 Good morning and welcome to the 31st meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have no apologies this morning. Our first agenda item is to review correspondence received on the issue of the progress being made to implement the recommendations around deaths in custody. Members will recall that we took evidence from Jill Emory to review the progress of delivering on the recommendations from the independent review of the response to deaths in prison custody report, and we then wrote to various organisations thereafter. Paper 1 sets out the details of this and the replies. I invite members to make any comments that you may wish to do, and I suggest in any case that we send copies of the letters to Ms Emory for her information and deflection. Do any members like to come in? Thank you very much, convener. Jill Emory spent two years producing this report on deaths in prison custody. There have been around 315 in the past decade. Around half of those by suicide or drugs has been another 11 since she was in here giving evidence, and her report contains 26 recommendations or advisory points. About two years later, only five have been implemented, and her main recommendation was for a new system to investigate deaths in custody, but, crucially, she said that this would not even be necessary if the Crown Office fixed what she saw as failings in the fatal accident inquiry system. It is pretty clear from everything that we have heard that the Scottish Government and the justice agencies involved are in agreement with her, but they do not seem willing to admit it. She told us that she feels frustrated but unsurprised. She told us that it feels humoured and patronised. In response, we wrote to the relevant agencies, the Government, NHS and SPS. We have now got their replies here. If Jill Emory was despairing when she came in here, I can only imagine how she will feel when she reads these and asks herself whether those organisations actually listened to what she said to us. Of course, they did because she couldn't have been clearer and, by ignoring her explicit concerns in the letters, they essentially confirm exactly what she was saying. It took another organisation, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who saw her testimony, who wrote to us unprompted and addressed her concerns and sympathised with her. It is also notable that, despite the Crown Office being subject to severe criticism by Jill Emory in relation to FAIs, they did not choose to write to us to state their case in response. She also told me, in reaction to the question that I put to her, that she would be willing to extend her tenure on the deaths in custody group. It is no surprise that the cabinet secretary's letter does not even address that specific point. Again, that confirms what she told the committee. To summarise, we are all entitled to feel frustrated, humoured and patronised. It seems to have been a monumental waste of time, effort and money. I wonder what kind of message all of this sends out to the families of those who have died in custody. I think that my colleague Russell Finlay has mentioned most of the points that I was going on. Just going through the current secretary's letter, there was a bit in it about the successive increases. There was a mention that the resource had been increased by 60 per cent. I think that I would probably want to know more information on that. 60 per cent sounds really good, but if the budget was not there in the first place, it was 60 per cent enough. Was the original budget there enough? Did the 60 per cent increase cover all the things that they would have had to have implemented in the first place? Again, she mentions things about recommendations being complex and requiring resources. Again, it goes down to funding. She has also mentioned about NHS and how everything will be done by the end of 2023. There is only one month left. I would expect an update on how they will achieve that, because we have got one and a half months and the last two weeks will be Christmas holidays. Again, no note on whether Ms Emory will be staying on in her role if she has been replaced, if the role has been ended. She also mentions that she has had a meeting with Ms Emory. There was another meeting on 21 November with Mr Matheson, so again, did that meeting take place, what was the outcome of it? Moving on to the letter from Caroline Lam. There was a bit in it about, as Ms Emory noted, there was no timescale set for the implementation of the recommendations. I would imagine that the chief executives got paid a lot of money. Why did they not put in their own timescales? It seems bizarre that we are going to bring in a report about those recommendations, but then we sit and say that there are no timescales when they are going to be implemented. What was the reason for her not just putting in their own timescales? She has now put in that it is going to be by the end of this year. Again, moving on to the report that came in from the Scottish Prison Service, they gave us an action plan, but one of the things that I noted all the way right through was everything that they were working on, along with the NHS. One of the columns says what action is getting taken in the next two to three months, but there is nothing in it. We finish in a month and a half is the end of the year, so I would have expected to see all the actions that were happening with the SPS and the NHS, because they basically get six weeks or whatever to go and implement all this, but there is nothing in their action plan, so I would have expected more in the presidency of this action plan. To put into context some of the things that we have been hearing, there is a pilot project that was started in September for the new process, and that will be evaluated to assess resource requirements and whether it is workable, etc. That was September, and that is on-going. We just need to wait to see what the outcome of that is. There is the short-life strategic leadership group that is reporting to ministers through a cross-portfolio ministerial group for prisoner health and social care. I think that there are things happening as a result of our last meeting with Jill Emery, and I think that it is easy to cherry-pick things that may still have to be implemented, but I think