will be aware that the reforms are built on substantial independent research, but there was also further cross-sector work that has been intense in terms of galvanising and building on the experiences of those who actually work in the operational aspects of a justice system. Just to be clear, what you are saying is that you have not looked at how many convictions currently are being passed by a simple majority rather than the new two-thirds majority, if you like. Is that the case? You have not looked at the real data, real cases and the numbers that have been required for convictions. Is that what you are saying, either in real cases or in mock cases? In terms of the jury research, they were able to isolate, hold still some factors, so that they could explore the impact of different majorities, different sizes, moving from three verdicts to two verdicts or looking at mock juries in the context of three verdicts or two verdicts. Without having seen any of that and knowing any of that, and we haven't had a lot of detail here, it may be that there is more detail that's not apparent, but without evidence to rebut it surely, if we make it more difficult to get a conviction, which must be the case if you are increasing the proportion of jurors that are required to secure that conviction, that must lead to less convictions. Without looking at it in a huge amount of detail, that must be our presumption surely. To flag it, it may be useful for committee that the policy memorandum speaks about the jury research in some detail. It's obviously referenced there as well. We have published some information either today or yesterday in and around rate myths, which again talks about this particular research. Just to reassure committee that there is publicly available information for people to peruse this in further detail. However, the point that I was making in reference to the research is that we don't want to change one part of the jury system in isolation because that may well have unintended consequences and that's why we're looking at this in the package. We're following the evidence that was illuminated by the actual research. I hope that I understand this correctly. Those are balanced reforms that apply to all cases and apply throughout the system. We have to ensure that there is balance in fairness and integrity and that we don't have unintended consequences of changing one part without changing the other constituent parts. Do you accept that by increasing the proportion required on a jury to secure a conviction, that will make it more difficult to get convictions and therefore we would expect to see less convictions? What I think you've skipped over is that if you move from three verdicts to two verdicts, the evidence shows that mock juries were more likely to convict. Therefore, you have to adapt, move from a simplified to a qualified majority to ensure that there is balance in the verdict system bearing in mind that this is a cornerstone throughout the system. Those reforms are designed in and around the experiential aspects and transparency and clarity. They are not designed either to increase or decrease, so the change in the majority is to balance the change in the verdicts. You do believe that changing the majority in isolation would reduce conviction rates, but because other aspects of the changes that you believe would increase conviction rates, those two things balance each other out, you think? That's what the research tells us. Thanks very much. I'm going to bring in Thornton McGregor and then Eurona Mackay and then we'll move on to the next part of the bill. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and team. Just a very brief question because I know what's been covered in part four already, and it actually falls on from Katie Clark's line of questioning. I'm interested to understand if the Government has got a sort of, maybe priorities, a wrong word, but a priority of the reforms and where any lines in the sand may be. I suppose what I'm asking is if, as a bill taken through Parliament, either the committee or later the Parliament as a whole decided to amend the bill so that, for example, to abolish your not proven verdict was retained, but going back to a simple majority, where would the Government stand in that, or does it have to be a whole package? The Government's position is that, based on the evidence that we should look at this as a whole package, what the consultation responses were particularly strong about and actually an across-sector approach, whether that was responses from people who worked within the legal sector or whether it was victims or their families, is that there was strong support that if you changed from a three-verdic system to a two-verdic system that you needed to change the majority from a simple majority to a qualified majority. If I give you one example of the importance of that, the Law Society of Scotland are not in favour of abolishing the not proven, but in their evidence they said that if you did, you really need to look at changing the majority. I hope that I am very intimated to Ms Clark that there is an important relationship between moving from three-verdics to two-verdics and moving from a simple to a qualified majority. I will bring in Rona Mackay. I will be brief. Good morning. The not proven verdicts are obviously used in sheriff trials in JP cases where there is not a jury. Is it the Government's view that the removal of the not proven verdict is going to apply there and would they not need some kind of reform to the way they practice? No, we do not think so because it is at summary level and the case is presided over by a single judge, so we will get on to that later. There is no jury. Currently, you are quite correct that the sheriff and justice piece can use the not proven verdict. It is about 1 per cent of cases for your sheriffs or justice piece will use the not proven. When it comes to sexual offences, it is 5 per cent. If you are looking at jury trials, 28 per cent of people who are preceded against rape or attempted rape trials will get a not proven verdict. From everything that we have heard, I am getting that this is about fairness and justice and bringing us into line with other due restrictions, so I am perfectly happy and content with it. I am just going to move questions on and I would like us to move to looking at part 5 and part 6 of the bill. As a reminder, part 5 relates to the establishment of a new sexual offences court and part 6 has three main provisions. First, the automatic statutory right of anonymity for victims of certain offences. The second is a right to independent legal representation for complainers in sexual offences trials and the third is to enable a time limited pilot of single judge trials with no jury for rape and attempted rape cases. I wonder if I can open up and pick up on the final provision around single judge trials and the time limited pilot that is being proposed. I wonder if, considering the recommendation that was made by Lady Dorian, if there were alternative options perhaps considered to that of a single jury trial pilot? So, there was some consideration of other alternative options, convener. Ultimately, the Lady Dorian