Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.