Chamber and committees

The word “transparency” is key here. One of the themes that has come up in my meetings with victims, of which I have had a few ahead of this session, and in my conversations with Victim Support Scotland—I suspect that the cabinet secretary will have had similar conversations—is about having accountability and transparency in the system. They are big asks. However, those are just words; how you go about putting them in legislation can be difficult. My amendment, and a number of other amendments to which I have spoken already and which I will probably speak to when we come to the next couple of groups of amendments, do exactly that through practical means and measures.

This is stage 2, so I am looking for the Government to look on these amendments positively and favourably. They are signs that we are serious about changing specific pieces of legislation to improve communication, transparency and accountability. That is what people are asking for. We can go about that in different ways, but this is one practical way of doing so.

I support other amendments in the group, although I appreciate that they might well need some work ahead of stage 3. I am willing to do the same with mine ahead of stage 3, because I believe that this is a fundamental change that we could and should make, and I look forward to hearing what the Government has to say about it.

I will be brief as I am mindful of time. At our previous meeting, the cabinet secretary talked about the reform of the VNS, the integration of systems and what seems to be an enhanced role for the victim contact team. Perhaps it could be the responsibility of the latter to notify all parties involved about the decisions that the Crown makes. Clearly, the resource issue must be addressed, but a responsibility needs to be set in black and white, too, for someone to notify people about what is going on with their case—ultimately, if a plea deal is made or a decision is made not to prosecute, someone must notify the victims of that. That could be an area of enhancement as part of the reform that is happening anyway.

Will the member take an intervention?

On the latter point, the victims commissioner seems like a good place for the charter to live, because, if we are to create a commissioner’s office, it is important that it is more than just an expensive quango—it needs to have teeth. If the commissioner’s remit is very much to have a social contract with the public, in that they know that there is an advocate out there who is looking after their rights and whose sole focus and raison d’être is to improve outcomes for victims, the relationship should be between the commissioner and the public—in this scenario, victims.

I have drafted another version of the amendment—amendment 236—which would place the onus on ministers instead of the victims commissioner. It could be argued that the charter should be the responsibility of ministers. However, when I have lodged such amendments in the past, there has been quite a lot of pushback from ministers. Both options are available for the committee and, ultimately, it can vote on either option. I am interested in hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Amendment 236 is a back-up, if amendments are agreed to that would remove the commissioner from the bill. I would still like to see the charter in place, so placing the duty on ministers is a fallback position. Personally, I am not that fussed. Victims want improved outcomes and all justice agencies to work together with a shared common goal. The charter is one method of achieving that. I will stop there and listen to what other members have to say.

I move amendment 234.

Happily so.

Thank you.

Will the minister give way?

Excellent. I am glad that you accept the recommendations.

Let us look at the key messages in the Audit Scotland report, which sit in the opening pages—pages 3 and 4—and set out what I would say is quite stark criticism of the Scottish Government. I will use the language of the Auditor General’s report, which uses phrases such as

“The Scottish Government ... has not yet set out a clear vision of how it will change public service ... models ... It does not ... have a good ... understanding of its cost base or made progress against audit recommendations”,

it

“has not provided the necessary leadership to public ... bodies to ... deliver ... reform”

and it

“has not been sufficiently transparent with the Scottish Parliament or the public about the current fiscal situation.”

Are those assertions correct?

That sounds a bit like you are criticising the methodology behind the block grant adjustments. Is that correct?

You mentioned that the Government was, thankfully, able to draw down some of the money from ScotWind, but that was a one-off event. That is not a sustainable way to draw on public finances; it is a bit like dipping into your credit card rather than managing your finances properly. That point has been raised by other members.

The Auditor General makes that really clear in the opening pages of his report. The second line on page 8 says:

“The Scottish Government cannot afford its current spending choices”.

The report makes it clear, in black and white, that the spending choices that the Government is making are unsustainable and unaffordable. The report goes on in great detail to demonstrate why that conclusion has been reached. Is the reality not that ministers are simply spending more money than they have, and that the current levels of public spending are unsustainable in the medium to long term?