Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise. The minute you started to answer that I realised it was probably an unfair question. I will reframe it. Do the organisations that get you in to do training tend to focus on those who have been convicted or victims and witnesses? What sort of practitioners do you tend to get?

Do either of you believe that there are any points or places within the justice system where there is conflict between trauma-informed practice and desired goals or outcomes, such as efficient running of court business, ensuring the defence can effectively challenge the prosecution and those sorts of things? Does trauma-informed practice need to be more integrated and embedded? I will bring in Professor Karatzias first.

I will put my next question to the rest of the panel, but not everybody needs to answer, given the time. You have given some specific examples of practice but, given my previous question, is there anything that you are doing now that is a really good example of trauma-informed practice? Are you considering widening out such practice and using it in the areas—which you have all mentioned—where you need to improve?

Good morning, panel. I have enjoyed your evidence so far. As the committee closes in on parts 1 to 3 of the bill, I feel that we remain a wee bit unclear on the need for part 2 and what it will do. I say that with some surprise given that, as everyone has said and as I know from my experience as a justice social worker, trauma-informed practice has been around for a long time. It seems to me—I am not speaking for anybody else—that what we are grappling with is not the principle or our understanding of it, but the different evidence that we are getting from organisations, including the five that are represented on today’s panel, on where they are with it. It seems that there are examples of good practice across the board, but also places where things could improve.

Chief Superintendent Frew, you spoke about interviews of children, which will include joint investigative interviews. That is a clear and robust example of good trauma-informed practice. Joint investigative interviews have been going on for well over 20 years, so they are well established. Are the police looking at taking that practice into other areas? Perhaps I can play devil’s advocate here and ask: why do we not use a similar model for almost all interviews?

Good morning, panellists. Dr Bruce, I want to come back to something that you said that I totally agree with. You talked about trauma-informed practice being important for those who are accused of offences or later convicted of offences. I have been following up on this in previous sessions, but of course this bill is about victims and witnesses. Do you feel or observe that there is already a difference in how trauma-informed practice is implemented within the criminal justice system between those who are accused and convicted—quite rightly so—and the victims and witnesses? Do you feel that this bill is perhaps trying to level up that playing field, for want of a better expression?

That is no problem. Professor Karatzias, do you want to come in on that?

Dr Bruce, do you want to come in on that?

Thanks for sharing that powerful quote. It is good to have that on the record.

The question will follow up from what Russell Findlay was asking. The submissions that we had from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland expressed concern about there having been no increase in funding, and talked about how there would have to be an

“increased focus on ‘core’ functions at the expense of more targeted, preventative services.”

What do you understand that to mean?

The reason why I asked the question was that I am not sure about your quite stark statement. When I saw it, I thought that it was a cry for help to the committee in some respects, but I am not sure how that would pan out. I am considering my experience: part of the work would still carry on—people would not hang up the phone or not go out and do the work. I know that this is not for you fully to answer; I understand that, so this is to get your view. Would it have been better if the submission had looked more at how much extra money you could do with and where you would put it to support all those functions?