Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question to the discussions that we have been having. The response to the equality and human rights budget advisory group makes it clear that the Scottish Government does not intend to greatly increase direct engagement with the public on the budget process yet, through our engagement sessions and through doing things a wee bit differently, we have heard the citizens panel and the wider public ask for such engagement. The importance of understanding lived experience in the context of spending outcomes has been emphasised to us.

Do you acknowledge the calls for more opportunities for the public to engage more directly with the Scottish Government on the budget process? If so, will you outline why citizen-led approaches that reflect lived experience have not been incorporated into budget setting?

So, where is the stumbling block in the system? You are absolutely right to say that there is complete cross-party support for children not being in court as an ordinary occurrence. I sat on the previous session’s Justice Committee—as did Rona Mackay—when it dealt with the vulnerable witnesses legislation that you mentioned, as well as a number of other such bills. Where is the stumbling block in the justice system that means that kids are still getting taken to court, and how can the bill help to address the situation?

It feels as though almost all the witnesses are roughly in the same place. Some people, such as Marsha Scott, are opposed to the proposal for a commissioner but can see some good points to it, while others, such as Sandy Brindley, are for it but have given huge caveats.

I apologise to the convener, but I want to ask a general question. If the Parliament or the Government decided to withdraw part 1 of the bill, how could the main aims behind the proposal for a commissioner be achieved through existing statutory or voluntary mechanisms? Marsha Scott is nodding, so I will come to her first.

Following on from that conversation, I want to ask whether you think that the bill is about trying to make a culture shift in the justice agencies. After all, trauma-informed practice has been around for a long time; I think that most folk involved in the sector in one form or another are pretty clear about what it is, and the agencies sitting here today have been practising it with victims of crimes for many years now, and to a high standard.

Outside your agencies, though, the rest of the justice sector is predominantly concerned with the accused—or, ultimately, the offender, if the person is convicted. Indeed, I know that from my time as a justice social worker. Trauma-informed practice with offenders is a pretty important thing, as you can imagine, but even in justice social work, there has been only limited and minimal scope to carry out that kind of work with victims. How much is the bill trying to look at agencies across the board, not just justice social work, which I have already mentioned, but also the courts, to ensure that victims are taken more into account in a trauma-informed way?

Bill, it sounds as though you are saying that we need part 1 of the bill, which contains the provisions on a victims commissioner, to enforce part 2 of the bill on trauma-informed practice.

I am conscious of the time. Dr Hill, I know that you want to come back in, but I will leave that decision to the convener. However, I want to ask whether Graham O’Neill can come in on that question from a refugee perspective.

I was to ask only two people, so I will come to Sandy Brindley.

Good afternoon. I want to ask about trauma-informed practice. I think that all of you were in the room for our discussions with the previous panel, so you will have heard what was said. What difference do you expect or hope that the provisions in part 2 of the bill will make in practice?

I would also like to hear your answers to a question that I asked the previous panel. Like the organisations represented on the previous panel, your organisations all already use trauma-informed practice with victims and other people you work with. If part of the intention of the bill is to create a cultural shift, how can that be spread across the whole justice system? What role can the bill play in delivering that?

I ask Dr Hill to start.

I have a follow-up question, for anybody actually, but Marsha Scott might want to come in on it. The bill also removes the requirement that ABSs provide services for “fee, gain or reward”. Could that open up opportunities for law centres or charities such as yours to become ABSs? Have you thought about that?