Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have started that early work. Colleagues will remember the debate that we held in the Parliament before the summer recess, in which we shone a light on the publication of the knowledge and skills framework. Members who took part in that debate—I am thinking of Ms McNeill, in particular—commented on the fact that that is a substantive document, which runs to about 250 pages. There is the toolkit and, as I am sure that the committee knows from the evidence that it has heard, many of our stakeholders and agencies are already running with that work.

That work does not depend on legislation. Legislation gives a permanency to change and cements change into the system. It imposes a duty on players in the system to demonstrate that they are meeting the trauma-informed objectives and are adopting that way of working.

We will always have an open mind and an open door when it comes to engagement on the detail. The only caveat is that it is important that legislation brings clarity of meaning and purpose, and it is important that changing the letter of the law does not have any unintended consequences.

As I intimated to the convener, the legal definition is closely aligned with the knowledge and skills framework and all the work that NES and Dr Caroline Bruce have undertaken. The definition in the bill is not exactly the same, word for word, as the definition in the framework because the bill does not exist in isolation from other legislation. The bill is adding trauma-informed practice to the list of principles in the 2014 act.

The Parole Board is a legal entity and has an interface with victims and witnesses. Therefore, like other criminal justice agencies, it will have to demonstrate its compliance with trauma-informed practice as per the provisions in the bill.

The other aspect of policy is the review of the victim notification scheme, which has a particular relevance to the work of the Parole Board. A review of it was undertaken, and that work was published in May, with around 22 recommendations. We are working through them, and I hope that we will be in a position to inform the Parliament of our response to that independent inquiry. Some of the recommendations are of particular relevance to the Parole Board.

I acknowledge that there is a debate around that. In many ways, it is a live debate between different stakeholders and voices in the legal establishment. I certainly acknowledge that uncertainty for victims is undesirable.

The Government’s position is that we are supportive of reducing the use of floating trials. We have not introduced any measures to ban their use; in essence, that is because we are still tackling a court backlog.

Although the court recovery programme is making good progress and has reduced the backlog by a third, and there is a timetable of activity to move matters forward, the concern is that removing floating trials at this time could increase delays further and induce further distress.

We have taken a more flexible approach whereby courts would be required to consider trauma-informed practice when scheduling their business. However, we are supportive of a shift in culture.

With respect, I point to Lady Dorrian’s review of the management of sexual offence cases, from which the bill is largely developed. That took a clean-sheet approach and it was a substantive piece of work that took place over two years.

It is always fair to acknowledge that no bit of legislation is ever the silver bullet but, although it does not come without its financial costs, this is a substantial piece of legislation that will make historic changes that will benefit victims and witnesses and, crucially, improve the experience that victims and witnesses have of our current court procedures in particular.

The chief superintendent was talking about a local policing context and working with community planning partnerships, and he was reflecting on matters at a level beyond the bill; I am not sure that he was giving a direct comment that was specifically about the bill. However, members who were present at the time will have their own views on that.

Having looked at the Official Report, Mr Findlay, and at your lengthy exchange with Mr Watt about the Parole Board, my understanding is that some of what he said was quite specific to how the Parole Board engages with victims or those who are registered under the victim notification scheme.

We are riding two horses at once—

That is sometimes just the way that life needs to be. We are taking this bill through Parliament in tandem with the work to implement previous legislation.

On some of the specifics, the bill before us expands the powers of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020. There is a good synergy between the 2020 act and this bill, in that we are essentially increasing the safeguards for vulnerable parties. Section 11 of the 2020 act contains special measures that are focused on family cases involving custody and disputes about contact. In this bill, we are taking the nub of that element and expanding it to cover civil procedures more widely. That is to be welcomed—it is what victims have been calling for.

Nonetheless, I would say that progress has been made with the 2020 act. There are other aspects of that act that do not relate directly to this bill—in and around child contact centres, for example. Ministers have had detailed discussions with the Care Inspectorate on that and hope to be in a position to lay Scottish statutory instruments soon. There is progress on that.

The bit of the 2020 act that is relevant to the bill that is before us is a good example of where we have undertaken a bit of movement in protecting people in civil proceedings and expanded that further, and we will make more progress in that respect.

The Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019 relates to the introduction of pre-recorded evidence in court, and we have made progress in that regard in the High Court. That work is phased and on-going. In later sessions, we will discuss part 5 of this bill, on the establishment of a sexual offences court, and there will be a presumption that pre-recorded evidence will be used in that court.

The Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 is an example of legislation for which there are practical issues relating to implementation. That is why I gave a note of caution in our discussion about amendments. Not all the issues with the 2021 act relate to finances. Some relate to how timescales that are set in legislation have an impact on the operational justice agencies, and there are some challenges in how the views of children can be gathered in ways that do not cause them additional harm or trauma. This is in no way an excuse, but our experiences in implementing the 2021 act are not dissimilar to some of the difficulties that have been experienced south of the border.

Legislation can be complex, and its implementation is sometimes more complex than anticipated. However, I assure the committee that I will seek to mitigate such issues as far as possible as we go through the bill process.

I would not articulate that as a “gap”, Mr Findlay, purely on the basis that the model for the victims and witnesses commissioner is in line with the model for most other commissioners. I may well stand to be corrected but, by and large, commissioners are accountable to Parliament, so if they are reporting on significant abdication of duty or non-compliance with legislation or standards of service, that information is made available to Parliament, and it is for parliamentarians to consider what further action would be appropriate.

We have been conscious of that issue from looking at some of the policy areas in relation to improving the experience of, and the support that is available for, child witnesses. For example, the work around the bairns’ hoose is cross-portfolio work. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland role is a model of a commissioner working well.

It is correct to say that the victims code and the standards of service for which criminal justice agencies are held to account specify children. We have been working to ensure that the connectivity and links between the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the victims and witnesses commissioner are appropriate and that there is no duplication. For example, section 10 of the bill gives the commissioner powers to carry out an investigation, but not to duplicate the functions of others. The bill is crafted to ensure that we have clarity instead of confusion and that the victims and witnesses commissioner cannot go into the functions and duties of another commissioner or, indeed, another body. However, section 6 empowers the victims and witnesses commissioner to engage with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

We want to ensure that there is as much clarity as possible. If there are other matters that, in light of the evidence, we need to resolve or if further detailed consideration needs to be given, we will certainly do that.