 Hello everyone, welcome back from Easter recess. Welcome to The14th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee. We've no apologies this morning and Katie Clark is joining us online. Our main item of business today is consideration of the responses from different organisations and individuals to our reporting priorities for the justice sector in this parliamentary I refer members to papers 1 and 2. You will see that we have received a number of responses back from the Scottish Government and various other bodies. We have also received a further response from one of the survivors of rape and sexual offences that we had the privilege of meeting recently. This person makes a specific request about fees for accessing court records, which I would like to come back to. I would like to start with the responses that are set out in paper number 1. If you have any comments that you wish to make on what we have received within the responses, before I turn to paper 2 and the progress report on delivery, which is a consolidated action plan in a table format. I will open it up and ask members if you have any comments to make on the responses that are contained in paper 1. I would like to ask about the first part of women and children injustice. I would like to know a bit more about the timescale on building on the recommendations of Lady Dorian's report on the management of sexual offences. Apologies if it is in the table. I might have missed it. Basically, it is just the timescale and what recommendations are going to be at the forefront of that. The women's justice leadership panel would be helpful for the committee to know a bit more about that. The minister is coming to my cross-party group in June, so we will know about it. It would be useful for the whole committee to hear about the work going on there and what is hoped to be achieved in the timescale again of that. That is fine. We will cover that off a bit in the action plan, but that is noted, Rona. Thank you very much. Any other comments on the submissions in paper 1? It is not sure that this is paper 1. It is something that is hard to keep track. It is in relation to the response from the Lord Advocate on our letter on the locks on use. Is that an appropriate thing to raise? We wrote to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office with respect to the potential for police officers' liability, if it involves the administration of the drug, and whether the Crown Office could make it clear whether they perceived any potential or theoretic liability. If, for example, someone were to approach the PS office with a complaint, whether they would deem it, that would be in the public interest or even something that could be pursued by law. The response seems to imply that it is for the police services of Scotland through training and policies to provide comfort and confidence to officers in relation to legal liability. I find that slightly odd to make a comment, because I am not sure which bit of Police Scotland's training policies would address the issue of legal liability, which surely would be a matter for the Crown to decide, not for the police through its HR and training processes. I do understand the point, because there is a similarity to, for example, good faith use of other medical interventions by police officers. However, it is a very fair ask to go back to the Crown and say that, in this theoretic scenario, would there be a potential for liability if a police officer were to administer the drug? I would also be interested to hear what the response to this letter would be by the police federation, who seems to represent a large number of front-line officers, and whether they were content that the current Police Scotland training policies were sufficiently adequate to provide reassurance to their members. That is noted. I certainly will not attempt to anticipate any of that, but we have noted that and we can take that forward. That is fine. Thank you, Jamie. Any other comments about the submissions? I was, in terms of the Police Scotland submission, quite comprehensive. I was very pleased to see some reference to the draft strategy that they are developing for violence against women and girls. I would quite like to hear a little bit more about that. I am sure that that will be provided down the line. I was interested and pleased to hear about the seminar convened by the SPA in relation to the draft strategy that included a broad range of stakeholder members, which was good to hear about. It is also good to see some progress on the Police Scotland stalking and harassment standard operating procedure and that training has been delivered to police officers. I think that it was possible that detective officers could be wrong, but that was provided by the Susie Lamp Blue Trust. I would be interested to know whether that is something that will be undertaken on a regular basis, rather than just being a one-off. I think that that would be really of value and relevant as officers change roles and responsibilities. I was pleased to see those updates from Police Scotland. On the issue of violence against women and girls and the submissions, I think that it is really quite important to draw some analysis from not just looking at the statistics and everybody's on the same page in terms of realising that it is a very serious issue. I have had those discussions with Keith Brown and Ash Denham, so there is not particularly any disagreement on that. I think that a view has to be taken about where we are in society on this now. In 2022, arguably, violence against women and girls is worse. I know that Rona also is the chair of the cross-party group, so more expert than me on it. From the work that I have done, it deeply concerns me that, in 2022, what girls face in schools in terms of sexual harassment, the figures are astonishing. What I would really like to see in the vision is a recognition of how severe it is and the important connection between the justice portfolio therefore and some other portfolios, because obviously justice cannot correct all of this in terms of the work that needs to be done, particularly among young boys, young people and men. All the debates that I have heard, many members, does