Our next agenda item is a round-table discussion on victims’ rights and victim support. I refer members to papers 4 and 5. We will take evidence from a number of witnesses, who are joining us virtually. I am sorry that they cannot join us in person, but that is due to current rules on social distancing.
I welcome Mary Glasgow, chief executive of Children 1st; John Watt, chair of the Parole Board for Scotland; Superintendent Colin Convery of the partnerships, prevention and community wellbeing division of Police Scotland; Tim Barraclough, executive director for tribunals and the Office of the Public Guardian at the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service; Teresa Medhurst, interim chief executive, and Allister Purdie, interim director of operations, both from the Scottish Prison Service; Kate Wallace, chief executive officer of Victim Support Scotland; and Sean Duffy, chief executive officer of the Wise Group.
We appreciate the time that you are taking to join us this morning. I thank those of you who provided written submissions, which are now available online.
I intend to allow about an hour and 20 minutes for questions and discussion. Witnesses who wish to respond to a question should indicate that by typing the letter R in the chat box on BlueJeans and I will bring them in if time permits. There is no need to intervene just to agree with something that another witness has said. Other comments that are made in the chat function will not be visible to committee members and will not be recorded anywhere, so witnesses who want to comment should do so by asking to speak. I ask members and our invited guests to keep their questions and comments as succinct as possible. I am keen to encourage a free-flowing discussion.
I have a broad opening question, which might be for Ms Wallace and Mr Duffy. What do victims want from the criminal justice system? What are your main concerns about how they are supported in the system? What do they experience as they come into it, and how are they involved in it? How does the system support and work for victims as—we hope—they navigate away from it?
Thank you for asking me to join the meeting. Overwhelmingly, victims tell us that they want to be confident that the criminal justice system is robust, such that what happened to them does not happen to anybody else.
On the question of the system’s interaction with victims and their specific circumstances, they want to be treated with dignity and respect—often, however, we hear that they are not. They do not want to be retraumatised by the system, and that has been borne out in a number of reports over a good number of years. The retelling of a story can be retraumatising for many victims and they do not understand why they are continually asked the same things by different people.
The way in which the process treats victims is of concern from the beginning, with regard to how statements are taken and how that then translates into whether the case goes to court. The whole court process is traumatising, including delays, disruption and adjournments, and victims find court buildings intimidating. The way in which the court process happens means that, often, the victim or their family sees an accused or their family, which can also be traumatising.
Beyond that aspect, there can be a lack of understanding of the verdict and sentence if they are not explained to the victim in a trauma-informed and trauma-sensitive way that allows the victim to make sense of the situation. There is also a feeling that release, victim notification and parole are not dealt with in a trauma-sensitive way or explained in such a way that victims can understand them. We might come back some of those aspects later.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute.
I echo what Kate Wallace said. The issue is not necessarily in our area of expertise, which is more to do with creating fewer victims through reducing reoffending. However, the aspects that we hear about from the people whom we support, who can also be victims, are to do with being heard and being visible, which Kate mentioned, and having their position in the overall process considered. It can sometimes feel quite cold and binary.
In the previous evidence session, I was struck by a point that I have heard many times before to do with the importance of victims getting timely access to accurate information about what the process will look like for them and the need to not retraumatise them or increase anxiety and tension around the situation. That is the slightly-more-than-anecdotal evidence that we have picked up.
As I said, our real area of expertise is trying to rehabilitate more early, introductory offenders in order to break the cycle so that there is no graduation towards the creation of more victims.
Thank you. I am interested in your thoughts on the priorities for a victims commissioner, which we have been discussing in a wider context. I will bring in Kate Wallace and Mary Glasgow on this follow-up question. What should the priorities be from the perspective of the journey through the criminal justice system, particularly in respect of the experiences of children and young people? What should the priorities be with regard to supporting children and young people, not only as they navigate the criminal justice system, but to ensure that they avoid the system in the first place?
12:00
I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence on behalf of the children whom we support.
Children 1st supports the moves to introduce a victims commissioner. I listened to the previous responses, and we similarly feel that children’s rights to get justice and to be protected and kept safe through the process are incredibly important. We believe that a commissioner would be able to ensure that children’s particular needs and rights are upheld. They need to be kept safe through the process and there needs to be understanding of their development, of how they might give evidence and of how they require to be communicated with in order to ensure that they are heard and understood.
