I begin with amendments 17 and 19, which are in my name. Provisions in the bill relate to the information-gathering powers of the victims and witnesses commissioner, which are subject to certain exemptions. Amendments 17 and 19 clarify that a criminal justice body or the Lord Advocate can refuse to provide information in certain circumstances, rather than being obliged to provide that information, as is required by the current wording. That ensures consistency of language and makes it absolutely clear that refusals are not overridden by the requirement to provide information to the commissioner.

Amendment 24, which is linked to amendments 17 and 19, makes it clear that the right of the commissioner to report to the Court of Session or publicise the criminal justice body’s failure to provide information does not apply if the criminal justice body is relying on the exceptions in sections 14(3) or 14(4)—that is, where the body could refuse to provide information to a court or, in the case of the Lord Advocate, where doing so might prejudice criminal proceedings or be contrary to the public interest.

Amendment 21 provides the commissioner with an alternative route—to the Court of Session—if a criminal justice body has refused to provide information based on the exception in section 14(3) and the commissioner wishes to challenge that refusal. That ensures that the commissioner’s ability to take enforcement action towards criminal justice bodies, where appropriate, is not undermined. I urge the Parliament to support my amendments in the group.

I cannot support any of the amendments in Sharon Dowey’s name. Her amendments 96 and 97 would place a duty on local authorities and providers of social housing to provide information requested by the victims and witnesses commissioner for the purpose of determining the support that they are providing to victims and witnesses. It would also bring those organisations into the scope of enforcement that the bill currently applies only to criminal justice bodies, as is appropriate for the victims and witnesses commissioner.

Ms Dowey’s amendments appear unnecessary and disproportionate. However, I reassure her that section 6(2) of the bill provides the victims and witnesses commissioner with the power to engage with such bodies as they consider appropriate, and section 7 allows further flexibility in how the commissioner discharges their duties.

In addition, under sections 10 and 12, where the commissioner is conducting an investigation, they can require any persons to provide evidence or documents. Therefore, as the commissioner already has the power to engage those bodies as part of their functions, and I do not consider it appropriate for such bodies to be subject to enforcement and the requirement to provide information in the same way as criminal justice bodies, given the nature of the work of the commissioner, I urge the member not to move those amendments.

Ms Dowey’s amendments 98 to 100 also seek to bring local authorities and providers of social housing into the scope of the enforcement that is provided for in the bill. That does not seem appropriate, for the reasons that I have already set out. In addition, for such changes as Ms Dowey proposes in respect of this group to be introduced at this stage, I would expect there to have been considerable engagement with councils and social housing organisations, to seek their views on the impact of those, and I suspect that that has not been possible. I therefore urge Ms Dowey not to move the amendments in the group, and I urge the Parliament to oppose them if they are moved.

I move amendment 17.