���˿���

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?

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?

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.

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.

That was helpful.

I can be quite brief, convener, as there has been a good bit of coverage of this particular area in the past half hour or so.

What do you believe the bill is trying to achieve through the trauma-informed practice provisions? Perhaps I can give you a bit of background to my question. We have already heard from a couple of the panellists that this is not some new theorem or idea with regard to the justice system; I agree with that, but what I think that the bill is trying to achieve is to ensure more of a focus on victims and witnesses.

Coming from a criminal justice background, I would say that a great degree of trauma-informed practice is already happening in criminal justice social work and so on with the accused, and then with offenders, but the role of witnesses and victims in the justice system is a bit different—a bit more stand-offish, perhaps. They come into it only at certain points.

What are the panel’s views on that? Do you see a distinction between those who are accused—and who are then possibly convicted—and witnesses? Do you think about that when you think about trauma-informed practice?

It is, but it is more about whether you think that the bill’s provisions will add value to how the current system deals with victims and witnesses.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question to the discussions that we have been having. The response to the equality and human rights budget advisory group makes it clear that the Scottish Government does not intend to greatly increase direct engagement with the public on the budget process yet, through our engagement sessions and through doing things a wee bit differently, we have heard the citizens panel and the wider public ask for such engagement. The importance of understanding lived experience in the context of spending outcomes has been emphasised to us.

Do you acknowledge the calls for more opportunities for the public to engage more directly with the Scottish Government on the budget process? If so, will you outline why citizen-led approaches that reflect lived experience have not been incorporated into budget setting?