We also need to understand the impact of this sort of thing on children. The biggest single impact that children highlight to us at Children 1st is that the current system often causes more harm than the original abuse or incident did. They continually talk about being retraumatised by a bewildering, complex and delayed process that they do not understand. We therefore feel that the priority for a victims commissioner must be to remove any retraumatisation of child victims and witnesses and to address delays.
Long delays can form a substantial part of a child’s life. There can be a huge delay between the incident and the child being in a position to get justice, and that can impact on their ability to recall events. Such delays often lead to a delay in children being able to access support for recovery, which can have a lifelong and devastating impact. If we had a victims commissioner who could pay attention to those particular needs and the rights of child victims and witnesses, that would be incredibly welcome.
Thank you for those interesting points.
I agree with Mary Glasgow, particularly on the impact of delays on children. As you know, there were delays pre-Covid, but things have got much worse during Covid, which is a particular concern. We feel that a key priority for a victims commissioner should be to hear from victims and understand their experience. We want a commissioner who is independent of Government, who has a clearly defined remit and who will establish panels of those who have lived experience in order to ensure that that is built in from the start.
We also need to ensure that the rights of victims and witnesses, as enshrined in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 and the victims code, are being fulfilled by the criminal justice system, because it does not feel like that is happening at the moment. As Mary Glasgow has pointed out, standards of service should be looked at, too.
At a previous round-table session, I talked about the need for system change. That is what we hope will happen with a victims commissioner, because that is really what is required.
You have referred, rightly, to victims and witnesses. Should there be more of a focus on witnesses, in addition to victims, in the criminal justice system? If so, what should the priorities be with regard to ensuring that witnesses get the support that they require and access to the support options that they need?
At Victim Support Scotland, we support anyone who feels that they have been a direct or indirect victim of crime, and we also support vulnerable witnesses at court. We have a remit and a protocol in place to do that with the SCTS and the Crown Office. We are interested in and we support anybody who feels that they have been detrimentally impacted by a crime.
We have had debates and discussions about the use of the word “victim” but, from our point of view, it is about how a crime has impacted on a person. We see victims and witnesses collectively in that regard because of the impact that a crime has had on them. Whether they are treated by the court process as the direct victim or complainer is a different matter for us. We would like a victims commissioner to have a broader remit and an understanding of that, rather than there being a narrow definition. For example, in the case of children, depending on the circumstances, siblings might be just as affected by a particular incident as the direct child victim.
That is helpful. As no other member has a general, opening question, we will move on to look at legislation. I will bring in Fulton MacGregor on that, to be followed by Rona Mackay.
Convener, I was going to ask about the barnahus model later, if that is okay.
That is fine. In that case, would you like to pick up the questioning on legislation, Ms Mackay?
Yes. Thank you, convener.
Mary, what is your view on the provisions to protect children as victims of abuse, including domestic abuse, in the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019 and so on? Could more be done in legislation to protect children?
The short answer is that much more can be done. Although progress has been made, it has often involved incremental tinkering to make things a little bit better for children. We are continuing to try to have children’s needs met in a very complex system that was never designed around an understanding of child development, how children communicate and the impact of trauma on them. That is why we believe in and, on behalf of the children and families that we support, have been calling for transformational change to the way in which child victims and witnesses are dealt with in the justice system.
For too long, children have been denied justice because the system that is supposed to protect and help them causes them harm at times, and there are long delays. There is often a complete lack of opportunity for those children to recover. They are often denied the opportunity to recover, which has a huge impact throughout their lives, so my answer is yes: much more could and should be done.
I have a question for Superintendent Colin Convery. In March this year, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to introduce domestic abuse protection orders, which would mean that the perpetrators of domestic abuse could be removed from the house. I think that royal assent was granted in May. Are those orders up and running yet? If they are, are they being used much and are they having an effect?
I am afraid that I cannot comment as I am not aware of that, but I will happily get you that information and report back to the committee.
Thank you. That is fine.
I think that Katy Clark is keen to pick up on that.
