���˿���

I want to flag some of the comments in the letter from the SCTS. The third paragraph of the letter, which is on the first page of paper 5, states:

“Despite the increasing numbers of domestic abuse cases across our courts (they currently make up 23% of all Aberdeen sheriff court’s summary complaints registered this financial year), there are currently no further virtual summary trials scheduled at this point.”

The letter then explains the reason for that, which seems to be a problem with solicitor participation, but that does not really explain what the challenge is. Is it that solicitors are not available, not willing to participate or expressing opposition to it? It is unclear.

I appreciate that, about halfway down the page, the letter also talks about the general point that we are moving to a more face-to-face world again and away from doing things virtually. It says:

“as people return to more day to day physical interaction as we recover from the pandemic, momentum is waning.”

That seems to me to say, “We gave it a try and it was okay, but the world is sort of back to normal, so no one really wants to continue with it.” To me that sounds like, whatever your view on virtual trials—I separate those from virtual evidence giving or virtual juries, which are a different application of technology—the SCTS is not 100 per cent behind doing much more on virtual trials.

There seems to be an unwillingness in the sector to see benefits in virtual trials. I think that the SCTS quoted 58 as the total number of motions for a fully virtual trial. Not many of them went on to be virtual. In fact, about half of them were converted to in-person trials, so the request was not granted or the decision was made not to proceed with a virtual one. As Katy Clark says, the information is limited. It was only a limited trial, but that does not reek to me of a positive outcome or positive feedback about the measure.

Can I clarify something? I know that we are skipping through these sections quickly. For the record, I agree with all the suggestions in the last column, which makes points about what the committee could ask the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or the third sector to do. Because we are skipping past pages, it is important that we give the clerks our consent to carry on with that work.

I will shut up, then.

I am sorry—we are skipping ahead. On deaths in custody, on page 34, are we content as a committee that that issue has been followed up by analysis of where the Scottish Government agreed with our recommendations? The Government pushed back and said that it had

“no intention to create an online centralised system where delivery of the recommendations can be tracked.”

Are we content with that response, or do we want to push the Government further on that? It is still a very live issue, unfortunately and tragically.

I want to start with the section on Police Scotland. It is a great summary, and I thank the clerks for it.

Page 4 of paper 4 suggests actions, and they seem to be that we ask the SPA to do some work. We first need to take a step back and go straight back to Police Scotland. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of paper 4 show that the committee—I am now putting this on the public record—is unhappy with Police Scotland’s response and we have more than enough opportunity to go back to Police Scotland.

Paragraph 5 states:

“The response does not include an explanation as to why the officers who the Committee spoke to did not receive the expected standard of advice and support.”

In paragraph 6, we complain that Police Scotland’s response does not address key issues that the committee raised. In paragraph 7, we also say that the point about

“the inadequacy of the employee assistance line”

is not addressed. In paragraph 8, the committee requests details about when

“the court scheduling system redesign will be in place”

and say that that information has also not been provided.

Therefore, Police Scotland has not responded to some very specific things, and we should give it a second chance to do so before we escalate the questions. I am happy to include the SPA in our correspondence, but we should go straight to Police Scotland and explain that we are unhappy with its response. Let us be up-front about that, uncomfortable thought it might be.

We could also include the challenges that the SPF has raised. I know that Police Scotland will read the response from the SPF but, if Police Scotland is not asked to answer that, it does not have to and probably will not. I would like Police Scotland to respond directly to the concerns raised by the SPF, such as the one mentioned in paragraph16, which is that

“the SPA bases its oversight on evidence provided by Police Scotland”

but not necessarily by officers directly.

That is a key point. In other words, the SPA seems to be marking its own homework by responding to evidence given to it only by Police Scotland, which is, of course, accountable to it, but not necessarily by going directly to staff associations or organisations to get feedback. We need to sanity check whether what the SPA is hearing from Police Scotland marries up with the truth on the ground. That is perhaps a criticism of the SPA.

Paragraph 17 refers to specific complaints about

“the strategic commitment to wellbeing from Police Scotland”

and the mainstreaming of that policy. It notes that the SPF believes that there is

“either a failure to operationalise the programme or a failure to operationalise the right programme.”

Again, we could invite Police Scotland or the SPA to respond to that.

I do not disagree with what we are asking the SPA to do around data collection and how it could better engage with officers and their representatives from the union or otherwise on whether that could be beefed up, as those are valid points, but they are not necessarily the main criticisms that we want to pose.

Although the paper is quite short, the committee has clearly expressed our unhappiness at the response that we have had from Police Scotland. I think that we need to challenge that. That is my only plea.

There are only five trans women in the women’s estate in total, so you must know.

I do not want to stretch this out too long. I thank those members who have contributed and the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending today and offering their point of view.

I want to comment briefly. On the change to rule 11 on matters that the board may consider, the policy note states:

“the Board may, in applicable cases, take into account amongst other matters, any failure to reveal the location of a victim’s body ... this matter may be considered where relevant, but does not change the underlying test for release applied by the Board.”

To me, that still does not make sense. I wonder whether somebody might provide further information—it could be done in writing after today’s meeting. I still cannot see how that could meaningfully be taken into account or be a factor for consideration if there is no change to the overall test. Essentially, if somebody refuses to reveal the location of a victim’s body and it is evident that they are doing so willingly as opposed to through inability, will that make any material difference in the decision making around whether parole is granted? It seems to me that the answer to that question is no, which is why people are disappointed.

I question how meaningful the change is. I park that here because, through that change, we have given some of those victims’ families a false sense of hope. I cannot see any meaningful application of the provision through which the status quo would change.

My views are on the record. Based on the feedback that I have had, including from my colleague, I will not push the matter to a vote.

Motion, by agreement, withdrawn.

I should declare an interest, in that I have also had a meeting with that group, as have others. It is very effective at lobbying.

I understand that there is a commercial interest behind the campaign. It is entirely appropriate that we note that. Nonetheless, to give it the benefit of the doubt, it has a genuine interest in the issue of transportation. This is certainly not the first time that the committee has raised the issue of the contract involved in that service, and some reservations have been expressed about it. To be fair, I put some questions to the campaign about the scenarios in which it would be entirely appropriate to restrain a young person—for their safety or the safety of staff and others around them—and I think that there is an acceptance that that possibility should remain in place.

Action needs to be based on evidence. If there is genuine evidence of inappropriate behaviour, that should come to our attention, but it should be a matter of public record rather than hearsay and gossip. If there are genuine examples of young people having been inappropriately managed, people should be forthcoming with those so that the Government can address the issue directly rather than it becoming an issue based on hearsay, in which we have no idea of the truth of the matter. However, the campaign made some valid points, which it is important to raise.

I know that you always cover what you plan to do next at the end of the discussion, so I may be pre-empting you, but I feel, given what we have heard, that it is entirely appropriate for us to go back to the SCTS. I do not see the point of writing to the cabinet secretary, because his short response says that it is an operational matter and that it is not for him to comment on it. Therefore, let us go straight to the heart of the matter and hear from the horse’s mouth what the difficulties are and what the general feeling is. I would like to hear more about opinions rather than just the facts from the SCTS.

Equally, I am not convinced that we have enough information on the outcomes of virtual trials—I know that the numbers were limited, but if you were a research data analyst trying to work out whether virtual trials produce different outcomes, I am pretty sure that you would not be able to come to a conclusion based on what we have received; from an academic point of view, it is impossible to say whether virtual trials have been successful.

We are heavily skipping pages now, but I wanted to raise the issue of access to court transcripts. I do not know where that fits in.