that the wheels are definitely turning now, and I hope that comes to a good conclusion. First of all, it is quite hard when you are reading through these papers to get a sense of what are we addressing here, because I am trying to focus my mind on the death and custody that I know about, where there has either been a suicide or, in fact, a death. Of the 86 deaths, it would be helpful just to get a profile of what are the causes of the deaths, because I do not know if we can really make an assessment about whether or not the response is adequate enough. I will be honest. Reading through it, there is just so much management speak that is driving the nuts, trying to get to what you are trying to say to the committee, to be perfectly honest. I would say in a positive note that I would like to examine it more. What Theresa Maytour said in her letter about contact with families is actually quite a critical step, because if you think of the case of Katie Allen and William Brown, their families were concerned about them. They knew that their family members were at risk, and it was phoning the prisoner, not getting answers. I think that there was one of the issues from my recollection, so I think that it would be worth following that up with Theresa Maytour's about the installation, how is it going to work, and making an assessment will make a difference, because I do think that it could make a difference. I do agree with Russell Finlay in the sense that I think that Jill Limrie is one of the best witnesses we have ever had, because she did not pull her punches at all. We have a horrendous record of death and custody. It is a problem for Scotland's prisons that detain people, and I imagine that it must be more difficult now for the prison service given the numbers. I feel quite concerned about that and for the running of the service, so I think that it is a really important aspect of the work that the committee does. I would like to see a profile of those 86 deaths, what were the causes, further information about the installation of family assistance information, and I do agree that Jill Limrie should be able to continue her work until we are satisfied that we have made significant enough progress to try and prevent further deaths in the Scottish prison service? On Pauline's point about the information on the fatalities within the prison service, I have a recollection that we saw some of that data either from Jill Limrie or the Scottish prison service. It is important to understand the circumstances and the context, because there will be different circumstances surrounding deaths and custody. Some will be because of suicide, some will be because of other health issues, but the management of those other health issues is important to ensure that prisoners are being properly supported with the healthcare that they require when they are incarcerated. The fundamental commitment on the human rights of prisoners, so I think that it is important that we are assured that in both of those very different circumstances support individuals to support their wellbeing, to try to avoid circumstances where people take their own lives, or that prisoners are actually getting access to the proper healthcare to which they are entitled. Those are the issues that lie at the heart of the work that Jill Limrie has been looking at. I agree with colleagues that Jill Limrie was a very strong and compelling witness in explaining the work that she has tried to do. Having said that, I take a slightly different view of the letters. I do not question the fact that there is more that needs to be done here, so I would encourage some clarity on whether Jill Limrie has been invited to stay on in post, because this work is not complete yet. I take a different view of the letters that have come from the cabinet secretary, the chief executive of NHS Scotland, and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, that I think they demonstrate that there is work under way here. There might not be as much as the committee would like, or that Jill Limrie would like, but it is under way. There is clear commitment to taking forward this agenda, but it might not be moving as fast as everybody would like to see. For that reason, it is important that Jill Limrie is still able to continue the work that she has carried out. The last point that I would make is that there is an issue that comes out of this, which is a crossover into other areas of responsibility, which is around the approach to fatal accident inquiries. In that respect, the only answer is that we can ask the Government for certain points, but, fundamentally, we need to hear from the Crown about those questions. I think that it is part of what we do in response to this material, is that we should put some of this to the Crown and ask for a response to those points. Okay, thank you very much for that. Some very relevant and helpful points made. I think that across two key areas, one was the terms of the review and the report that led to the work undertaken by Jill Limrie. Then, very understandably, and I would certainly put myself in this category, some perhaps wider questions and concerns about issues that were not specific to the report. Nonetheless, for example, what brings someone to the point that they become one of the statistics in and around death in custody. I think that we have helped to look at some of that. Thank you members for all your points. I probably land with John Swinney and Rona, in that I took some reassurance from the submissions that we received, but, in terms of some of the points that Sharon made around timescales, pinning that down a little bit acknowledged that that was missing in some of the correspondence. Can I suggest to members and seek your agreement that we will follow up the points that have been made and the requests for some further information? It is an issue that is appropriate for us to keep under review. I propose that we engage again with Jill Limrie for an update on her current situation in the correspondence. I think that, from the cabinet secretary, we were made aware that she has engaged with Jill Limrie, so there is quite a bit for us to take away. The final point was the one that you made, John Swinney, in relation to some further correspondence with Crown Office and Fiscal