Yes. In the previous evidence session, we heard that there are resourcing issues with regard to evidence on commission hearings. I want to ask Mary Glasgow in particular and perhaps Kate Wallace about that. Are you experiencing that? Do you believe that there is more scope for using evidence on commission in relation to children?
I am not specifically up to date and aware of that, to be honest. Our understanding is that there have been some challenges that have, understandably, been made much worse by Covid. We have supported the Crown Office with access to some of our premises. As far as we are aware, there are some things that need to be improved. I do not have the specifics, but we can come back to you with an opinion on that.
Does Kate Wallace want to add anything to that?
Yes. There is huge scope to do a lot more around commissions. As Mary Glasgow said in her earlier answer, courts are not places for children. They are intimidating buildings, and they retraumatise children. They are very adult spaces, and they are not designed in a way that is at all child friendly. Even some of the new facilities are not child friendly.
Taking evidence on commission provides a really good opportunity to get the best evidence without a child needing to go to court at all. That model could be expanded. I appreciate that the Covid situation has had an impact, particularly on the Glasgow facility, but there should be an opportunity to expand commissions further. Those rights are enshrined in existing legislation. Why not use what we have as best we can, given that it will undoubtedly improve the experience for children?
Tim Barraclough would like to come in on that issue.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you.
In relation to evidence by commissioner hearings, speakers have been absolutely right that the pandemic has caused difficulties in using the facilities that we have, principally because of physical distancing requirements. The facilities were well designed for evidence by commissioner hearings before Covid, but they are not particularly suitable to take into account physical distancing.
We have begun to recover from that position, and the number of commissions that are happening is increasing year on year. In 2017, well before the legislation took effect, only 29 commissions were held throughout the year. In 2021, we are just over halfway through the year, and we had already had 145 by the end of July. We are looking to reach about 300 by the end of the year.
We are keen to facilitate an increase in the number of commissions, and we will be developing facilities in places other than Glasgow. We now have facilities in the new Inverness justice centre and in Edinburgh, and we will develop facilities elsewhere. We think that that is the way to go in future, and we support the facilitation of a considerable increase in capacity to hold commission hearings.
In order to hold commission hearings, the judge and the legal practitioners have to be involved, and that takes them away from the conduct of trials. We need to think about how to resource that increase in the number of hearings within the criminal procedure process, but we are very supportive of that.
Evidence on commission hearings are one aspect, but there are other aspects of gathering evidence in a way that does not require a child to be in a court. I do not want us to forget about remote links. We can gather evidence from children by remote videolink. As we have demonstrated in the summary criminal virtual trial pilot, that does not have to be done from a room within the court building; it can be done outwith it. Therefore, there are other methods of evidence gathering. One method will not be suitable for all children and young people. It is about looking at the range of tools that we have and thinking about how we can expand them and do more with them to reduce the number of children who have to go into court to zero.
If there are no more questions about the current legislation, we will move on to issues around victim notification.
12:15
The first question is for John Watt. Most people might not appreciate that the parole system in Scotland effectively operates behind closed doors and in secret. I should declare an interest, as I did before: I am a signatory to or participant in the victim notification scheme. I personally regard that scheme to be impersonal and unclear, and it puts the onus on victims to be proactive and to choose to engage.
In your submission to the committee, John, you say that the
“scheme should be radically revised”.
Given that you agree that significant changes need to be made to the scheme, what is preventing you from doing that?
We do not control the VNS; the SPS does that. Given the opportunity, we would certainly welcome the chance.
I am not quite sure where your question is coming from, so I will ask you a question. What makes you think that the Parole Board for Scotland can change the VNS?
Giving the Parole Board the powers to administer it might be a way to allow that.
Possibly.
I could redirect the question to Teresa Medhurst.
I understand where you are coming from now. I will explain the board’s position.
To deal with the first part of your question, we favour more openness and transparency, but there is a limit to how far we can go with that.
In relation to dealing with victims, our preference would be to have victims involved immediately after a conviction and sentence or perhaps after an appeal, if they want to be, so that nothing comes as a surprise down the line. That must be done in some personal way that is, ideally, chosen by the victim. The board’s preference would be to have face-to-face or virtual contact.
