Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Yes. Before we move on to answers from the other panel members on my question about key workers, I want to pick up on what I have heard as a constituency MSP, which panel members can maybe integrate into their answers.

Although childcare was available in the early days of the lockdown through the education system, it was not well taken up. A lot of people told me that that was because, at that point, we were dealing with a new virus that they were, quite rightly, very anxious about. Key workers, many of whom were women, were being told, “Yes, you can access this childcare”, which they felt put themselves and their families at risk because the virus was running rampant. I wonder whether the witnesses could take that into account, because there does not seem to be an awareness of the gender imbalance in that message.

Before I ask my question, I want to thank colleagues, the clerks and the witnesses for allowing me to participate online. The reason why I am doing so is relevant to the subject of today’s meeting, as it is in order to allow me to perform childcare functions this morning. However, I should say that, even as a dad who is trying to do a lot more childcare, I do only a fraction of what my partner, who is in the room next door, does with our three children. We need to be honest about such situations and reflect on it.

One member of the panel—I think that it was Eilidh Dickson—talked about the time when we all had an hour day to exercise. I more or less always used that hour for a walk, a run or a cycle, but my partner did not always do that, because we had two kids at that point—it was before the third came along. As men, we need to reflect on these things, too. Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to say that.

My first question is about women key workers during the pandemic. We have talked a bit about the issue. Could the witnesses elaborate on how women key workers were affected, particularly if they had childcare responsibilities? Nurses, police officers, Royal Mail workers and so on had childcare responsibilities, but still had to work. Help with childcare was non-existent at that point. How were those workers impacted?

I am happy for you to choose the order in which the witnesses will answer, convener.

I thank the panellists for the really helpful information that they have provided this morning.

I have quite a broad-brush question about an issue that has already been touched on. When I talk to constituents, and even in the discussion that we are having this morning, I get the feeling that the digital courts system is working well for some people but not for others. I am sure that other members will have felt that, too. Perhaps a really good example is the vulnerable witnesses whom others have referred to. Some of those witnesses benefit a great deal from digital technology—for example, there might be a case involving an abusive relationship, and the technology means that the witness does not need to meet their abuser. However, there are other situations in which vulnerable witnesses seem to be more excluded from the justice system as a result of online and remote ways of working.

How do we get better at identifying cases in which, or individuals for whom, remote hearings will be beneficial and will provide more access to justice, and how do we identify individuals for whom that will not be the case? I know that we have touched on that already, but is there any work that the committee can do to help to establish, say, a framework in that respect?

I am happy for any of the witnesses to answer that, convener. I will leave that up to you.