Chamber and committees

My last question is for other members of the panel, and it follows on from Mr Fraser’s last point. Trauma-informed practice has been around for quite a while; it has been part of the thinking in the system, and a lot of good work has been undertaken on it. However, it just seems to be slow in getting embedded. Is it accepted that a level of priority has to be attached to this in order to change culture and attitude and turn legislation into practice to ensure that this can be realised? That question is perhaps for Sue Brookes.

If I read between the lines of the chief inspector’s words, there is a sense that there is a clear need for reform. The existing arrangements are not satisfactory or sufficiently robust. Although the COPFS has an obligation to be responsible for such activity, it does not have an obligation to undertake it—it is dependent on others to undertake it—and it cannot get the necessary focus on undertaking reform.

I am certainly happy for the committee to consider trying to provide a bit of impetus for a reform agenda here. I am not arguing for a national model, but I am arguing for a model that is available in all parts of the country—that is an absolute necessity—to the right levels of satisfaction for us all. That is my fundamental point.

My additional point is that I have had experience of constituency cases that have come to me over a number of years where the experience of families when a pathology service has been required to act has not always been that great. If there has been a fatality, that is a traumatic period. In my constituency experience, I have had a couple of cases, many years apart, during which I have had assurances that the arrangements in question were becoming stronger. However, based on recent experience, I am not absolutely sure that that is the case.

We could probably do with giving a bit of impetus to the reform process. I certainly support the suggestions that are made in the paper from the clerks.

The reason why I pursue this line of questioning is that, in the submission, although the Law Society says it believes that placing

“the principle of trauma-informed practice ... on a statutory footing should better focus court users”,

the society’s commentary on the application of that principle is pretty half-hearted.

I will give a couple of examples of that. First, the submission goes on to say that the

“duty to have regard to trauma-informed practice will extend to justice agencies”,

and it lists the various agencies. To me, that begs the question whether that should be extended to solicitors, so that solicitors are as bound as the agencies are.

The submission goes on to say:

“We have supported the principle of trauma-informed practice, but the extent to which this principle will transform hearings and scheduling remains unclear.”

That leaves me with a sense that the Law Society is advancing a tokenistic attitude towards this point in principle without embracing the concept of trauma-informed practice being applied to court proceedings in the way that is clearly envisaged in the bill. There is support in principle for the concept but not necessarily support in practice.

I want to explore some of the contents of the Law Society’s submission to the committee. The submission opens with the statement:

“The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for over 12,000 Scottish solicitors. We are a regulator that sets and enforces standards for the solicitor profession which helps people in need and supports business in Scotland, the UK and overseas.”

Then it goes on to say:

“While all those who come before the courts should be treated with respect and dignity, the court process is an adversarial one.”

Mr Munro, do you believe that everyone who comes before the courts is treated with respect and dignity?

Do you believe that the professional regulatory bodies do that?

That is not my question. My question is: are they? You are the regulator.

What will the Law Society do to ensure that trauma-informed practice is embedded in the activities of solicitors?

My question is to you as the representative of the regulator of the legal profession. I hear all that you say about the other contextual information. I want to focus on your regulatory role and how you see your role as a regulatory organisation in ensuring that everyone who comes before the courts is treated with respect and dignity. I want to understand what the Law Society sees as its role in ensuring that that is the case.

I am surprised by that. The entire sentence in one of the bullet points in the Law Society’s submission states:

“While all those who come before the courts should be treated with respect and dignity, the court process is an adversarial one.”

That strikes me as essentially having a big caveat about the proceedings of court. Yes, everybody should be treated with respect and dignity but, fundamentally, the court system is adversarial and the adversarial principle has to prevail, which gives rise to a lot of the conduct that I am raising concerns about. The Law Society, as a regulator, does not regulate this effectively or nearly as emphatically as it should. How can I be persuaded that that is not a half-hearted statement from the Law Society?

But do you believe that the bill will have the effect of ensuring that that appropriate and necessary approach to cross-examination will be conducted in a trauma-informed way, or will the bill not materially change the basis on which cross-examination or that process is undertaken? Earlier in the proceedings this morning, you or one of your colleagues said that legislation had not had a practical effect on changing practice. I am interested in the approach to practice.