Service. Are members in agreement on that? I think that we absolutely need to go back to Jill Limrie in response to those letters. Also, I have made the point already that the Crown Office chose not to engage with us despite the criticism of them. Despite all the thousands upon thousands of words that this boils down to, she has made one main recommendation, which has been ignored. We need the authorities to come clean on that. Are they intent on doing it or not? Are you referring to the first recommendation around the establishment of an independent process? That is our main fundamental point of the report, but she was on to say that if the fatal accident inquiry system was fixed as she sees it, that would not even be needed. That is central to everything. That is why I am quite surprised that Crown Office has heard that evidence in quite strong terms and has not engaged with us. Can I come in on that? I think that what Russell Finlay said helps to, in a sense, tease out what we need to do practically here. I am not firm in my view, and I do not think that Gill Imre is that there is a need for a new system, providing the FAI system works as all of us would believe it should do. I think that there is a course of action that we need to take here. I certainly could not sign up to a new system and I am quite in favour of people doing what they should be doing. So I would rather go into this to explore what is the position on the FAIs, what is the crown's view, what improvements can be secured before we essentially align ourselves with a new system or take a proposition. I think that going into the crown, establishing what the FAI approach is, is the first base for us in pursuing this issue. I also think that beyond going to—I think that it will be important to hear Gill Imre's view on all of this because she was a compelling witness and she has done a huge amount of work here, but we also need to hear from the Government if Gill Imre is being invited to continue in her role, because Gill Imre cannot, if she has been asked to do it, then she can tell us, but we need that confirmation from the Cabinet Secretary. That point was made during the evidence session, but it was not addressed in the letter from the Government, so it does need to be clarified whether she would take it as another matter. I think that Pauline McHugh and then Katoom. It was just on this point about FAIs. It's back to this profile of the 86 deaths, so it only applies to a few cases. In the case of Alan Marshall, the family were distraught because they felt that there was a cover-up and they couldn't get any information about how Alan had died. You know that there was immunity from prosecution and the Lord Advocate is taking that forward now, but one of the recommendations was that families should get unfettered access to prison to get information about how their loved ones died, because previously they haven't been, so they have to wait until the AFI and if the AFI takes years then they get no real answers or contact. Every question that I have had on this, I have asked that same question, will they get unfettered access? I do appreciate, well, can you make that commitment and at the same time not compromise where there might be an allegation of criminality, such as in this case? Can you make such a commitment and not interfere with the Crown doing their jobs? I have never had an answer to that, so I would just, in answer to John Swinney about AFIs, if the system worked and let's see if we can make AFIs shorter, but you do have this other scenario where there is a death, such as the death of Alan Marshall. I do think that families should get unfettered access to go and speak to prison governors, see where he died, all of that, why shouldn't they? When the status detained that person, why should they be blocked from finding it as much as they would like to know about their loved ones death? I can't make any answers to that, but I do feel quite strongly about that in cases, which I realise is a tiny percentage of the cases. I think that what we discussed as a committee, I think that we may have done it in private when we looked at some of the timescales for FAIs. There did appear to be a pattern that prison-related FAIs took longer than many other FAIs to be commenced, which I think does relate to the point, the serious point, the point that Neil Watt raised about the Alan Marshall case. I think that that's a reasonable issue to put again to the crown, because I don't know the answer. Instantly, I agree with the point that families should have unfettered access to information, but I don't know how that sits alongside proper investigation about the potential for criminality. I think that those are legitimate issues that we need to explore. It seems to me that there are two issues. The first is how we reduce the numbers of deaths in custody, and then the second is the systems that are in place when there has been a death in custody. From my experience elsewhere, it seems that greater political oversight can have an impact on deaths in custody and the numbers, which I have been quite surprised about. The scrutiny of ministers and the committee is really important in that area. I agree with the points in relation to the issues around what happens. The recommendations need to be implemented, but it is not necessarily the case that we need a completely different system. I think that that would be quite a significant decision and one that we would need to scrutinise very carefully. Thank you, members, for those additional points. Pauline, on the early part of your comments, I have some queries about numbers of deaths, and clerks have helpedfully had a way to look at that during our discussion between 2012 and 2022. There were 350 deaths in Scottish prisons. About half of those were either through suicide or drug-related and the other half were as a result of natural causes, so that reflects the extent. As I said, we will do some follow-up in terms of the points that have been made today. I think that members have agreed that we very much will keep this under review, and we will communicate with Gillilmery in relation to her status and Crown Office, as has been suggested. Our next agenda item is to review correspondence received on the implementation