review, while encompassed a range of opinions, had settled on a pilot for a single judge trial in relation to rape and attempted rape cases on the basis that single judge trials are not novel in Scotland. The majority of criminal cases are presided over by a single judge. I think that it is 84 per cent of cases, admittedly, for less serious cases and in lower courts. There was certainly, particularly in terms of the working group that followed post Lady Dorian's extensive review. There was some consideration given to whether you could have a shadow verdict system, so you could have the judge and jury and then have a shadow judge. However, it was considered that there were considerable ethical issues in and around that, so that was not pursued. There was some consideration given to more than one judge, perhaps a panel of judges. I suppose that some of the practical considerations there is that we do not have an endless supply of judges. Therefore, if you have a situation where there is an appeal, you would therefore need a larger panel of judges and so forth. There are, of course, other models and other jurisdictions. The Netherlands, if I am correct in my recall, have not been, you know, do not use juries. Other jurisdictions have moved away from jury trials for particular cases, you know, parts of Australia and New Zealand, you know, parts of America, France and Germany. They have a judge and also some lay, you know, a panel of lay people, so there are different models. Ultimately, the recommendation was to consider a single judge pilot on the basis that this is not novel to Scotland. Thanks very much. That is really helpful. By way of a follow-up, in terms of the aspirations around, you know, the experience for an individual going through a trial relating to rape or sexual offences, would it be possible as an alternative option to achieve what we are aiming to do and improve that experience through almost a non-legislative option? So perhaps improving, for example, trauma-informed training of staff, expanding the use of evidence on commissions so that we are improving and refining what already exists rather than perhaps looking at a legislative option? I must assume that your question is more broadly focused on the bill as opposed to the pilot. Over the years, a committee such as this will have heard that legislation on its own is never the single bullet. Obviously, it is not that long ago that, as a Parliament, we debated, for example, the work that has been done around the trauma-informed skills framework for everybody who works in justice services. However, the core of Lady Dorian's deliberations and recommendations from her work is that we really need to be making seismic structural statutory changes. Of course, you will see that in terms of the statutory changes in the bill, whether it is the sexual offences court, whether it is the automatic right to independent legal representation or the automatic rights in and around anonymity, you can graft on changes and it just becomes quite iterative, becomes quite slow. There is a degree of frustration both within the legal sector and, indeed, organisations that represent victims. For some of the issues that we are debating and discussing in terms of a complainer's experience, the prevalence and power of rape myths, that we have been in this territory for around 40 years, there have been numerous reports pointing to the substantive problems, so we now need to move forward and make substantive changes. Thank you, that is really helpful. I am going to bring in Russell Finlay again and then Sharon Dowey. Thank you, convener. The first question is on part 5, and it is the policy memorandum that talks about staff training, improving case management, improving efficiency, reducing delay, all of which are noble aims, but victims might ask why any of this actually needs legislation and there is a risk that this might just come across as a very expensive rebranding exercise of the courts. While, of course, by and large you do not need legislation to train a workforce, however, you do need legislation to helpfully define what we mean by trauma-informed practice. We do need legislation that puts duties on court, crown, police to ensure that trauma-informed practice is woven into their standards of service. We do need legislation to establish the rights of complainers when there are section 275 applications to ensure that they can access their rights to be heard and their rights to legal representation. I am trying to indicate that there are broad platforms of reform that are in the legislation and that need legislation to drive it forward. Of course, you would expect, in the policy memorandum, to speak about the more cultural aspects that underpin legislative change and that, of course, involves training staff. Some of what you are referring to is part 6, for example, legal representation for victims. You are talking about the need to define trauma-informed, but the legislation does not do that. It simply says that the Lord President will decide at a later date what that is going to be. Why cannot that just be done by the Lord President over the courts already without legislation when the legislation does not even specify what it is going to be? I would contend that the legislation has a degree of specificity in and around trauma-informed practice. We need to recognise the context of which that will be applied. We often get to this point in committee debates about how much Parliament wants to put in the detail of the bill and how much scope we want to leave for those who have to implement the bill in practice. The next question is in part 6. There is a view that a duty comprising 15 random members of the public or 12 if the bill goes through or better at reaching a decision than a Scottish judge alone. They are predominantly late middle-aged white males who went to the same handful of universities, often privately educated and often live in the same affluent parts of Scotland, usually Edinburgh. It is not me saying that. It is the judges themselves. Do you agree that they are correct in that interpretation, that they would rather have jurors than reliant on one of them? The question about diversity is a fair one. In terms of balance and fairness, in terms of the contribution that the senators made in their own evidence that they have submitted to committee, unsurprisingly, there is not one view. Of course, we have known for some time that there is not one view in and around some of the reforms that are being proposed, particularly in terms of the pilot that is being proposed. Just for the record, it is important to acknowledge that the submission from the senators also narrates that among some senators there is support for this change, but the point about diversity is an important one. The jury research that I referred to earlier demonstrated that the diversity of juries did not overcome the prevalence and power of rape myths. While Mr Finlay is right to raise issues about the diversity of the judiciary, on the other hand, we have a group of professional decision makers who have experience, who have training and who, if they are part of the sexual offences court—for example, like everybody