There is nothing more infuriating than not being able to talk to a person—anyone who has dealt with an internet supplier will understand that. The frustration levels are intense. Our position concerns the board of Parole Scotland. There is a difference between the two boards: Parole Scotland is the administrative arm, and it could play a role as a single point of contact right from the earliest stage through to parole hearings and all that goes with parole hearings. There is a level of expertise there that does not exist elsewhere on how everything operates and why things happen as they do. Given the powers and the resources, I would like Parole Scotland to provide an opportunity for a victim to talk about their concerns and to understand the process, right through progression to parole and all that goes with it—including the role that victims have at a parole hearing and even, roughly, the date when it will happen.
The other benefit there is that Parole Scotland is quite a small body, and it is ideally suited to dealing with victims. It can offer a much more personal and personalised service, and there is a sporting chance that a victim might even end up talking to the same person in repeated tribunals. I think that that is preferable to a monolithic organisation having to deal with that.
I do not know whether that answers your question, but I hope that it goes some way towards doing so.
Yes—thank you.
I want to ask Kate Wallace from Victim Support Scotland about the victim notification scheme. Your submission is similarly critical of it, Kate. You have described it as “not fit for purpose.” You have also pointed out that the Scottish Government has not given any specific commitment to do anything about it in the current programme for government. Why do you think that the Scottish Government does not share your sense of urgency? What should be done to fix the scheme?
The Government has committed to conducting a review, so I think that it shares an understanding of the impact. It is aware, as I am, of cases that have been particularly distressing as a result of the way in which the victim notification scheme is carried out.
We see a lot of retraumatisation through the victim notification scheme. It is a very complex scheme. There are effectively two of them, and a number of different organisations are involved, as you have heard.
It is important to remember what the scheme does. Victims are asked whether they want to be a member of the scheme at a point, we would argue, at which they are most traumatised and least able to make such a decision. Often, they cannot remember that they have been asked, or they do not know what the scheme is. They might think to themselves, “That’s not something that I need to worry about just now, so I will delay that decision,” but they are not asked again whether they want to be a member of the scheme.
As you know, we have a specialist service to support families who are bereaved by murder or culpable homicide. In those situations in particular, we can see the impact, because there can be a nine-year delay before someone has any contact at all with the victim notification scheme.
All that people are entitled to is to know that the perpetrator has been released. At the moment, under the process, the information comes out by letter. My argument is that that is the least trauma-informed approach that can be taken. There could be a nine-year gap, during which there has been no other communication, and there will then be absolutely no prior warning that the letter is coming, or what its contents are. We know that some victims have opened those letters while they were on their own, were extremely vulnerable and had serious issues going on in their lives, and we know that that has led some victims to harm themselves. There have been serious repercussions in some cases.
We have asked for a wholesale review of the victim notification scheme. The Government has, thankfully, agreed to that, although it would be good to know when it will happen. Day in, day out, we see the impact of what the scheme means for victims across Scotland.
Has the Government indicated how long the review will take, or when it will get round to it?
No, not to me.
I have a question about the victim surcharge fund, which is also for Kate Wallace. The Scottish National Party’s 2016 manifesto pledged that more than £1 million a year would be paid out through that fund. It took until 2019 to set it up. Earlier this year, it paid out in the region of £157,000. Your organisation received some of that money for your own victims fund, which, in turn, paid out £285,000. In your submission, you cited “an unprecedented demand” for that fund. Some of the money in your fund came from charitable donations. Is it the case that charity is being left to pay for an SNP manifesto pledge? Is that a disincentive for the Government to finally get the £1 million-a-year fund up and running?
The first thing to say is that the surcharge fund is a levy on top of fines. The gap between the money that came through and what was forecast was impacted by Covid and the disruption to the courts. That had a big impact on the amount of money that could be collected.
For a considerable period of time, we have had a victims fund into which we have put different funding. However, with the victim surcharge fund, we have managed to dramatically increase how much money is in the fund and respond to far great levels of demand, because we thought that the pandemic would have a compounded impact on victims.
Where we are coming from with the victims fund is that no victim in need should be financially impacted due to their being a victim of crime, which has occurred through no fault of their own. However, what we have seen during the pandemic has been the impact from furloughed people losing their jobs and really high levels of destitution, and it was critical for us to ramp things up. As a result, we scaled up that work, and we are looking forward to getting more funding from the victim surcharge fund as we see more court activity and more court fines. We will look to scale up our operations accordingly.
