³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

To avoid the risk of stepping on any colleagues’ toes in terms of where they go with questioning, I will leave it there, but I might come in again towards the end of the meeting if that is alright.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.

Cabinet secretary, the committee has already heard, in written evidence and in the oral evidence taken last week, a lot of support for the approach that you have taken, as it aims to minimise the risk of referral to the Supreme Court, as you have said. However, in your letter, you indicated that there was the potential to have gone further. Can you elaborate on that and on why, in the end, you chose to keep the approach that has been outlined?

Thank you for that very full answer. Building on that, as I said earlier, the approach that you have taken seems to have widespread support in the sector, particularly from children’s organisations, many of which we heard from last week. That support is based, I think, on a real feeling in the sector that there is no alternative way to achieve incorporation at this point, given the Supreme Court’s decision. Do you agree with that? Were there any realistic alternatives?

Good morning, panel. I have a general question on which I am happy to take the panellists’ views one at a time. The convener will be glad to hear me say that the witnesses can give me as short or as long an answer as they feel necessary. I have heard what the witnesses have said, including their opening statements, at which point I was attending remotely, so I think that I know where each of them might go with my question, but I will give them a chance to put it on the record.

Will the proposals in the bill make it easier for people to find a lawyer who can advise them and help them to enforce their rights?

I apologise. The minute you started to answer that I realised it was probably an unfair question. I will reframe it. Do the organisations that get you in to do training tend to focus on those who have been convicted or victims and witnesses? What sort of practitioners do you tend to get?

Do either of you believe that there are any points or places within the justice system where there is conflict between trauma-informed practice and desired goals or outcomes, such as efficient running of court business, ensuring the defence can effectively challenge the prosecution and those sorts of things? Does trauma-informed practice need to be more integrated and embedded? I will bring in Professor Karatzias first.

I will put my next question to the rest of the panel, but not everybody needs to answer, given the time. You have given some specific examples of practice but, given my previous question, is there anything that you are doing now that is a really good example of trauma-informed practice? Are you considering widening out such practice and using it in the areas—which you have all mentioned—where you need to improve?

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?