else—will have to be trauma-informed in terms of training. It is a more easily identifiable group to support other measures in and around education and training, for example, where that is unachievable if you are selecting 12 or 15 people on a random basis. I have a very quick question. Some lawyers have said that they are already going to boycott a duralis trial. What can you do to persuade them or will the bill be enacted and you are going to hope for the best? I have no surprise to me that there are a range of views. I have spent the summer engaging with different bar associations and, in particular, criminal defence lawyers. I hope that the committee recognises that I am not a politician who only ever wants to meet or engage with people who agree with me. That engagement from my perspective was helpful in terms of understanding better the nature of their particular concerns around the pilot and other stresses and strains that they are experiencing in their day-to-day work. All that I emphasise is that no part of our system is exempt from change. I recognise that change can be difficult and challenging. Members of the legal profession are entitled to their view that they will be part of that debate, but we have at least a year to go between the start of stage 1 and by the time we are all voting at stage 3 and voting on the final bill. We all need to be giving each other a bit of time, a bit of space, having the debate and trying to work together in the interests. We all share that common goal. We all want guilty people to be convicted and not guilty people to walk free. We all want the experience that complainers have in their court system to be better. The journey that we are on, Mr Finlay, is more of a marathon than a sprint. I will bring in Sharon Dowie and Rona Mackay. I have a question on that line. My question is that we have a high court and a sheriff's court, so why do we need a new sexual offences court? The convener put it quite well when she said that we cannot improve and refine what already exists. I suppose that my question is how much is it going to be to set up the new sexual offences court and would that money not be better used to put the training in and give money to the victim support groups so that we can do it in the system that we have already got? That is another fair question that has, to some extent, been discussed and debated as we introduced the bill. That comes back to the recommendation from Lady Dorian's review and that we have, over the decades, made incremental changes and, indeed, improvements. However, if we want to really embed specialism and to really revamp policies, processes and practices that are, yes, fair to the accused, but also in the interests of fairness support complainers to give their very best of evidence, we need to be doing something different. The concern was that, if we were just grafting on to existing structures, we would not see that fundamental change that is needed for how we deal with sexual offences cases, which have grown in number. Over the past decade or so, they have increased by 275 per cent. At the start of 2010-2011, there would be around 80 cases. We are now looking at 300 cases. We have specialism in other parts of the system. We have specialism in terms of the police who are investigating those complex and highly sensitive cases. We have prosecutors who specialise and lead in the prosecution of those cases. My question would be, why would we not want our court system to have a court that was also specialist in those highly emotive, difficult, complex cases that have severe and enduring consequences for victims? For me, that fits very much with the whole systems approach in improving the end-to-end journey for victims who are pursuing justice. I still think that the money could be better used to upskill all the staff that are already there. If it were to be passed, can I ask what the timescale would be to get the new court up and running and to have the resources to go and do it? It will be no surprise to anybody in this committee that we are living in ffiscally challenging times. I am not going to go into the reasons or causes for that, or the solutions that will, of course, be part of a bigger parliamentary budget debate. The cost of establishing the sexual offences court is a minimum of £1.4 million, and we will be looking at a minimum of £0.5 billion per annum. It is fair to say that those costs may change depending on the operational decisions on how we go forward and on the implementation. On the timescale, the bill, if it passes, is a year away. The measures that would be implemented first in 2025 are likely to be the measures in which you do not require secondary legislation or court rules. In terms of establishing the sexual offences court, there would be new court rules and procedures that would have to be put in place. We are still a wee bit off from achieving the ambitions in and around the sexual offences court. As with any bill, particularly a very large bill in terms of not overwhelming the current system, all of that has to be phased in. The other crucial argument and potential benefit of a sexual offences court is that it could improve efficiency in dealing with a growing number of complex cases. Again, the lady Dorian review looked at that a large part of her work is about what additional measures can we assist with the efficiency of cases, bearing in mind that there is still a court recovery programme. That measure is also an opportunity to be dealing with those cases more efficiently. A final one that you said earlier on that we all have a name for guilty to be convicted and not guilty to be set free, which I am sure all agree on, but one of the things that victims have said and we are saying we want victims' voices to be heard is that at the end they feel let down because of the sentence. Is the bill looking at anything to do with sentencing for people who are convicted of an offence? The bill does not deal with sentencing policy. The bill is responding to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system. I understand perfectly the point that Ms Dowey is making, but we also know from victims, particularly in terms of the personal testimony of victims who have been through the system, that that experience is sometimes as important as the outcome. If we are having a system that re-traumatises victims, that is not in the interests of justice, that is not in the interests of access to justice and it will not encourage more support of victims to come forward. However, the bill is as it stands and it makes no reference to sentencing policy. Just following on from that line of questioning about why sexual offence courts are needed, I distinctly remember the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain saying at the start of session 6 that, to improve justice for women and girls who are victims of sexual violence, radical reform is needed. I really do think that that is what we are doing here. My question is really relating to part 6 of the bill and it is about the current approach to anonymity. Can you maybe outline why you think the current approach should be replaced by a statutory protection for victims? The current approach