Funding from the surcharge fund should be protected as much as possible to ensure that it goes directly to victims who are in great financial need. There is a type of surcharge fund in England, but that funding goes to different projects and services rather than directly to victims themselves. What we have managed to put in place in Scotland is really good. It is unfortunate that it is needed, but I am very glad that the fund is there and that we can use it.
I understand that Covid has affected that, as it has affected just about everything else, but have you had any indication of the funding that you will get in future years? Has there been any projection of what you might expect?
Not at the moment. Another round of funding will be released quite soon from the victim surcharge fund, which I think you are asking specifically about. The Government waits until a certain amount of money has gathered in the fund and then releases it. I think that that happens about every six months. We are about to get another amount of funding but, because the fund itself is still in its pretty early stages, making any sort of forecast would be challenging. That said, I certainly expect that, by the beginning of next year, we will be in a better position to make projections for future years.
As I have said, we have used the money to lever in other types of funding, and any efficiencies that we can make get funnelled towards the victims fund. If that fund had to close because we were struggling to lever in sufficient funding, we would give people really long notice of that.
Thank you.
At this point, I will bring in Teresa Medhurst, who wanted to respond, I think. Given that we are discussing the issue of victim notification, do you have any views on the current support or arrangements in place in that respect, particularly with regard to notification of release dates?
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to come before the committee.
I whole-heartedly agree with Kate Wallace that the VNS needs to be reviewed. Different parts of the criminal justice system have responsibility for different elements: the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service issues the application packs and confirms whether a victim qualifies to be part of the scheme; the SPS takes responsibility for notification during a person’s sentence; and Parole Scotland is, of course, responsible for cases involving parole.
It is clear that there is no connectedness between the different parts of the system and that a review would flush out where there needs to be greater connectivity, how best to achieve that and what support arrangements would be required. The review would need to focus very much on engagement with victims’ organisations, to ensure that the voices of victims are at the core of any review and—[Inaudible.]—in England, for example, the Probation Service administers the process on behalf of the system, so there are other models of victim notification schemes that we could consider as part of the review.
12:30
I will ask a follow-up question about the practical aspect of release days. Do you have any comment on how appropriate it is for Friday to be a release day, given that, for example, some services might be closed over the weekend? Thinking about it in the context of victim support, should that arrangement continue?
I am probably not the best person to respond on victim support. Kate Wallace might best respond to that. In the broadest sense, with regard to people being released on a Friday as opposed to any other day of the week, and on access to services, consideration needs to be given to when services and support are engaging with those in custody. For example, if somebody requires to make a Department for Work and Pensions application, they can do that only on the date of release. Such aspects make the system clunkier with regard to support and release arrangements. That might be the same for victim support, but Kate would be the best person to respond to that question.
Kate Wallace, would you like to comment on that?
Yes. We get a lot of feedback from victims who say that receiving letters late on a Friday afternoon is really not helpful, because, by the time they receive the letter, there will be no one in to answer the number that they are given to call for further information. People say that they are then worrying about what the letter means for the whole weekend, without access to further information. I think that that is where the question has come from.
Obviously, there are support services available, but we cannot contact them on a victim’s behalf to get further information, because there is nobody to speak to. I think that that is where the question has come from. I understand that the date of the letter is often triggered by the release date, so that should be considered in the victim notification scheme review.
That is helpful. Thank you. Let us move on to questions about the on-going development of a barnahus model for Scotland. I will bring in Fulton MacGregor and Rona Mackay on that issue.
Good afternoon. I will ask about the development of the barnahus, or bairns’ hoose, model. The issue came up during the passage of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019 in the previous parliamentary session. It was a big part of what the committee asked the Government to commit to, and I am pleased to see that that commitment has been taken forward.
Mary Glasgow, what has been the role of Children 1st in expanding that work? What have you done and how have you worked with partner agencies? What stage is the work at?
Along with Victim Support Scotland and the University of Edinburgh, Children 1st has formed a partnership to develop and practice a test, learn and develop model. We have come together and, with support from the Postcode Dream Trust of the People’s Postcode Lottery, we have accessed a grant to develop in practice the first house. Beyond that, we have worked with partners for a long time to bring the voices of the children and families we support to the centre of the conversation, to ensure that children’s particular needs in the justice system have been heard and attended to.