not seem to be a disagreement, but what I would like to see coming back a bit more is some recognition about recognising the seriousness of it. The second point that I want you to make was in relation to the legal aid vision, if you like. I recognise the progress that has been made by the Government on this, but what the committee has been hearing loud and clear and in their private mailboxes is that there is a gap in defence lawyers representing people. There was a recent case that was highlighted where a young man waiting trial can get a defence lawyer and is sent back to his cell. Perhaps that is a costly policy, but there needs to be something in the vision that does not wait until 2023 to address it in my view. I would certainly pick up on the point about legal aid. I do not know if it is just coincidence, but I have had a number of constituency inquiries regarding or challenging access to legal aid by victims of domestic abuse, so that is a pressing issue that I think would be important to get updates on. Carrying on from the legal aid issue, the committee had asked the Scottish Government to look at the role played by public defence solicitors office and whether that could be expanded as a means of addressing the long-running dispute involving criminal solicitors who do legal aid work. In Keith Brown's submission on page 11, it recognises the value of PDSOs, but it is only when you turn to paper 2. In response to our request, the Government indicates that it is grateful for the role played, but there is no commitment to a review. It just seems a little bit short-sighted, or no explanation given as to why. I am saying no is fine, but it would be nice to know why. Once you start it, we do not stop. I apologise, but there is a lot in this paper. It is the first day back, so I appreciate your forebearance. There are ones from the Crown Agent, which is a letter to the convener in response to our recommendations, and it goes through them in great detail. They probably will merit a little bit of analysis on paper in due course. I think that some of the points that we made are broadly accepted and some very comprehensive responses were given, others perhaps less so. I think that particularly two issues stuck out at me. One was our request around the Crown's office in the role of VNS and the relative success of it. The response seems to imply that it is not really our responsibility, but it will keep an eye on what the Government says in terms of its proposals. I think that is fine, but it raises the question whether we, as a committee, thought that the Crown Office had an important or substantive role in VNS, and they seemed to think otherwise. In which case, we would not have asked them in the first place if we did not think that there was a role to be played there. If not them, then who? The second part on that response is the last recommendation, response 307. Around the committee asking the Crown Office for details of how outcomes such as re-offending rates are captured, the very short and polite response is that the application of sentencing guidelines is for the judiciary only. I would ask which bit of the judiciary then, because sentencing guidelines are a relatively new feature of the justice system in that respect. The final point is just to pick up Pauline McNeill's point. I think that we would not really be doing justice to the evidence that we received by the survivor if we did not refer to it in today's meeting. I read it last night. There may be elements of it that individual members of the Government would disagree with in terms of some of the policy proposals, but it was quite sharp and pointed, and I do not think that it could go ignored. I just wanted to quote briefly from it with the survivor, saying that this particular survivor believes that everyone here wants to help end violence against women, but our inaction is violence against us. If that is how someone feels, then it is true to them and perhaps to others too. On the third page of it, there is a long bullet list of recommendations that this person who has a broad experience of the justice sector would like to consider or would like the Government to consider. I know that many of those have already been looked at in Lady Dorian's review and I know that the Government will respond in due course. However, I think that those and other comments made in the submission are things that we as a committee need to put quite front and centre of our work moving forward, because I think that for many years it is fair to say that we and others have been going around in many circles on this, and that is a point that was made quite valiantly in the submission. This is an emergency and urgent and drastic reform is required, and I think that that sums up where we are at, so I hope that we as a committee will make a swift progress on this. Thank you. I will come back to the submission from the survivor. I will come back to that in relation to a specific point that is made in that submission. Thank you very much, Pauline. Final point. I would like to say that this is a short debate on what is a substantial set of papers put before us, so I think that probably we are all holding back a wee bit in terms of prioritising. I just want to say that. I am not going to give you all my thoughts, so I just want to put that on the record. Just as Jamie Gean pointed out in the submission from the Crown Office for Procurator Fiscal Service, I just raised a general point in relation to this, to see what other members' experiences are. I do not feel that we are getting the data that we need from the Crown Office, I do not support some of the issues that we are being asked to look at, and I do not feel that there is transparency. One of the issues that came through in relation to delays is that the Crown Office will be deciding which cases it will prioritise. It is a big concern for me that there is no transparency around that, and I cannot disconnect the vision from the fact that we are coming through a pandemic where these delays will continue. For future reference, I would like to pick this up if anyone is like-minded to approach Crown Office and say that they would like a little more information, particularly as