is more about practice and protocol. It is a non-statutory approach. Right now, the mainstream press abide and adhere to a non-statutory approach and they need to be commended for that. However, we are now in a world of social media, which is massive, with a massive reach and an absolutely phenomenal number of contributors who, at the click of a button, can share all sorts of information. Fundamentally, we want more clarity and certainty for complainers so that they have the confidence to report and the automatic assurance that their privacy and dignity will be protected. That leads me on to my next question about legal representation. The current provisions regarding the restricting, the use of sexual history and character evidence, really do not provide adequate protection. Could you expand on our plans to provide independent legal representation to try to address those problems? The evidence for that comes from the victims task force, from the consultations that the Government has undertaken and, of course, Lady Dorian's review. The current situation is that, under common law, complainers who are part of a rape trial have rights to be involved, but in terms of how they are exercised, that would fall to the Crown Office. That is not satisfactory in the fact that it is the job of prosecutors to prosecute in the public interest. The public interest is different from the interest of complainers. In terms of the section 275 applications that are led to permission of the court to lead evidence, it is often very sensitive and intrusive matters. It is often referred to as the section to enable people to go into someone's character or, indeed, their past history, including their past sexual history. That, of course, is deeply intrusive. As the process starts, there is no opportunity for the victim to be represented or for their views on that application process to be heard. The independent legal representation is to ensure that there is parity, opportunity and fairness for victims to express their view about those particular applications and for them to have the right of appeal. I am interested in the linkage between the provisions in the bill on trauma-informed practice and those particular provisions in parts 5 and 6. I am struck that, in section 434—forgiving me—for being specific, the bill talks about carrying out the responsibility imposed. The president must have regard to the desirability of doing so in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice. What I am keen to understand is how satisfied the Government is that the provisions of the bill will actually result in a genuinely more trauma-informed experience for victims, because I take the point that Sharon Dowey is asking about, well, couldn't we just do this through our existing court system? I tend to come to the view that the existing court system is so cumbersome, so heavily laden with procedure that it is difficult to adapt. I am interested in the thinking that it is going in to ensure that we can be satisfied that the sexual offences court would operate any more trauma-informed way than an adaptation of the existing court arrangements in Scotland. Mr Swin and other members are quite correct to, in their question, encapsulate what Lady Dorian expressed, that the adoption of trauma-informed practices is central. It is absolutely central to the experience of complainers and it is central to how we can improve the experiences of complainers. Of course, the bill creates the statutory definition of trauma-informed practice. It requires justice agencies to have regard to trauma-informed practices and their work with victims and witnesses and it empowers the courts to set rules and procedures on trauma-informed practice in relation to both criminal and civil businesses. I suppose that the practical application of that is to take trauma-informed practices into account when they are scheduling court business. In terms of the sexual offences courts, it is moving to that presumption around pre-recorded evidence, which there is some legislation right now in and around virtual trials. It is to get to the heart of the manner to improve the experience and the efficiency without trying to tweak around the edges. The sexual offences court is a real opportunity, it is an unrivaled opportunity to embed expertise and to take that clean sheet approach, instead of girdling about in an existing system that is not satisfactory to many complainers and is re-traumatising complainers that take a clean sheet. What do we need to do differently? Let us build that from the ground up. I appreciate that answer and can I follow it up then with one of the areas which I suspect contributes significantly to trauma is timescales and the amount of time that a victim has to wait for the process to reach some form of conclusion. Does the Government believe that the bill, as it is drafted just now, has places sufficient obligation on improving the timescale for the handling of such cases? As part of doing what I completely accept from the cabinet secretary's explanation, it is the underpinning thinking of ensuring that trauma-informed practice is applied in all circumstances. Right now I do, but the purpose of scrutiny is to shine a light on areas that can be improved or to unravel any knots. That is in legislation. I am very undefensive about the main priority between now and this bill passing is to ensure that we have the best legislation possible. I am sure that we all want to see this as we embark upon this journey together, that we work together to improve the bill. The rationale of having a specialist sexual offences court is about improving the efficiency of the process, because we know the traumatic impact that delays. There are a range of operational matters that will need to be addressed. For example, in terms of independent legal representation, to ensure that people can access their rights timisly without adding further delays, there is a lot of detail to be worked through and a lot of detail that underpins the bill. However, one of the purposes of a sexual offences court is to improve efficiency. One of the starting points for Lady Dorian's work is that we have an increasing volume of cases. How are we going to deal with them more efficiently? That is not just in the interests of the court system. That is fundamentally in the interests of victims. I do not know if there are officials who have missed out or have not addressed it. No, I do not think so. The only other thing to mention is that in Lady Dorian's report when she recommended the court, one of the focus that she put on is a specialist court. A specialist environment could really encourage stronger, active judicial management of processes, including pre-trial processes as well as the trial itself, which might lead to improvements in unnecessary turn of cases or endowment of cases. The point that the cabinet secretary made about pre-recording evidence and bringing witnesses in in advance of trial to shorten that particular part of the journey, although I appreciate that they still have an interest in the outcome of the journey. The whole approach of the court of being a more compassionate, a more specialist environment to keep