���˿���

Thanks very much. There is a lot to think about. Martin MacLean wants to come in at some point, but first I will let Jamie Greene come in with his question.

Thanks very much for that helpful clarification. I am going to draw this session to a close. It has been fascinating and there is a lot for us to think about with regard to the work that is clearly going on. It is welcome to hear about the commitment in and around these issues, but also the challenges and the work that is required.

Thank you all for your time today. We will suspend the meeting very briefly to allow our panel members to leave. Thanks very much.

No one else wants to come in. Thanks very much, Rona and Jamie. I have noted your comments about timescales and I do not disagree. We seem to have been looking at this for quite some time. If it is helpful for members, I flag that last week, in response to a question that I asked in the Conveners Group meeting, about progress on access to court transcripts, the First Minister said:

“The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs was planning to write to the committee this week expressing the Government’s commitment to supporting a pilot to support access to court transcripts, initially focused on complainers in sexual offence cases. So it is an issue that I am well aware of, given my previous role as a cabinet secretary for justice. We will absolutely commit to a pilot focused initially on complainers in sexual offence cases.”

I am certainly happy to hear that. That is where we want to be. I absolutely take the point about timescales. If members wish, I am happy to write to the Government seeking a bit more clarity on timescales. I also suggest, if members are in agreement, that we send a copy of the cabinet secretary’s letter to Rape Crisis Scotland for its information and to Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland, which have all been interested in and active on this issue, for their information. Do members agree with that proposal?

As members have no further questions, I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S6M-08712.

Motion moved,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 [draft] be approved—[Angela Constance].

Motion agreed to.

I apologise for the interruption—we have the windows open, because it is quite warm in the committee room. I think that we are fine now.

I am sure that there are points in your opening remarks that members will want to come back to. I will bring in Stuart Allardyce now.

Thanks. Those comments are helpful.

I think that we are all broadly supportive of the provisions in the bill and the spirit and content of the LCM. It appears that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have been engaging regularly and have almost reached agreement on the provisions as they impact on Scotland. I agree with the comments that have been made about the tight timescales. There is a lot for us to get our heads around and understand, and I thank our witnesses for raising the issues—that is helpful in terms of what we include in our report.

I think that we are in agreement with the direction of travel and—at this moment in time—we agree that the Scottish Parliament should give its consent to the provisions in the bill as they are set out in the draft motion, but we should perhaps include reference to the fact that we understand that further amendments will be considered. Do members agree with that? Have I worded that correctly? Is that clear?

Our next agenda item concerns consideration of follow-up correspondence received as part of our regular review of the action plan and the priorities for reform of the justice sector in this session. I refer members to paper 2.

We have replies to our queries from the Scottish Government; the Scottish Prison Service; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; the criminal justice voluntary sector forum; and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I thank all those organisations for their comprehensive replies.

I will take each of the responses in turn and ask for members’ observations. The first one is the Scottish Government response.

Before I bring in Katy Clark, I will pick up on the points that Jamie Greene and Pauline McNeill have made about the backlog. I do not know—and I probably should know—whether “backlog” means just the number of open cases in the court system at any one time or whether that is the wrong interpretation. There might be some merit in our clarifying that. If it means just the open cases, I imagine that work has been done around the figure of 20,000 being an acceptable court workload, but I am happy for us to check and confirm that.

On Jamie Greene’s points about YOIs, the number of young people who are in YOIs will be due to the decisions of the courts. The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill has not yet been enacted, so perhaps there is still a bit of a lag in that number starting to change.

I am happy to check on the progress of the DTTO report, which Jamie Greene flagged.

On Pauline McNeill’s comments following our visit yesterday, we had a helpful discussion with the SPS about the models. There was reference to an evaluation process that will be introduced for CCUs, as Russell Findlay mentioned. My understanding was that that would incorporate a wider focus. I could be wrong about that, so I am happy to track that.

I am also happy to follow up with Gill Imery on the points about deaths in custody.

That is helpful. I flag that, yesterday, we covered the evaluation of the CCUs that will be coming forward. I am sure that that is of interest to you.

I note your point about YOIs, and your suggestion about our being prepared for what is coming down the line is helpful.

I do not want to curtail debate, but we have five more letters to consider and a lot to get through this morning. If there are specific points that members want to follow up, or if they want to remark on the other pieces of correspondence, I will bring them in.