we hopefully come out of the pandemic and begin to tackle court delays. I do not think that it is unreasonable on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the people that we are trying to scrutinise the work of the Crown Office and the Justice Department to have some insight into concerns that we will have in the next two years about how cases will be prioritised. I say no more than that. I do not want to leave it here. The fact that we are in public, I would like to put it on the record that I personally want to come back to this, because I am pretty certain that there will be concerns. The committee will have concerns going forward when we are trying to get through these horrendously long delays. The Crown Office will want to protect its right to make decisions and not to interfere with that, but as politicians and legislators, it is not unreasonable to ask for a little bit more of co-operation from Crown Prosecutor Fiscal for us to do our jobs. That is all very valid points to make. It perhaps just helps to lead us into having a look at paper 2, which is the table form of the recommendations that we identified as part of that piece of work. On the basis of what we have discussed, what I would now like to do is move to paper 2. We have covered off perhaps some of the points that are relevant to looking through it, but paper 2 is the table that sets out the recommendations that we made, the key issues that we identified and where we are in terms of progress being made for each of those recommendations this session. Obviously, some are longer term and some are shorter term. I hope that we can pick up some of what has been discussed in that. What I would like to do or propose is that we will go through—I do not want this to be a tedious process, but we can go through the table section by section and invite members to make any comments or raise any concerns that they have. In particular, with the assessments that have been included in the table that the clerks have assisted with and are, to some degree, subjective, I think that we would acknowledge that. However, I hope that it allows us to monitor where progress is being made and where we need to push harder from here on in. I would like to start at the beginning of the table, which is in the annex to paper 2. I will take each of the specific areas in turn. We will start with the impact of Covid and recovery. If members want to raise any points that they have, that is fine. In terms of the actual Covid recovery in prisons, we asked for a detailed plan for the reinstatement of purpose selectivities. I know that a paper had previously come forward extending that in light of Covid and the fact that there are a lot of staff absences due to Covid. However, I would like to get more meat on the bones there. Even if possible, I would like to have the inspector to come back in, because they are the ones that are in the prisons who are inspecting and monitoring this. I do not think that we would get a full picture from SPS. I think that bringing the inspector back in would be a good thing in order to be able to see those stats and maybe where there is pitfalls in terms of various different prisons in the estate. I think that it is really important that purpose selectivity is brought back in and even the rehabilitation programmes as well is crucial. I wonder if we may be asked for a written update from the inspector. Obviously, we can see from the first couple of pages that quite a number of the issues identified relating to prisons do not have an update. We would need to ask for that to be forthcoming, Rona Cymru. Similarly, I would like to ask for the commitment about mobile and video technology being able to be used for contact with family and friends. I think that we heard during evidence sessions that they planned to do this, but I know that it said that it is to be decided. There is no information currently, so it is just to get an update on when that will be decided if it is going to be continued to be used. Can I just confirm that when in the table, which perhaps for the benefit of people watching, will be available publicly if they are not sure what we are staring at on our desks, where we say that no information from the SPS currently provided is a different answer to the question of whether the Scottish Government agreed to the recommendation. That is just the first point. Are we waiting on the Scottish Government to ask the SPS to reform to the Government to respond to us, or is the SPS responding to us directly? What I would prefer is quite a detailed plan from the SPS. I think that the SPS should be forthcoming to the committee with a Covid recovery plan that addresses each of those points, because there are more than half a dozen very specific asks of the SPS. Whether that comes through the Government or directly from the SPS, I am not fussed, but I would say as an organisation that the SPS has a direct responsibility. It is quite an important one to come to the committee directly and say that we hear what you are saying. We published this months ago, and we have had plenty of time to look at it. We are now on that coming out of Covid phase. You can see that from the arrangements in the room today. I am really surprised that we have not had a relatively short document from the SPS responding to each of those points. I think that we should press on them through the means available to us, and perhaps even sitting at a timetable to them when we would expect such a document. The idea that we should be sitting here saying to be decided or we do not know or we have not heard is not a good place to be at this stage, nor will it provide any comfort to anyone who reads the paper. I assume that members are agreed that we will write to the SPS and ask for a prompt reply. I do not know whether we feel that it would be appropriate to set a timetable on that. I think that members are happy for us to do that. Just one other thing in the section about women and children. It refers to the various work that is undergoing with the women's justice leadership panel, but it also refers at the end to the vision and the opening of the Bella Centre and indeed the Lillias Centre in Glasgow. I just wanted to suggest that