Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that. That opens up two issues that I would like to explore. The first is the issue that you and Hannah McLaughlan have aired about what trauma-informed practice looks like in reality in the court setting. I would like you to explain, from your experience, your expectations for the future if trauma-informed practice is to be a requirement in court proceedings. Where do you believe the greatest amount of movement is needed in that respect to ensure that, in the future, victims will be in a trauma-informed environment?

Good morning and thank you for being here today. I want to follow up on one of your comments, Ellie. You described the court environment as intimidating. Would you describe it as respectful to you?

That is perhaps the key point. We all accept that none of that is pleasant, but I put the same point to you as I put to the previous panel: did you feel respected during the process?

From your respective perspectives, tell me a little about what, in your case, Sarah, was good about that engagement and what in yours, Hannah, was deficient.

Did any elements of your experience with the system work well or effectively, Hannah, at any stage of the process?

Forgive me for interrupting, but the bill says that the role of the commissioner is to “monitor compliance” with standards, “promote best practice” in relation to trauma-informed practice and “undertake and commission research”. The commissioner will not, under the existing proposal, have the power to put his or her foot down and say, “This is not acceptable.” That power is somewhere else, but over there, everyone is kicking off and saying, “Oh my goodness, we have far too much interference in this wholly ineffective system of legal services regulation that we have in Scotland.”

There is a big challenge for the committee here, because another committee of the Parliament, of which my colleague Mr MacGregor is a member, is examining the issues around legal services regulation and, from what I have heard about those proceedings, everyone is holding up their hands in horror at the poor quality of such regulation. I put that point to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates when they came here. It seems that that issue cannot be confronted because it is too unacceptable. Do we need to confront those issues?

So an accountability mechanism needs to be injected into the proceedings.

This might be a question for Kate Wallace and Emma Bryson. It is clear from looking at the terms of reference of the victims commissioner that they would not be able to effect any of what we have just talked about; they might be able to comment on it, but they would not be able to effect it. Do you have any reflections on what questions that poses for the committee about what is required to make sure that the triumvirate of cultural change, legislative change and regulatory change can be delivered to make sure that we deliver the comprehensive strategic change that we all want?

Please do.

It does sound bizarre, but it is also a powerful explanation of how you did not feel central to the case, which is a point well made.