³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

In broad terms, yes. The provisions in the bill seek to do two things. We indeed want systemic change, and we want to develop a shared understanding and consistency of approach. We want all that, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is a recognition that justice agencies will need flexibility to implement the provisions in a way that is tailored to their context, for the very reasons that you have outlined. The bill does that by creating a statutory definition of trauma-informed practice that requires agencies to have regard to trauma-informed practice in their work with victims and witnesses. The provisions are crafted in a way that empowers courts to set rules and procedures on trauma-informed practice in both criminal and civil business.

How trauma-informed practice is defined is informed by the trauma-informed knowledge and skills framework for the justice sector, although, as with any legal definition, that has to fit in with legislation. Some definitions, such as those used in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, are dependent on previous legislation. As with any legislation, we are not starting from scratch.

I assure members that we have lots of discussions about resources with our partners on an on-going basis.

I think that the costs for parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill are pretty well defined and clear. I am conscious that organisations such as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service are smaller from the point of view of overall budget and size of operation than the likes of Police Scotland, and that we must give some cognisance to smaller organisations.

However, it is appropriate for me to test any supplementary evidence from stakeholders about costs. It is important to remember that not all of what the bill seeks to do is about additional resource, although I do not demur from the reality that there is a cost to the bill.

Some of this is not about additional duties but about changing what we do at the core. I argue that, if we get it right and embed trauma-informed practice, that will support and encourage a more efficient justice system. It will particularly affect how we schedule, in that the implementation of trauma-informed practice is a clarion call to organise the system to reduce delays. It is all interrelated. Some of this is about approach, culture and practice, as well as being about resources.

I certainly want their use to be reduced. I acknowledge that it is a matter of live debate just now, and that I need to be cognisant of a range of voices. I know that, for victims, uncertainty is a factor that causes real distress. I am being somewhat cautious because I think that, at this point in time, if we took a more inflexible approach, that would cause further harm and distress, and I therefore think that a more flexible approach is the appropriate response.

Yes. I would be a bit nervous about an amendment on something so substantive, but that does not mean that there is not merit in pursuing that work further.

We have a lot more work to do. You are a chancer.

We have a long journey to go on together, Mr Findlay. We will be pals by the end of it.

I was about to mention Chief Superintendent Derek Frew’s comments, Mr Findlay.

I will ask officials to speak on that point, but in part 5 of the bill there is an obligation on all the actors and players in the sexual offences court to be trauma informed. We will discuss that part of the bill later. There is also a desire and a commitment for the judiciary to be trauma informed.

I will always work with members and stakeholders to discuss their concerns. I am always in the business, I hope, of demonstrating that we will look at the art of the possible. That is quite a difficult area—and I say that for reasons of transparency.

Part 3 of the bill is about improving access to special measures. We have heard over a number of years that people in the civil courts have felt far less protected, particularly in and around where domestic violence or abuse is a feature of the case.

Our approach thus far has been that where civil protection orders are in place—an interdict or a non-harassment order—or where there are convictions or, indeed, live proceedings, those will trigger the special measures automatically. The court would have discretion in other circumstances. I am always happy to discuss and consider further. I am also aware of evidence that the committee got from the Family Law Association that expressed some caution.

I remember our exchange well, and I can indeed see the attraction or potential benefits of such an approach, bearing in mind that one of the core concerns is the lack of information and the lack of connectivity if different courts have different information and different procedures going on.

I have certainly discussed the issue further with officials. It would be a major and substantive piece of work—I am just being up front and direct about that. That does not mean that there is no merit in exploring it, but it might limit what could be achieved via an amendment. If you are talking about integrating courts in certain circumstances, that would certainly require full consultation with stakeholders and, indeed, with the Lord President, given his unique duties and responsibilities.

We are planning some workshops to look at the issue more fully. There is not the fullest of evidence. There is some evidence on this from the States, but there is not a wide range of evidence. We will continue to look at the issue with our stakeholders in the workshops, which will take place next year.

We would also have the desire to look at the issue in and around court rules. I know that more recent changes to court rules have focused on doing more to get the right information to support earlier action, particularly in family cases. Measures around initial and full case management hearings have been introduced. If there is further information, I would be happy to provide that to you separately.