We have reviewed the evidence and have worked carefully with colleagues across Europe through the PROMISE Barnahus Network to identify that barnahus is the most effective model for allowing children to get justice, be cared for and protected and get the support that they need to recover from the trauma that they have experienced. Primarily, the issue is about upholding children’s rights to justice in a way that does not compromise their wellbeing—in other words, in a way that does not cause them more trauma. For decades, we have supported children to recover from the impact of abuse, crime and violence, and they have told us that, in going through the process, the single biggest thing is that the system can often cause more harm than the original incident itself.
We are really pleased with where we have got to. We have funds in place and we have identified the buildings that we are going to develop. We are working in partnership alongside social work colleagues, police colleagues and other partners in the arena to develop a model of practice that can be researched, evidenced and scaled up across Scotland.
We are delighted with the progress that has been made, and we see ourselves as working very much in partnership with the Government as well as all the other agencies and players that are committed to bringing that transformational change into the system for children.
Thanks, Mary. It is really encouraging to hear that. I would like to bring in Kate Wallace to speak about the role of Victim Support Scotland in that development. What impact could that have for child witnesses?
We are working in partnership with Children 1st, the University of Edinburgh and Children England on the child’s house for healing project, which is the test, learn and develop pilot model that Mary Glasgow referred to. It is a really important and exciting development that aims to ensure that children are supported through the process in a completely trauma-informed and child-friendly way and in spaces that are designed in that way. Earlier, I spoke about keeping children out of the courtroom completely and bringing services to children as opposed to their having to go into adult services when, as Mary says, we know that that would retraumatise them.
The project has a lot of potential benefits for children and young people. However, the reason for VSS’s involvement—aside from the fact that we think that it is really important—is that we think that some learning will come out of it that we might be able to use for adult victims, too, because we know that the system retraumatises them as well. Services going to the child as opposed to the child going to services is at the heart of it.
Earlier, we talked about the methods and models in Scotland, but, as I said, there are still some limitations on those, because they are not necessarily being followed in buildings or areas that are child friendly or in a way that is designed to be trauma informed from the outset. The project will have a huge impact by reducing retraumatisation, improving children’s experience and helping them to recover. It has a great deal of potential.
I know that Rona Mackay has an interest in the same area, convener, so I am happy to leave my questioning there.
Thank you. Jamie Greene has a follow-up question, and then I will bring in Mr Barraclough before I hand over to Ms Mackay.
Good morning. I commend the panel members for the work that they are doing on the establishment of the barnahus model, which is a testament to the good work of our predecessor committee on the issue. However, you will be aware of the document that the Government produced on 14 September, which outlines the visions, values and approach of the model. It was brought to my attention that there was some phrasing therein that might raise one or two eyebrows with regard to who might be eligible to use the barnahus model.
I want to explore that, in order to get a direct understanding of whether the scheme is designed to assist only children who are victims of crime, or who are vulnerable in the true sense, or whether there is any possibility that it will include children who are under the current age of criminal responsibility but who may have caused significant harm to others. Might they, too, be using that facility as opposed to being processed in a court environment? I have received one or two letters that have raised concerns about the interaction between those two different groups of children.
Does anyone have any knowledge of that issue, or can anyone clarify the situation for me? A hand is waving—I think that it is Ms Glasgow’s.
We need to approach the issue from the understanding that children are children. It is very much our experience that the line between child accused and child victim can be a very fine one in that arena. We therefore welcome consideration of the issue in line with Scots law and the approach that Scotland takes to children’s policy.
Obviously, there is a lot to be worked out, but I want to reassure Mr Green and the committee that, within our design and consideration of the development of the physical space in the child’s house for healing—Scotland’s first barnahus—we are considering how the needs of both child accused and child victim or witness can be met safely. For example, through designing separate entrances and separate spaces, we can protect vulnerable witnesses while making sure that children who are accused of crimes are recognised as also having been victims, most often, and as requiring specialist support that understands their needs—which is so often lacking in the current system. We think that the move is welcome.