witnesses more engaged and perhaps to reduce to some of the other causes of turn in the system? On that point, there is a lot of hope and aspiration in the comments that Ms McLeod has just put on the record there. I am quite interested to make sure that the action is turned into practical reality and that we do not actually just create a sexual offences court that looks offy similar to existing courts. I am interested in how we are able to oblige that to happen. That is why we have to ensure that the bill will deliver and be implemented on its aspirations. The devil is always in the detail and it is always what happens in the ground. Thank you. My last question is that one of the other elements of the court process that we have not talked about so far is the conduct of the defence. I unreservedly accept the points in the policy memorandum about the importance of balance, about the protection of the right to justice. However, I cannot be the only person horrified by the conduct of some defence solicitors in the way in which those matters are pursued within court. The Government can bring forward a bill here that does all that possibly can do to apply trauma-informed practice to the conduct of consideration of cases of allowed sexual crime. However, what obligations will the defence be under or what approaches can be taken to ensure that some of the behaviour that horrifies many of us in the courts of our land is not replicated in the sexual offences court? I think that we have all heard very powerful personal testimony of complainers' experiences in court, in sexual offence cases in particular. We have also seen the observations of Lady Dorian in her work, where she reflected on some of the commentary by the appeal courts in some of these matters in terms of intrusive and unnecessary questioning. I will, just for the record, say that criminal defence lawyers are an invaluable part of our system and that we need to be making transformational changes on improving the experience of complainers going through the process. However, our aim is always to ensure that we, in doing so, have unintended consequences of cutting across the rights of the accused. The sexual offences court, where it has the opportunity to be transformational, is that everybody who participates in that sexual offences court has to be trauma-informed training. There is an opportunity to create a very different core environment. I would contend, and I speak as a former prison social worker here, on the fact that I have worked with more offenders than victims. I have worked with both, but I have worked with more offenders over my time and have advocated for fairness and justice for those accused or convicted. However, I think that the real prize in a sexual offences court is that it has benefits, potentially, for everybody, both the complainer and the accused, and it moves us away from an adversarial system to one that is more deliberative, better managed, more inquisitorial, absolutely testing the evidence robustly and fairly, but does not disregard the welfare of those participating in that process. There is a real prize here, and there is a real opportunity for everybody to work together on that journey that is in the interests of a justice system in Scotland that is bold, but is brave, but is also fair and balanced. The figure of a minimum of £1.4 million was mentioned in relation to the pilot. So how many cases is that based on sexual offences? Is the £1.4 million, but my understanding is that the sexual offences court won't deal with all sexual offences in Scotland in the first instance, is that correct? Is the £1.4 million the additional cost of the court or the total cost of the court, and how many cases or places is that figure based on, just to get a bit more understanding in terms of what is actually being proposed? I do have another question, but it may be that the climate section wants to answer. Obviously right now there is a cost to addressing and responding to the demand, the increase in demand on sexual offences cases. In terms of the sexual offences court, we are looking at the additional costs that are specific to the changes that are proposed. That figure may change depending on some of the operational decisions in and around that in terms of the court rules being one example. The purpose of the sexual offences court is to deal with all, it has unlimited sentencing powers, so it can be dealing with a wide variety of cases. But its sentencing powers are unlimited, and it's important to put that on record in that it will have maximum sentencing powers, but it will be able to deal with a broad range of cases. In terms of numbers, we know that there is an increasing number of solemn cases, but in terms of the actual numbers and the category of cases that will go to the sexual offences court, do we have some further information on that? Yes, certainly. When preparing the financial memorandum, we obviously worked with partners to identify the numbers of cases that might be caught under the jurisdiction of the new court, which is seeking to capture all solemn sexual offences, bringing cases together from the sheriff's courts as well as the High Court. The bill is not prescriptive, it gives prosecutors a choice of, as you said, Ms Clark, it doesn't require sexual offences to be prosecuted in these courts, but it is a choice open to prosecutors. It's difficult to model exactly what the case load might be for the court, but the bill itself and the creation of the court will create new cases. It's about redistributing the existing case load within the system just now into a more focused trauma-informed forum. The figures that we quoted within the financial memorandum and will continue to develop those sort of predictions with partners were based on the last or three years of good data that we had. We might see up to 700 cases in the sexual offences courts. That's very helpful. Russell Finlay spoke about the demographic of those that sit in judgment, the judges. I wonder in terms of the selection criteria for the new sexual offences court, what thought has given to how people will be selected to be judges and what the demographic is likely to be? That will be for the head of judiciary, the Lord Justice General. It's important that we're clear about that. The Lord Justice General will be able to appoint across the field and will be able to appoint sheriffs to the court, as well as judges, and will be able to do so on the basis of people's experience, their expertise and their training. Will you accept a question in relation to part six, convener? Yes, of course. I'm conscious of the time, so that's fine. I'll bring in Fulton McGregor and I've got a couple of follow-up questions, so we might just run on an extra five minutes or so, but please do. I've spoken with the cabinet secretary previously about the independent legal representation of victims and other jurisdictions. There's a very specific and narrow provision in this bill in relation to independent legal representation of rape victims. I wondered whether the Scottish Government is willing to further explore a pilot or pilots in relation to independent legal representation of victims, in particular rape victims