Chamber and committees

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

As there is an equality of votes, as convener, I use my casting vote to vote against the amendment.

Amendment 58 disagreed to.

Amendments 59, 30, 60 to 62, 32, 63, 64, 2, 33 and 34 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

Does anyone else want to move it?

Would any other member like to come in?

Group 2 is on entitlement to bail. Amendment 55, in the name of Katy Clark, is grouped with amendments 56, 57, 31, 58, 59, 30, 60 to 62, 32, 63, 64, 2, 33 and 34.

I draw members’ attention to the procedural information relating to this group as set out in the groupings. If amendment 55 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 56, 57, 31, 58, 59, 30, 60 to 62, 32, 63 and 64, because of pre-emption. Similarly, if amendment 2 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 33 and 34, again due to pre-emption.

I have listened to the member’s comments about some of the challenges in the Scottish justice system. Does she agree that those are not unique to Scotland? Although I am not at all downplaying those challenges or saying there is not a lot of work to do, other jurisdictions face similar challenges for multifactorial reasons.

Fighting crime is an example of where co-operation among EU states has proved to be particularly successful. The UK withdrawal from Europe has left a woefully complicated security landscape and I am in no doubt that it risks Scotland’s justice system being left behind as our European counterparts develop more effective tools for dealing with present and future threats, including serious and organised crime, cyberthreat and terrorism. On Europe day, will the cabinet secretary outline what engagement he has had with the UK Government to ensure that any change to EU retained law does not risk Scotland’s future security and our operational effectiveness in tackling crime, particularly cross-border crime?

First, I want to acknowledge the bravery of all victims and witnesses who have lived through trauma and experienced the criminal justice system. They deserve to have their experiences acknowledged, their voices heard and justice served. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

I also want to acknowledge families, friends and communities who support victims and witnesses by listening, believing and responding, and the many staff in organisations who are often vicariously living the trauma of others who are navigating the justice system.

Our journey towards trauma-informed approaches has derived in part from our growing understanding of adverse childhood experiences and from the evidence base linking a range of social and personal determinants to wellbeing. We know that there is a disproportionate prevalence of trauma among the justice-involved population. Today’s debate is an important opportunity to acknowledge the legislative provisions that are already in place to improve the experiences of victims and witnesses, while at the same time looking forward, not back.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 modernised sexual offences legislation to include a statutory definition of consent. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019 provides for child witnesses to give pre-recorded evidence in serious cases.

I am particularly pleased that the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Act 2021 enables a victim to request a forensic medical examination following a sexual assault without first having to report the incident to the police. That has trauma-responsive practice all over it. It empowers a person to be in the driving seat of their own journey. The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 explicitly recognises psychological domestic abuse, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. Why, then, when hope feels as though it is at its lowest premium for many victims and witnesses, is their experience still so mixed?

Just last week, I spent an afternoon with a criminal justice social work team led by the inspirational Claire Wilson in Aberdeen. I observed its trauma-responsive approach to women in the criminal justice system, which is underpinned by its understanding of the relationship between the women’s experiences of trauma and their offending behaviour. The team is made up of skilled practitioners who are making a difference.

The Government motion recognises the critical importance of developing a skilled workforce, and I welcome the new knowledge and skills framework—weighty though it is—that underpins a whole-system approach to training. Training and workforce development are often somewhat overlooked in debate because members tend, understandably, to focus on the ever-challenging issue of funding.

Recently, the Criminal Justice Committee undertook post-legislative scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Although it is clear that the act is supported across the justice sector, training was identified as a key area for improvement. Giving evidence, Police Scotland outlined that 18.5 officers and staff have received baseline training in the legislation, around 13.5 have completed additional core training and around 600 domestic abuse champions have received additional specialist training. However, despite early progress, much more work is required. Giving evidence, Professor Michele Burman highlighted that although training has been rolled out to many thousands of officers, it should be trauma-informed, continuous and reviewed. Similarly, Dr Marsha Scott commented that

“things can be done much better”

and

“one-off training does not work”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 March 2023; c 21.]

The knowledge and skills framework also highlights the role of leadership and sets out options to develop workforce competence through, for example, organisational training needs analysis and establishing effective workforce policies that translate new skills into practice. If I had my way, that would be a mandatory requirement for all justice partners. While recognising that it is for partners to develop training programmes to fit the needs of their workforce and service users, I ask the Scottish Government to ensure that justice partners are provided with the resources and support that they need to deliver a contemporary whole-system trauma-informed approach to victims and witnesses.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which members have covered comprehensively this afternoon, will soon be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and it will provide an opportunity to further consider this particular issue. Aspects of the bill are already proving to be contentious and not straightforward, and it is incumbent on us all to ensure that robust scrutiny and strong debate take place. However, as the Rev Kenneth MacKenzie reflected earlier today during time for reflection, in this place where rhetoric matters, it will also be our responsibility to take account of those who sit at the heart of everything that we do—victims, witnesses, workers, children, offenders and others. When constructing our personal narratives and behaviours, we should therefore place them front and centre so that we deliver a truly trauma-responsive reformed justice system.

Thank you, minister. We have had a good range of questions and responses. I will pick up on a couple of points before we move on. We would welcome any feedback that you can provide on charges arising from assaults on emergency workers. That would be helpful for the committee in keeping track of the situation.

Section 41 of the 2022 act gives a constable power to detain a person for the purposes of search, but it does not appear to cover a further ban on entry to a ground. Could you write to us on those entry issues and on whether it might be appropriate to have a ban on entry after someone has been found to be in possession of a pyrotechnic article?

Are members content to delegate to me the responsibility for producing a short factual report detailing our consideration of the SSI?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next agenda item is consideration of the negative instrument associated with the affirmative instrument that we have just considered. I refer members to paper 3.

As it seems that members have no additional questions, are we content to make no recommendation to the Parliament on the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.