There is a lot to be worked out. The test, learn and develop approach that we will take will, we hope, inform that learning. Our work with the University of Edinburgh will be very robust in researching and disseminating that learning.
It is a complex area. We are aware of concerns, but we think that the model fits very well with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the way in which Scotland considers child victims, witnesses and accused in policy.
Thank you. That is helpful clarification. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the premise of how the law and society treat children. However, I raised the issue because specific concerns have been raised that what was initially perceived as being a safe space for the victims of crime may also be a place that will be used to facilitate the processing of those who have been accused of something. There are genuine concerns out there, and you are acutely aware of them—I can tell that from your response. As we go through the process, we will be looking for any comfort that you can provide that all children will be protected in that environment.
I will bring in Tim Barraclough, as I think that he was quite keen to speak.
As someone who first visited a barnahus as long ago as 2014 and who was part of the evidence and procedure review team that was one of the first to bring the initiative to the attention of the Scottish justice system, I have two things to say.
First, it is really important to understand that a barnahus is not just an offshoot of the justice system. Its very concept is about bringing together a range of services for the child who has been either the victim of or a witness to serious abuse.
The barnahus has four rooms—child protection, health and wellbeing, and recovery, as well as justice. Justice is just one element. Some of the children who go to a barnahus might never end up in court proceedings at all, because their needs have to be met in a different way. That must be borne in mind when thinking about who goes to a barnahus: it is not just for people who will be witnesses, or potential witnesses, in court proceedings.
One of the biggest advances of the past few years in the development of the barnahus concept has been the coming on board of the health services. The barnahus started out as a justice project but has now expanded—as it should—to incorporate health services and local authority child protection services. That is absolutely where we want to be going.
Nevertheless, it is still incredibly important for potential child witnesses in court proceedings. A barnahus interview takes place before court proceedings have even started, and, if we get that initial interview right, we can eliminate the need for the child to get involved in court proceedings at all. The quality of that interview may be sufficient for all subsequent proceedings, and there will be no need for cross-examination and further examination.
12:45There will always be a right for the accused to have the evidence against them examined, but getting barnahus right—getting the environment and the quality of interviewing right—would be a massive step forward. We are very supportive of that.
I would like to bring in Superintendent Convery, who I know is very interested in that.
I will make a general comment as well as responding directly to Mr MacGregor’s direct ask and Mr Greene’s point.
The whole concept of barnahus mirrors the principle of a rights-based approach, which we take to delivering policing and policing services alongside our partners. It is something that supports many of the on-going developments relating to interviewing vulnerable witnesses, presentation of their evidence and joint investigative interviews.
To pick up on Mr Greene’s comment, we recognise that there can be a fine line between the harm doer and the victim. We recognise that, for young people, the barnahus offers opportunities to explain the reasons for offending behaviour, which we can try to address through appropriate measures. We look forward to working alongside Mary Glasgow and Kate Wallace and their teams in order to learn and develop as we look to roll out that work across the country.
Our colleagues from Children 1st have invited members to visit the barnahus, and I am sure that we will be keen to take up that invitation.
Ms Mackay has been waiting patiently to ask a question.
That was a very useful discussion about the barnahus and I am delighted to hear about the progress that has been made so far. I endorse all the comments on that. We have perhaps explored that enough, so I will move on to another topic.
My question is for Sean Duffy. How has Covid impacted the good work that you do in getting people on the right pathways and helping to reduce reoffending? I am keen to know how women are going through the process. What success are you having in getting employment pathways for women?
Unsurprisingly, Covid has been quite a challenge, given what we do. In the last operational year, we have had just over 1,000 males go through our programme. It has been challenging. The programme is structured through six months of support in prison and six months of support post-liberation. Providing the support in prison was quite challenging. Teresa Medhurst’s colleagues have been fantastic in supporting us and keeping contact with potential programme participants during the lockdown period.
One of the most pleasing things during that period was the recognition that things that were previously not seen as doable were all of a sudden doable. We should remember that as we come out of the pandemic. Necessity is the mother of all invention, as they say, and we managed to do things together, particularly in relation to technology, that were previously difficult or were not even considered possible.
During the most recent operational year, more than 1,000 people in the male prison estate have gone through the programme and the reoffending rate—those who returned to custody within a year—is 8.7 per cent. That means that over 90 per cent of our participants are not going on to reoffend in a way that results in a custodial sentence.