before the court process and during the court process, whether that's something that might be considered in the context of the bill or, indeed, as a separate discussion. Well, convener, known from my previous discussions with Ms Clark, I have no doubts that we'll be debating this matter further. I know that Ms Clark has shared with me some very interesting research different models from elsewhere, and I have no doubt that she'll continue to press me every stage of the bill on those matters. In terms of our approach taking thus far and our position right now, this is a substantive change. The model in terms of the automatic legal representation and how complainers access to that timisly is still being developed. We are working with a range of justice partners, and there is obviously the work of the MR Rich clinic as well, because we do need to get this. It is a substantive change, and it will be a demand-led change, so estimating the cost of it is somewhat challenging when it will be down to a demand-led budget. Right now, I have some caution because we are living in the reality of resource implications, but it also goes back to one of the points that I raised earlier about how we ensure that we deliver. I do think that the proposition right now that the focus should be on delivering that in a way that is accessible and supports women to have the voice heard, but to do so in a way that you could potentially be a platform for further change and further reform. Given the importance of implementing legislation and the importance of bearing in mind costs, I have a significant degree of caution right now, but I look forward to hearing more on that sharing of other experiences and evidence from further afield, because I do think that it is important. My questions are around part six and are on an enmity for victims. I am just wondering what you think the advantages will be for changing the current approach of an enmity for victims of sexual offences and replacing it by a statutory protection that is outlined in the bill. To seek clarity and certainty for complainers at the earliest opportunity, it is to increase the confidence for people to come forward and to report and to make complaints in the first place. I mean that we all know the evidence that sexual offences in particular are underreported. Having security of an enmity is part of increasing people's confidence to come forward. The clarity is important that it automatically starts. There is no process for people to go through. It is automatic from the time of the offence. There has been significant research and thought given to this. I can point to the work of Andrew Tickell and his colleagues and students at Glasgow Caledonian University who have led much of the campaign in terms of automatic lifelong anonymity. It is recognised for particular sexual offences, but there are also offences to do with FGM, human trafficking and other very sensitive offences that have a particular bearing on people's physical integrity and their privacy. That we have a system that supports the confidence of that system but also supports people to come forward and to make reports in the first place. I want to ask as well if there was any consideration given to the possibility of extending anonymity to accused persons. I know that there is a much more difficult area, but something that struck me about the debate, the criminal justice committee debate that we had in Parliament last week. There was some discussion on the impact of these offences when somebody is accused on other family members. It was actually quite powerfully put by members in the chamber last week. The person is an accused person, but their family are also impacted by what are often very serious concerns, and they are often more often than innocent parties. Has the Government given any consideration to extending anonymity? We have not considered it. We have not consulted on it. It was not part of the Lady Dorian review or any of the recommendations that flowed from that. We have not explored it in any way that would look at the unintended consequences. One of the advantages of removing the not proven verdict is that, in a two-verd system, people are either guilty or not guilty. If someone is found not guilty, I think that that is clear and unambiguous. I wonder whether I can finish off this particular section with a question about the position of an accused person. It is in relation to the pilot proposal. Is it mandatory for an accused person to fall within the scope of a pilot to participate? Is it problematic because of the response to that? The Lady Dorian review was silent on that matter. The working group that flowed from her work again was cross-sectoral and opted for the position. It is currently the Government's position that it is mandatory for the cases and for the accused in the same way that it would be mandatory for the complainer. In terms of how the justice system operates more broadly, the accused does not decide which level of court or procedure is currently used for their case. That is our position. The other practical aspect of it is where we seek Parliament's consent to introduce regulation to a time-limited pilot. Any effective pilot will require a particular number of cases as well, particularly if it is to be time-limited. That is helpful clarification. I will move us on to the final part. You will be glad to hear our session today. We will look at parts 1 to 3 of the bill. We will look at about 25 minutes or so on that. Just a reminder, part 1 relates to the establishment of a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner. Part 2 relates to a new requirement for criminal justice agencies to have regard to trauma-informed practice. Part 3 relates to special measures in non-evidential hearings to cover civil cases and allowing the court to prohibit parties from personally conducting their own case and carrying out personal cross-examination in certain cases. If I can open up with a question on the proposals for a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner, we have heard general support for the particular proposal. However, the two things that I have picked up around that have been potentially cost implications and the role of a commissioner, given that the proposal is that they would not have a role in the investigation or review of individual cases. