Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry—that might have been my fault. I might have misread the chat.

I have a second question, if that is okay. I know that we are tight for time. It is on the taking of statements. The issue has already been discussed and the Lord Advocate gave a good overview of it. However, on the introduction of pre-recorded complainers’ evidence in serious sexual assault cases, are there any barriers to introducing that service quickly? Could prerecorded evidence be extended to domestic abuse cases? I ask the Lord Advocate to reiterate her plans in that area.

That is a good summary. It is a difficult time for victims when they have to present at court, but that was this person’s experience, and they were quite definite about it. Was that a one-off, or is it something that you recognise as being an issue? There is no getting away from the fact that those people will have professional relationships, but it can look like something else to somebody who is going through such a traumatic experience.

I have a question for the Lord Advocate on something that we heard in our private sessions where we had testimony from survivors; it is around the culture in the Crown Office. We heard an example of the advocate deputes acting like they were part of an old boys’ club and being friendly with the defence counsel. I think that we can all understand how that might come across, because people will know each other—defence lawyers will know advocate deputes and suchlike. I wonder, though, whether the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate recognise that as a cultural issue and, if so, whether it could be addressed.

As you said, convener, trauma-informed training and practice have been quite well covered in response to questions from Jamie Greene and Rona Mackay, and throughout the session. I am in no way bothered about that, nor precious about my questions. It is good that both officers have proactively talked about the trauma-informed training that they are doing.

Both will be aware that Lady Dorrian recommended that there should be

“one consistent trauma-informed source of contact, from the outset”.

We have heard a wee bit about liaison officers, who could perhaps fit into that model. I will find a new question because, as I have said, the issue has been covered.

How do we get those specialist officers to the individual as quickly as possible? We have heard that, although there is a general level of training throughout the force and in the various criminal justice agencies, it might not always be to the standard of training that those specialist officers have received. In addition, for how long can they stay with the victim or the complainer—whichever word you want to use—during the process?

In the interests of time, and given that the responses have been extensive, I will leave it at that and thank both witnesses for their contributions.

I welcome these negative instruments on the age of criminal responsibility. Last session, I was on the committee that took the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament. It is a really good piece of legislation.

To pick up on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point, at the time, there was a lot of discussion about whether the age of criminal responsibility should be higher, so the issue was looked at. The Scottish Government is committed to continuing to look at it, but it took the step at that point. Members should be aware that a lot of members who took that legislation through, including me, looked at making the age of criminal responsibility higher, in line with other European countries. We have an outstanding commitment from the Government to continue to look at that as the legislation comes into force and then develops.

Good morning. I thank our witnesses for all the evidence that they have given us so far; it has been thorough and interesting to hear as we take this work forward.

I have three broad questions that I will work through. They are all related, but they might not flow brilliantly together, so I ask witnesses to bear with me. My first question is on the impact of restrictions on women in particular, which Karen Adam was speaking about earlier.

Everybody is aware that there will be a big announcement from the First Minister today. We do not yet know what that announcement will be, but the likelihood is that there will be an imposition of further restrictions in order to contain the omicron variant. After what I have heard today and last week and what we already know, my concern is that previous restrictions, as well as the virus itself, have impacted women unequally. How should we frame that today?

Although they might not need to close, some sectors might need to be restricted in some way, and there might be restrictions on the number of households that can meet up. What advice would you give to MSPs who will ask questions on the statement this afternoon? What can we ask to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes that were made in the first and second lockdowns? Those were not mistakes of the Scottish Government alone, because restrictions that had the same impact were imposed by Governments all over the world. There was something deeply rooted about the gender inequality in the restrictions.

I am sorry for the long question and I am happy for the convener to pick the order of answers.

Anybody who wants to come in on it—it is a broad enough question.

I am happy with that. My colleagues who are present in the committee room today have covered a lot of ground.

I thank the panel and—because I am participating remotely—committee colleagues.

Many of the main issues that we heard about in private and in other evidence sessions have been covered by colleagues. The answers have been pretty robust, as well as reflective and accepting of the fact that there are difficulties within the system for witnesses and victims. I put on record my appreciation of that.

Some of the evidence that we heard—this is particularly true of evidence that we heard in private—was, for want of another word, heartbreaking. The panel will know about that from the work of Lady Dorrian. When people tell us that the system retraumatises them and when some people—not all people, but some—tell us consistently that the system itself was worse than the initial offence that was committed, that is hard for everybody to hear.

I note what has been said today, and I know that you are only part of the system, but what else can be done to make sure that victims are taken through the process in the same way—as my colleague Jamie Greene said—that an accused would be? When it comes to your part of the system, how can we make sure that the people victims have contact with are trauma informed and are seen to be—if you like—on their side?

I also want to ask a more specific question that I do not think has been asked yet. What role can the barnahus play in helping witnesses who are vulnerable? It is not just child witnesses who are vulnerable; anybody who has experienced such offences is vulnerable.