Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the previous panel—I do not know whether this panel managed to see that session—and in this panel, we have had a wee bit of discussion relating to the question that I will ask. COSLA and Social Work Scotland have indicated that the amendments to the UNCRC bill will create legal complexities, and Social Work Scotland has talked about a “potentially impossible legislative landscape”—my colleague Paul O’Kane quoted that to the previous panel.

If the bill is passed, what will be the impact on duty bearers? We all want this to work so, more important, how can those impacts and difficulties be addressed? As with the previous panel, I am happy for the convener to say who should respond.

Sorry, convener—I was waiting to be unmuted.

Thank you for that, Juliet. I think that you probably answered the question. I saw everybody else on the panel nodding, so I think that there is general agreement on the matter.

My second question builds on that. It is about what duty bearers should be doing anyway, which we have talked about a wee bit. It has been suggested, as we have heard today, that duty bearers should be acting compatibly with the UNCRC requirements regardless of amendments to the bill. Will that make the amended bill easier for duty bearers to navigate or is there a danger that public authorities might now focus more on areas that could be litigated on? Do you have any thoughts on that?

I hope that everybody can hear me. Good morning to the panel, and thank you very much for your input so far. I particularly liked Juliet Harris’s opening statement. There was something a wee bit different there on the theme of the day.

I have two broad questions, although we have already covered the second one a wee bit. The bill provides that commencement will be six months after royal assent. What do you think about that timing? Does it represent sufficient time for duty bearers and rights holders to prepare for the approach? Convener, as I am not in the room, I am happy for you to decide who should answer.

I can be quite brief, convener, as there has been a good bit of coverage of this particular area in the past half hour or so.

What do you believe the bill is trying to achieve through the trauma-informed practice provisions? Perhaps I can give you a bit of background to my question. We have already heard from a couple of the panellists that this is not some new theorem or idea with regard to the justice system; I agree with that, but what I think that the bill is trying to achieve is to ensure more of a focus on victims and witnesses.

Coming from a criminal justice background, I would say that a great degree of trauma-informed practice is already happening in criminal justice social work and so on with the accused, and then with offenders, but the role of witnesses and victims in the justice system is a bit different—a bit more stand-offish, perhaps. They come into it only at certain points.

What are the panel’s views on that? Do you see a distinction between those who are accused—and who are then possibly convicted—and witnesses? Do you think about that when you think about trauma-informed practice?

It is, but it is more about whether you think that the bill’s provisions will add value to how the current system deals with victims and witnesses.

That was helpful.

I am keen to follow up on the issue of bus passes and other universal access, as it came up quite a lot during our engagement sessions. Justine, you have seen the question and I know that you are happy with it, because you worked in partnership with the team here to draft it, but is there anything else that you want to say before the minister comes in?

Thanks very much for that thorough response. I think that you predicted the supplementary question that I was going to ask, which was about your role with other departments and ministers. I am conscious that a lot of the questions that we have asked today have been about other ministers, and you have answered them really well, but I want to ask about the specific work that you are doing with ministers and how you are doing it.

I think that you have already answered this, but I will just give you a chance to reiterate your answer. Is the policy of universal free school meals—of which I am a big supporter, as is Justine and the other members of the panel—something that comes up regularly at the meetings that you have described?

I know that you are personally committed to that.

Good morning to the minister and her team.

My question is from Justine, who is here today. He writes:

“The panel think that the universal bus pass policy has been a great way to tackle inequality and poverty, and that a similar approach should be used for free school meals, including removing stigma and barriers by taking away token schemes and raising the age of free meals to 18. What has the Minister done to work with the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise to understand the equalities impacts of the current approach to free school meals, and will she commit to carrying out work on understanding how cross-cutting successes like the universal bus pass can be replicated in other policy areas to alleviate inequality?”