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to expand a little bit more on the thinking around that particular proposal. It is an issue in which the Government has been engaging with stakeholders since around 2019 and in particular on the role of a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner. There is broad support for that in consultation responses and there is clearly a demand for it from victims and victims organisations, although I would hasten to add that you would not expect unanimity of views for sure. The purpose is to have an independent statutory commissioner that is accountable to the Parliament. It is to complement and not duplicate the role of, for example, victims organisations. You mentioned the issue of funding. We currently invest heavily in victims organisations, whether that is through the victim-centred approach fund at £48 million or whether it is the equally safe fund of £19 million. The costs of establishing a Victims and Witness Commissioner is laid out in the financial memorandum. No financial cost is insignificant, but they are far less substantial than the amount that we currently lay out and will continue to invest in victims organisations. I will pick up on that point about the potential duplication of work that is perhaps already the focus of victim support organisations. Would there be work undertaken to make sure that there is not a duplication and that there are quite clear and distinct roles and responsibilities within the commissioner role, so that organisations represent victims, so that there is holistic support provision in and around victims and witnesses? That touches on the point that the commissioner will not have the power to intervene on individual cases. He can, of course, signpost and will engage with victims and witnesses either individually or collectively. The purpose of a commissioner is to hold the justice system collectively to account. You would expect them to work very closely and carefully with other commissioners. You do not want the duplication, particularly in and around children, to be the obvious example. The role here is to identify and influence system-wide change. It is more about holding the system to account and therefore avoiding duplication with the other roles, so that other organisations fulfil. I am aware that we covered some of the provisions in parts 1, 2 and 3 in some of our earlier questioning, such as trauma-informed practice. Are there any other questions that members would like to come in on about the issue of more alignment between the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in civil and in criminal courts? Scottish Women's Aid has highlighted that this is a concern in their submission. Is this something that could be worked on as the bill is going through and looked at? I am quite right to say that part 3 of the bill is to increase safeguards for vulnerable parties and witnesses in civil cases and to extend the use of special measures. They are 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, particularly 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 step forward. It is a significant step forward. It moves on from other comparatively recent legislation in which special measures were enabled for quite a specific selection of family cases, which is applying best practice across the civil system. That complements the measures in the Children's Scotland bill. I am more strengthened in protecting vulnerable witnesses. I am interested in what consideration has been given to providing greater obligation in the statute in the bill on organisations to take account of the perspective of victims rather than establishing a victims commissioner. It strikes me in reading the provisions on victims commissioner for completely understandable reasons that the victims commissioner cannot look at individual cases, but they can look at general conclusions arising out of particular cases or groups of cases. Is there an alternative approach to putting greater legal obligation on the various agencies that are involved here in acting in a manner that reflects the perspective and the interests of victims? If Mr Swinney has specific propositions to strengthening the bill and strengthening the obligations on various actors and agencies who have a responsibility towards victims, we will certainly look forward to receiving those. Right now, on where we are, I think that this is a Belt and Braces approach. I am also very conscious that I have a manifesto commitment to deliver as well and in a round of victims and witness commissioner too, but, of course, as an independent committee, it will come to its own views and will make its own recommendations, which I assure Mr Swinney and the convener and, indeed, all other members, that all recommendations will be given a very fair hearing. Thanks very much. I have two questions. The first one relates to part 1. The victims commissioner on the second relates to part 3. We have evidence to the committee from Joe Duffy, who is the father of Amanda Duffy, who was murdered many years ago. He has campaigned tirelessly to see the end of the not proven verdict, but, in his submission, he made some comments about the creation of a victims commissioner. Did he pose to the creation? What he says in his submission is that the creation of this post will create yet another level of unnecessary bureaucracy within the criminal justice process. There are limited funding and resources currently with criminal justice scond, and we believe that that point will adversely impact resources. He goes on to say a bit more along those lines. I wonder what he would say in response to him and others who share those concerns. I did reflect earlier, Mr Swinney, that, although that is very broadly supported, there has been a lot of active campaigning on the introduction of a specific victims and witness commissioner. There is never unanimity among any group. I have met Mr Duffy not that long ago. I refer back to my earlier comments as a Government. We continue to invest very heavily in victims organisations, whether that is through Equally Safe, whether that is through the victim-centred approach fund, which is £48 million. Of course, it is the job of Parliament to hold Government account in terms of what we are investing in victims organisations and for Government and ministers such as I to explain where we are investing the resource. However, I hope to convey to the committee that when you look at a £48 million victim-centred approach fund, £19 million for Equally Safe, the costs for establishing and the on-going costs for a victims commissioner are not insignificant but small in comparison. Thank you very much now. We have heard evidence in the committee of cases in which male abusers have used the civil courts in tandem with criminal proceedings to inflict further harm and abuse to their victims. One suggestion that was made to us by various victims groups was that a single sheriff model could be brought into force whereby if there were tandem criminal civil cases, there could be one sheriff who would be across all of it and would be aware of that going on. I wonder if any consideration was given to any form of reform in that respect and whether there might be scope to do so going forward, even within the bill. I am just trying to operationalise in my head how that would actually work in practice. What evidence would be so if, for example, an individual was facing criminal proceedings relating to a domestic or sexual nature and in tandem, as there is often the case, of civil cases relating to custody or access involving children? Some of the evidence that we heard suggested that it could overcome this competing, often and further traumatising process by having one sheriff deal with both those sets of proceedings, civil and criminal. I am not commenting on the merits of that or otherwise. I can see that there is a logic to it in terms of efficiency and fairness, but I have certainly not been cited or been involved in any deliberations in and around that, but it