���˿���

That is interesting. Perhaps we underestimate the number of occasions when officers from outside the Police Scotland area are on duty in Scotland for a variety of reasons.

My final question relates to the duty of candour, which we discussed with the witnesses from the PIRC. You have responded to some questions on the delays experienced with investigations, and the PIRC has suggested incorporating a duty to co-operate into the duty of candour, under which officers would be required to provide operational statements timeously where their status is clearly that of a witness.

In relation to the introduction of a statutory duty of candour, can you advise whether CAAPD currently experiences issues arising from delayed statements—I think that the answer to that will probably be yes—or other information from Police Scotland, and whether the PIRC’s proposal on incorporating a requirement to produce operational statements would be helpful for CAAPD?

That answer is helpful.

Russell Findlay can ask his final question on the bill.

A very good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have apologies from John Swinney. I welcome Jackie Dunbar to the meeting.

Our first item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on two legislative consent memoranda—LCM-S6-43 and LCM-S6-43a—that have been lodged by the Scottish Government in relation to the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and Scottish Government officials. Ms Alison Morris is head of serious organised crime policy—divert and deter; Kristy Adams is a policy officer in the organised crime unit; and Ruth Swanson is a solicitor in the equalities and criminal justice division.

I refer members to paper 1. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for this evidence session.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the legislative consent memoranda.

The next item of business is consideration of oral evidence on an affirmative instrument.

We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance. From the Scottish Government, I welcome Susan Black, who is a senior policy officer in the civil law and legal system division, and Emma Thomson, who is a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 2. I intend to allow up to 10 minutes for the evidence session. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I have a supplementary question about policy, practice and procedures. In one of the evidence sessions with witnesses with lived experience, we heard from a witness in relation to the provision of family liaison officers. We heard that her family had not been given support by a family liaison officer in the circumstances of an unexplained death—you are probably aware of the case. I found it quite distressing to hear that.

You have spoken about highlighting to Police Scotland issues that you are seeing emerge around good practice. Would the onus be on the PIRC to flag issues of the type that I have just set out, or would it perhaps be more on HMICS?

Absolutely. I watched with interest the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Plastow, giving evidence to this committee two or three weeks ago. As he described it, the work that he does is “quite niche”. It is certainly of great interest to everybody.

I would whole-heartedly support the option of going out to visit the commissioner. As you know, it can sometimes be difficult to bring commissioners or other witnesses to a committee because of tight work programmes. You will know that the Criminal Justice Committee has a significant workload relating to bills. I whole-heartedly support that suggestion.

You mentioned the police bill. We can start with that. We have already taken evidence that suggests significant failures not just in the conduct of police officers and others, but in the way in which those alleged acts of misconduct have been dealt with internally. A lot of reasons seem to be emerging about why that may be happening with specific regard to Police Scotland.

In answer to your question, I again cite the victims and witnesses commissioner proposal. Part of that has been based on what feels like a failure to date to grasp the nettle and respond to concerns and perceived failings in the conduct of organisations. That bodies should be held to account is a very understandable public interest. If that requires a legislative change or the creation or establishment of a commissioner who can represent the public, I understand that sentiment.

Through our work, the Criminal Justice Committee has interacted with a range of issues relating to the experiences of victims and witnesses. When we were scrutinising the proposal for a victims and witnesses commissioner, what came out in the evidence was the historical challenge that victims experience when they enter the criminal justice system.

In answer to your question, I would say that we are probably looking at a more systemic challenge. However, it is possible that that challenge has been enhanced by where we are at the moment, as experiences of poverty, cases of poor mental health and pressures on families have arisen from the economic space that we are in. Perhaps it is a bit of a hybrid of both.

As you have said, the Scottish Government’s position is that there is a gap, particularly with regard to the scrutiny of criminal justice bodies. A number of bodies already engage in scrutiny—for example, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary of Scotland, HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. To a certain extent, there is already a degree of scrutiny in and around criminal justice and its impact on victims and witnesses.

As I said in my first answer, a range of well-established organisations such as Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland and potentially even cross-party groups engage in scrutiny to an extent, and their work circles back to the question of where we are going in Scotland with regard to improving the experiences of victims and witnesses. It all starts from the baseline of everybody recognising that the experience of victims and witnesses in the justice system is very often poor and traumatising and that things need to change.

That is a valid point. However, I will cite a recent example of a third sector body. The committee has engaged with Rape Crisis Scotland on the issue of access to court transcripts when a victim of a sexual offence feels that accessing the transcript of a trial will perhaps support closure and coming to terms with what has happened. However, at the moment, it is extremely costly to purchase, if you like, or access court transcripts from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.

We have done a piece of work with Rape Crisis Scotland, and I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government has now put in place a pilot where, in certain circumstances, a transcript will be made available at no cost. That is one example where there can be a little bit of power to the elbow of organisations such as—