Chamber and committees

The committee has just completed an inquiry into legal aid provision. One challenge that was raised was about the ability of victims/survivors to access legal aid. Were conversations happening at the time about what was available, given concerns about geographic variations?

Okay. I am not sure who wants to take my next question. Given the consultation that is to come and what we know about other structures that need to connect to the process, such as legal aid provision and the training and support that people who are to take evidence from children will need, what lessons can we learn in order to ensure that we are not back here in another year or two, having asked for and got more information and made promises to people, but still unable to deliver DAPOs?

To clarify, are you talking about the costs involved in implementation for all the partner agencies such as the courts and the police?

Good morning, minister. Thank you for being here. I will dig a little bit deeper into what you have said.

You talked about the legal and technical changes, including sorting out different procedures, and about the distinct IT systems of the criminal and civil courts. How many of those challenges were discussed or excavated at earlier stages, prior to the passage of the act and its achieving royal assent? It seems that some of those challenges should have been obvious. What work was done to understand the scope of the challenges and how they would be dealt with? Why is it that we are dealing with working groups only now?

That is helpful. My final point is that training and awareness raising cannot be a one-off event; it has to be an on-going process, and the training has to be embedded in the professional training that different professionals go through—that might even involve accreditation. We probably all need to bear in mind that it cannot be a one-off event. The act’s provisions might be implemented, but on-going training is really important.

I have heard quite clearly about the work that is going on, particularly work on the statutory guidance and the cross-agency work, which pulls people in from a range of organisations, agencies and beyond.

Maybe I missed this point, but, given the engagement around children’s rights—the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is still a very new and live thing—what involvement has the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and her office had in the discussions? I want to hear reassurance that we are not reinventing the wheel. If good conversations are happening already, can we learn from them so that we do not replicate things, and so speed up implementation?

That is helpful. Having the children’s commissioner’s eyes on that draft might be helpful in spotting things that could cause issues later.

My final question is on training and awareness. How have the conversations gone with bodies that have responsibility for training healthcare professionals and social work professionals? As you identified, it is crucial that there is culturally sensitive training and community-based awareness. If there is not such awareness among our professionals across a wide range of agencies, we will not necessarily be able to provide support to people who need it at the right time. How have the conversations gone with the people who train professionals to be in a position to provide support and identify or notice issues?

Good morning, minister. Thank you for your opening remarks and for your answer to the convener’s question. Given the range of issues that folk have said would inhibit or restrict implementation, I am interested in whether any of them were raised in the consultation that took place before the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill was passed. If such conversations happened before the final vote on the bill, how were the issues dealt with at the time?

Good morning. Thank you for joining us today.

I want to pick up on some of the things that you have been talking about. Professor Kusters, in response to Tess White’s questions, you talked about resourcing and the disparity between the number of people who are BSL users and the number of people who speak Gaelic, and the funding that follows. Or than just hoping for more money, are there ways that the resources that are available could be used more effectively? I think that there are challenges. We have heard about education and the lack of understanding of the culture of BSL. How do we do better with the resources that we have?

Thanks, Stacey. That is helpful.

My final question is for Dr Adam and Professor Kusters. It seems that, as we have been talking this morning, questions have been arising for us about what goes into national and local plans and the watering down of the second national plan as compared to the first. It also seems to me that what is in the national plan does not necessarily get at the things that Dr Adam was talking about, such as training more BSL users to be counsellors, teachers, educators—a whole range of people in communities—and not just interpreters or translators. Are there ways that we can join things up a bit better and close that gap?

Although there are questions, clearly, about measurement and accountability with regard to the plans, there is something missing if all we are doing is measuring the numbers of interpreters. That does not change the numbers of people who have BSL as a first language who are teachers or nurses, or who are doing other things in society, not just doing things specifically as BSL users, interpreters and translators.