³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Is there data that you can share with the committee on that point?

That is very helpful. Are there particular areas in which you think that there could be further improvements that would help to accelerate the progress that has been made?

That is a very helpful explanation. Will you reflect further on the cultural change that needs to be undertaken or achieved to make the process effective? Parliament may well be able to legislate for that, but the issue is how it will become a meaningful change of practice.

One of the points that you have made very powerfully is that judicial leadership has been crucial in taking us thus far. What else is required to make sure that, when we look back 10 years down the track, we see this as a significant moment in changing the experience of those who happen to be involved in the work of a sexual offences court?

I would like to raise with you an issue that follows on from Katy Clarke’s point about the flow of information. You chaired a whole-system review group, which was in recognition of the fact that whole-system issues are involved. Will you share with the committee what else you think needs to be improved to get us to a position in which we can look back on the reforms as a seminal moment in improving the experience of complainers and ensuring that the process operates in a more timely fashion, given the premium that you have attached to evidence being gathered in a timely fashion, so that recollections can be tested in the most effective way and when they are strongest during an individual’s experience.

Thank you for that. That strikes me as an acknowledgement that there are cultural questions that need to be addressed. The words of the Lord Justice General on the Macdonald case illustrate some serious failings in the protection that all of us would expect to be in place for a witness—that a member of the judiciary can step in to make sure that things are done properly. The Lord Justice General’s conclusions in the appeal obviously demonstrate that that was not the case.

There is the cultural element about ensuring that leadership and practitioners are operating effectively, but are there also procedural questions that need to be addressed about the operation of the courts in relation to the handling of such cases?

You understand exactly where I am coming from. I would be keen to see that further information.

The only other thing that I would like to explore is the question of delays, which I discussed with the Lord Advocate. I do not know whether you were here for the question that I raised with the Lord Advocate, but it strikes me that the solution to delays will not rest in the hands of one organisation. There should be a joint effort involving Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown, practitioners and the judiciary, for example. I am interested in hearing from you what steps you feel that you can take as part of that collaborative effort to address the issues that are contributing to some of the very poor experiences that complainers have because processes are taking so long.

It would be good if you could provide that information to us with as much detail as possible, Mr Fraser, because it is material to some of the questions that I will come on to about improving the throughput of the court system and addressing some of the issues about delays that I aired with the Lord Advocate, which you might have heard, earlier on. It also gets to the nub of whether we need to build a new infrastructure for this. I am profoundly sceptical about that, given that I imagine that there is spare capacity, albeit that it might be in the wrong place to suit particular schedules, if you see what I am getting at.

I think that, for the committee’s benefit and to serve our understanding of the thinking that has underpinned your work, we would like to hear just a little bit more about that. Having listened to the evidence on the bill’s other contents, I find that what has really resonated with me is that culture issue and the necessity of changing the dynamics and the nature of the process that is under way. If I understand you correctly, you are telling us that cannot really achieve that by tinkering with what, for argument’s sake, is a Victorian set of procedures. Instead—and I was struck by this in your report—you need to go in with a blank sheet of paper. I think that your response to that would help us understand the cultural point that you are making.

Deputy Chief Constable, could I pursue that a little further? Am I right to understand from your comments in response to Katy Clark’s question that your officers will go with the grain of the Lord Advocate’s guidance but keep a watchful eye out for anything that is not consistent with it? I will spit it out: I take it that, given the Lord Advocate’s position, Police Scotland will give the proposal a fair wind?

Part of what underpins the question that Katy Clark puts, which is my view as well, is that we understand, accept and do not in any way question the proper role of the police in upholding the rule of law, but that must, on this issue, be done in a manner that gives the policy intent of the proposal the maximum opportunity to thrive, if that is possible.