���˿���

Following on from that conversation, I want to ask whether you think that the bill is about trying to make a culture shift in the justice agencies. After all, trauma-informed practice has been around for a long time; I think that most folk involved in the sector in one form or another are pretty clear about what it is, and the agencies sitting here today have been practising it with victims of crimes for many years now, and to a high standard.

Outside your agencies, though, the rest of the justice sector is predominantly concerned with the accused—or, ultimately, the offender, if the person is convicted. Indeed, I know that from my time as a justice social worker. Trauma-informed practice with offenders is a pretty important thing, as you can imagine, but even in justice social work, there has been only limited and minimal scope to carry out that kind of work with victims. How much is the bill trying to look at agencies across the board, not just justice social work, which I have already mentioned, but also the courts, to ensure that victims are taken more into account in a trauma-informed way?

Good morning to the panel. I would like to explore two areas. The first is the proposal to make it an offence to use the title of lawyer when there is an

“intent to deceive ... in connection with providing ... legal services”.

As this is our first evidence session, I am looking for comments on where the witnesses stand on that provision. By extension, is there any risk that regulating the title of lawyer unduly restricts the work of other unregulated lawyers, such as paralegals, legal academics and so on? I am looking for a broad view on where you stand on the provision. I am quite happy to hear from you in any order. [Interruption.] Do not all rush.

Does anybody else have any views on that? Excellent. Thanks very much. That was good.

I also want to ask about the bill’s provisions on alternative business structures. Again, I am looking for a broad discussion-based response to get your thoughts on the proposals to liberalise ABSs and what impact that might have on consumer practice.

I have a follow-up question, for anybody actually, but Marsha Scott might want to come in on it. The bill also removes the requirement that ABSs provide services for “fee, gain or reward”. Could that open up opportunities for law centres or charities such as yours to become ABSs? Have you thought about that?

I have a brief question because we have covered a lot already. It follows on from Katy Clark’s line of questioning. Priority may be the wrong word, but I am interested in understanding whether the Government has a priority within the reforms and where any lines in the sand might be. If this committee, or the Parliament as a whole, decided to amend the bill—for example to retain the not proven verdict or to require only a simple majority for a guilty verdict—where would the Government stand on that? Does part 4 of the bill have to come as a whole package?

My questions are on part 6 of the bill and anonymity for victims. Cabinet secretary, can you outline the advantages of replacing the current approach to anonymity for victims of sexual offences with a statutory protection, as outlined in the bill?

I very much welcome that provision. Was any consideration given to the possibility of extending anonymity to accused persons? That is a much more difficult area, but during the debate on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee in the chamber last Thursday, I was struck by the discussion of the impact on the family members of the accused, which was a point that was put quite powerfully by members. The person is an accused person, but more often than not, their family members are innocent parties, yet they are also impacted by such serious accusations. Has the Government given any consideration to extending the right to anonymity?

My line of questioning follows on particularly from Heather Williams’s remarks. The committee has heard many times that particular groups who rely on public services are most impacted by budgeting decisions—for example, disabled people; black, Asian and minority ethnic people; and women. What more can the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament do to make sure that their voices are heard? We have talked a wee bit about this and you have heard from the convener about something that the committee is trialling, which so far looks to be doing well.

That brings me on to my follow-up question. You have predicted where I am going today, Heather.

I think that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are, a lot of the time, quite keen on high-level stuff. Even the engagement here is about national scales. You gave a good example, but how can the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government get more into the decisions that actually affect people? For example, in North Lanarkshire, which is my area, there is a lot of talk about shutting down libraries, swimming pools and so on. There will be big debates about that in the next few weeks, as the subject is aired more. How do we get to the people we have spoken about to hear their views on those things and their impact? What more can the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament do? Today’s discussion, apart from the Fa’side example, has been quite high-level—at Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government level. What about the stuff that is impacting people on the ground? Does anybody have ideas about what more we can do to allow people’s voices be heard?

Good morning. I will follow on from where Sharon Dowey left off. I think that we can all hear today the passion in your voice for this piece of work, which is probably prompted by your time coming to an end, with the process not being as complete as you would like—that is probably an understatement.

In many ways—I am putting words in your mouth here; this might be a bit extreme—it almost feels as though your contacting the committee and coming back to committee today is a wee bit of a cry for help in relation to this piece of work. What do you think that the committee can do to help to progress the recommendations that you have made? You have made your case very powerfully today.