of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018. Members will recall that we undertook a short post-legislative review of the act and have been following up issues with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. Paper 2 sets out the details of this, and the Cabinet Secretary's most recent reply. I open it up to members to make any comments. Do you want to come in at all? Are you happy with the first page? I find the right page. I will read it from the notes, but on page 15 of one of the documents, there are statistics from Police Scotland about the number of domestic crimes reported to them. I think that it would be helpful to know of all those reported, how many were subsequently reported to the Crown Office and of that number, what happened next, and so of those reported, how many were diverted from prosecution and how many were prosecuted, and then what the conviction rate was because it is all very well saying that the act has been successful if you judge it on the number of cases reported, but if we do not know what consequently happened and whether that is a success or it is disappearing into a bit of a kind of black hole, so I think that that would be quite useful data to try and acquire, if we can. There is also, on page 18, a contribution from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, and they seem to be making a virtue of the Aberdeen pilot for the domestic abuse court. From memory, from evidence that the committee has already heard, I think that it was quite difficult for us to acquire information, and when we eventually did, I think that from memory there was only something in the region of a dozen or so cases that I'd ever gone ahead. Rather than it being some kind of successes that's being presented, it seems to have been underused, and the numbers were so low as to not be able to draw very much in the way of a conclusion from it. I think that from memory it's right that some of those queries related to the number of cases or trials that were undertaken in a virtual format. There were virtual in their entirety being, was the purpose of the pilot, but I think that from what we could establish due to reluctance from the accused and their lawyers that often was not happening, and that might have explained, call me cynical, why it took us so long to establish that it had been used so infrequently. For it then to pop up in a letter and some kind of evidence of good work in progress just seems questionable. I wasn't obviously in the committee when the report was put out, so I'm not as expert as everybody else in the committee is. Just going through some of the responses and everything again, it was back to my previous comment, it was more about timescales and actions. I've heard a lot about the Caledonian system, which seems to get a lot of good press. The other bit is the justice partners round table, so again it's going to say that you'll be discussed in over the next 12 months. There's going to be a lot of consideration and exploring, but there doesn't ever seem to be any firm actions or timescales when things are going to be implemented. I suppose in the area that we're talking about the quicker we're going to put in the recommendations from what the experts are telling us is working, then the quicker we'll see results and the quicker we'll see improvements within the justice system for the people that most need it. In that, again, it's probably timescales and actions, rather than it just seems to be people talking about things, rather than actually doing things. Russell, you wanted to come back in. There's another point that I forgot to mention. Her response to the cabinet secretary's letter to our questioning of the awareness campaign, so when the act was first come into force, there was a publicity campaign to let people know what it did, and this was quite helpful, apparently, and we asked whether there were plans to do something else. In response, she says that we are currently undertaking something called insight gathering, and then in the further documentation from, I think it's Scottish Government, page 13, let me find it, sorry, they also used the phrase insight gathering. I just wonder whether it's worth trying to establish if there are any concrete plans. I don't quite know what that means. I mean, they're either seeking to do something or they're not, I think. It's a small point. Anyone else? We can certainly follow that up, because that's a fair point to raise. I'm sorry, just to have context, page 13, insight gathering, which could inform a future approach to communications. I mean, if they don't have any plans, just say so, you know. Okay, thank you, we'll take that away. Okay, Rona Mackay. Just very briefly, I mean, in the cabinet secretary's letter, she's talking about the round table and working group, which we're meeting again in November this month, and she's going to feed back the outcome of the discussion, including the finalised terms of reference for the group, and she'll share it with us. So, I think we just expect that to be imminent, I think. Thanks very much, thanks for those comments. Again, I think, you know, I am encouraged by a lot of what is going on, different tasks and areas of work take different lengths of time, obviously. I was particularly interested in the update that we asked about regarding the single court judge model. There's a lot in that, but I thought that was quite helpful to have that set out. So, we'll take some of the points that have been raised away, and I would just ask for members' agreement that we continue to monitor this particular issue that's highly appropriate that we do that. One final... Yeah, sorry, it's just when you mentioned the thing about the single sheriff for civil criminal cases, which I'd raised a few times, I just found some of the reasons against that to be slightly questionable, if not spurious. Some of them seemed valid, but, yeah, watch the space, I think, that I'm looking at it. Thank you very much. So, that concludes our business in public today. Next week, we will begin phase 2 of our scrutiny of the victims' witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, when we will take evidence on part 4. This is the part of the bill that deals with the proposed abolition of the not proven verdict and changes to jury majorities.