would appear that it is an issue of interest, so we have all taken interest in it. I do not know if officials have anything to add from a practical level. Just to say, policy colleagues in civil justice division within government, I think that that has been an issue that has been raised, obviously, by the same stakeholders with them. Something that colleagues have had some discussion with SCTS about. As the cabinet secretary was alluding to there, there are obviously operational issues that might make that quite difficult, but it is an issue that has been subject to discussion. I do not think that those discussions are at a level where we would be looking to bring forward legislative proposals at this time, but it is something that is being considered alongside the broader point about the potential for the dual role of civil and criminal cases running concurrently to add to the trauma of families. Given that the legislation in this term of Parliament is going to deal with court processes and victims, it seems like a possible opportunity. I would be happy to see that as a way of working on a possible amendment to bring that in. It seems that, given all the radical reform that is being proposed, that could be quite a simple fix, whereby, if there was a criminal case with an associated civil case by virtue of the court, just recognising that and bringing it into being does not sound particularly difficult. We are always in the art of the willing and will want to engage with members collectively and individually about the causes that are dear to their heart. My one word of caution is that, when people say that this will be simple, it is usually never as simple. However, we are always more than happy to have discussions. I am sure that members will be testing the scope of the legislation in front of us as well. I am very briefly. For the record, what do you envisage the cost of the victim's commissioner being? It is around £600,000 start-up and £600,000 recurrent costs. It is a little bit over that. It is between £600,000 and £650,000. I will bear with me. One-off costs up to £638,719, recurring costs up to £615,149. That would be an annual cost? Yes, the recurrent cost. I apologise to Sharon Dowey. I jumped ahead, so he would like to come in. On the set-up costs and the recurring costs, do you think that that will provide value for money? What will the commissioner do to improve the situation for victims and witnesses? It is absolutely fair and legitimate to scrutinise the costs of establishing a new commissioner role. I am conscious that, in Parliament today, we will be debating and voting on a patient safety commissioner. If I am reflecting on discussions and representations that victims have made to me, I feel that there is a range of commissioners, but there is not one for victims and witnesses. As I indicated earlier, the purpose of a victims and witnesses commissioner is to scrutinise and hold the justice system to account, in and around the implementation, for example, of the service standards of justice agencies, but also in terms of the victims' code. They will be required to publish a report and their findings and to make recommendations for improvements. On the set-up costs, there is a range of commissioners in the system to account, but have you done any assessment on whether commissioners are effective in the role that they are? Are commissioners being effective? Even though they are accountable to Parliament, we have already got a cabinet secretary and a minister who is accountable to Parliament, so why do we need to bring in another layer of bureaucracy? That is a broader debate. I have not been intimately involved in evaluating the role and function and effectiveness and the contribution of the wide range of commissioners that exist. I do, in terms of my experience, either as a minister or as an MSP, I would be clear that the commissioners that I have observed more or had more dealings with, for example, the children's commissioner, for example, has held us all to account very effectively at different points and junctures. I accept entirely the point that you make about the primacy of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary scrutiny of ministers. The role and function of commissioners does not, in any way, undermine and certainly does not replace any of that, for sure, but it is about what more can they bring in terms of expertise and insight to the system as a whole. Quite often the findings that commissioners come forward with quite often, again in my experience, aid MSPs to hold the Government to account as well. I suppose that it is about a plurality of the system, what I am driving at. Again, we have got a lot of groups out there including victim support that already deal with the victims. Are we not listening to their voice? Are they not able to come and bring all the issues with the system to us so that we can hear them? I am just thinking about when it comes down to the cost. Would that money not be at the place given to more groups? That brings me on to another question. Where is the money coming from? Is something else getting cut to provide this money for another commissioner? Notwithstanding that some victims and organisations have a different view about the value of a victims and witness commissioner in terms of the consultation and representation that we have received over a number of years, it would appear to me that the biggest advocates for victims and witness commissioner are victims themselves. The point about the cost is that people will scrutinise it and come to a view on whether that money should be used to establish a victims commissioner or whether, as individual MSPs, parties or committees, you come to a view that that money should be better spent elsewhere, you will of course be free to do that. I have outlined the investment that we continue to make in victims organisations. It is not an insignificant amount of money. Just one final question on implementation. Since we are bringing in the bill, we want to make the system more efficient. In part 3, section 48 of the Children's Scotland Act 2020 aimed to address some of the weaknesses in the 2004 act. However, those provisions are not yet enforced. I wonder whether that was an act that was passed in the 2020 act. Why has it not been enforced yet? It is a piece of legislation that the implementation of which was interrupted by the pandemic. In the meantime, we have come forward with a bill with more extensive protections to place in the civil system as a whole, whereas the particular legislation that you are referring to was pretty bespoken in and around some family cases. The bill will deliver more. That is where my focus is, is delivering more with maximum impact. That brings us neatly round to our close. I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for attending today. I think that that has been an extremely helpful session. That completes our public agenda item. Next week's meeting we will start our first phase of evidence taking on the bill, covering parts 1 to 3, and we will hear from organisations representing victims of crime as well as the third sector. My thanks again, and we will now move into private session.