Chamber and committees

Of course, everyone is free to speak as they wish. However, as you would expect me to say—you would, of course, expect this to be reflected in practice in the SPS—we endeavour, where appropriate and where circumstances necessitate, to respect people’s identities.

I will explain my view on that. Given my exposure and visits to, and involvement with, prisons, I know that people wish to live and work in an environment in which people are respectful to one another. That helps to create a more secure and safer environment for everyone, as it helps relationships.

I will give one example from my contact with prisoners and ex-prisoners. They say that, when they are referred to by their name as opposed to by their number, that small measure—or measure that might seem small—is very helpful in securing and establishing relationships.

I stress to Ms McNeill that I would not narrate this as an SPS decision as such, and I would not narrate it as a position that anybody is comfortable with, necessarily. Sometimes, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I feel the frustration of not being able to talk in a more free and frank manner. However, the reality is that, as justice secretary and as a minister in the Government, I have to uphold the law and, if I get advice on information governance or data protection, I have to comply with that, as do public bodies.

I appreciate some of the frustrations around this issue. In many circumstances, it would be far easier, if it was desirable, appropriate or, indeed, legal, to discuss individuals—

Until the statistical release—

Yes.

I point to the fact that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner operates in an environment that is quite legislation heavy—for example, it involves the children’s hearings system, and a small proportion of children and young people become involved in the criminal justice system. Therefore, it is a fair comparison. All the things that you mentioned, such as court rules and procedures, scheduling, the environment and pre-recorded evidence, have a direct link with trauma-informed practice and trauma-informed approaches. Although the operational delivery of those matters rests elsewhere, the purpose of the bill, in cementing and placing duties on people to demonstrate trauma-informed practice, is to be a lever. It is not the only lever, but it is certainly a lever for changing how operational decisions are made and implemented.

Victim Support Scotland has been one of the biggest advocates for a victims and witnesses commissioner. It published a paper making the case for such a commissioner in 2021. I know that Victim Support Scotland’s Kate Wallace has given evidence to the committee.

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.