We need to look at that in a more acute way, given the conversation that we are having today about victims. What we are doing is a bit like a vaccine, in that we are severely weakening or even breaking the link between introductory criminality and the graduation from that to serious criminal offences. I should also say that Kate Wallace and others do phenomenal work in supporting the victims of such offences.
There is no doubt that this has been a challenge but, with support from the SPS and the Government, we have continued to support, on liberation, those coming out of prison, even under the early release programme. We have been able to bring technology and partnership working to the fore in a way that has not been evidenced previously, with greater access to services and greater integration of services with local authorities and so on. It was a challenge, but it forced us to do the things that we were always able to do but had never managed to do as a collective. That is the overriding lesson that we have learned.
The female estate has suffered the same challenges. We work in partnership with Sacro and Apex Scotland, which are fantastic, but the same issues are prevalent.
I do not have any employment figures for the female estate but, as far as the male estate is concerned, we have been able to find employment for roughly 10 to 15 per cent of those who have gone through the programme successfully. That is because we are able to cross-integrate existing programmes in different Government directorates, but we need to look at how we design or bake in such an approach at the beginning and not have disparate programmes running almost contrary to each other as far as successful outcomes are concerned.
Do you have an approximate gender breakdown of the people whom you help? What is the male to female ratio?
As I have said, there are more than 1,000 males on the programme, but there are far fewer females. I think that the ratio is 20:1 or 15:1, but I will send the committee the exact figures. There are far fewer females simply because the number of females in the estate is far lower, but I will get you the exact information.
That will be helpful.
Time is slightly against us, but I will bring in Katy Clark with a final question on criminal injuries compensation.
As you know, responsibility for compensating victims of crime and the criminal injuries compensation scheme was devolved to the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago, but the Scottish Government has continued with the Westminster scheme. Kate Wallace, what have been your experiences of it? How well does it work for victims?
We are keen to see the outcome of the consultation and review, which has been very delayed. It should have been out more than a year ago. We made a number of recommendations for improving the scheme, including reducing the amount of waiting time. As I mentioned earlier, our experience of the service that we provide for families who are bereaved by murder and culpable homicide is that the people involved often face a lengthy delay in receiving a criminal injuries compensation payment for funerals, and that can be difficult for families. No one expects a murder to happen in a family, and people often do not have funeral plans; as a result, families who have to pay for a funeral up front can find it a challenge, but this delay still happens.
Also, the way in which the scheme is laid out, with the conduct of the victim of the crime being taken into account, is unfair. The issue needs to be fundamentally looked at, because it can mean that, before they get a payment, the victim sometimes has to wait until the end of the court proceedings and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority gets an answer to the question whether the victim was involved themselves. That said, I am aware that the authority tries not to delay anything.
In cases of murder and culpable homicide, the families themselves have to bear the costs, which seems very unfair. We made a large number of recommendations on how to improve the scheme, but we are still awaiting the outcome of that.
That was very helpful. I know that we are short of time, so if you want to share anything else in writing with the committee, it will be really appreciated.
Can do.
Before I bring this session to a close, I will bring in Superintendent Convery, who I believe has been able to find some information that Ms Mackay sought earlier.
First, I want to confirm that Ms Mackay’s question was on domestic abuse protection orders.
That is correct.
Thank you, and I apologise for not answering you at the time. I did not feel that it was appropriate to give you half an answer.
Essentially, we are supporting the Government’s implementation board with regard to domestic abuse protection orders. In fact, Sam Faulds, who gave evidence in the previous session, sits on the working group for that in order to work towards delivering something that we support. However, we absolutely recognise that that must be done carefully to ensure that it is delivered safely for victims.
I hope that that gives you the information that you need, Ms Mackay. I am not sure about the timeline, but it is something that we will be working on with stakeholders to deliver.
Thank you so much for coming back to me on that. It is much appreciated.
As ever, time is against us, but the discussion has been informative and helpful. Anyone who feels that there are still outstanding points to be shared with the committee is invited to follow that up in writing, and we will take that evidence into account.
On behalf of the committee, I give a big thanks to all the witnesses who have attended today’s meeting.