it might be good if we ever have a gap in our schedule to maybe for the committee to visit either of those places. I have the same note on my action plan. I would be very interested to hear more about that provision for sure, and certainly in terms of the justice leadership panel. I think that it is appropriate to ask for some more detail on that. Going back to the beginning of the document, it states that, ordinarily, the Scottish Government would respond to each point. I know that Jamie Smith has already mentioned that the Scottish Prison Service has not responded to some significant items. Apparently, the protocol between the Parliament and the Government is the Government would normally do so point by point. I do not know how unusual that is, but it feels that there is quite a lot of big gaps in here. The additional point is that I have quite a few notes, quite a few points to make, but are we working through this chronologically? Yes, of course. I do not know what we are doing with that in respect of that. Stephen? There is a suggestion in the body of the text that paper 2 paragraph 11 was to go back to the Government and ask them specifically to address each of the recommendations that you have made, in a sense, to re-ask them to clarify whether they do or do not agree with the recommendations that you make. That is why, when the convener said that our assessment was to some degree subjective, it is because we were not able to do a direct read across of the committee recommended X and the Government responded accordingly. What we had was a 10-page response and we had to infer from that response whether the Government supported the recommendation or not. The convener's suggestion to you at paragraph 11, which you can decide later on once you have been through paper 2, is to go back again to the cabinet secretary and ask them to go through each of those points in turn. Indeed, go back to Scottish Prison Service and anyone else to follow up where we do not have the information at the moment. We cannot assume that our mission is disagreement, so that is important. Sorry, I am just wondering whether we actually gave them it as it is presented to us. Did we give them it as that table in order to actually populate the responses based on what you have just talked to us? When the committee published its report and that contained the action plan as an annex, that was given to the Government as the report and with the table and the request was to address each of the recommendations in turn in order to find out whether the Government agreed with those recommendations or did not. Similarly, the report was provided to Prison Service, to the Crown Office, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority that are main justice partners. Some of those organisations such as the Crown and Police Office did respond to the report and others such as the Scottish Prison Service have not yet responded. The Scottish Government, in its response, did not respond on a point-by-point basis. I think that the minister's letter explains why they have published a vision for justice and referred us to that. However, the suggestion that the convener makes, as I say at paragraph 11, to make it easier to track and pick up on the deputy convener's point that we were not sure whether a mission was a disagreement or whether they just hadn't addressed that particular point was probably better to go back to Government and just check that with them. Then it would make it easier for you to track on an on-going basis. So there are two separate issues. The first is if provided in this format, which again is public, so that the Government and officials can look at that. The first question is whether they agree or disagree with the recommendation. If they disagree with the recommendation, then clearly that turns red and that is a closed matter, because we can't monitor progress on something that has not been agreed to as a point of principle. Secondly, if it has been agreed to or partially agreed to, which may be the case in some cases, the third column of progress against delivery is for the committee to decide whether, based on the evidence provided either directly by Government or indirectly via an agency, whether we are confident that the recommendation is being delivered as agreed by the Government. So I think that that's the second point. What I would propose is that the whilst being pointed in the general direction of a wider policy document is helpful, because there's probably a lot of detail in that that we may find helpful. That in itself is a one-off document, it's not a working document, this is a working document and this is a live document. The only thing that we would have to agree, which would be through mutual consent for the Government, is the parameters by which we will monitor progress, whether it's every few months, every six months, but as we do this formally as a committee, the Government needs to know that we will be revisiting this list on a regular basis and we will be agreeing as a committee or disagreeing, as is our prerogative, whether we think the Government and its agencies are meeting the objectives in it. As Mr Finlay pointed out at the moment, we can't decide in these two weeks because we don't have the evidence, we haven't had the response from the Government. I'd given the benefit down and given another chance to come back at the next meeting, but I wouldn't leave it too long before we have another review of this type. That maybe gives the Government a little bit of time and the Scottish Government officials who will probably write much of the response, to give them, to be fair, some time to take what, where recommendations and put them into the more thematic approach that we've created, which is easier for the wider public. I want people simply, I think that we all do, is want people out there to look at this document and say, good, I'm glad to seek progress made or indeed I'm disappointed that progress has not been made. Thanks for that. I think that the only point that I would make is that at this stage, you know, this is our first time that we've visited this plan and I like this visually. I think that it is helpful for the public to be able to go in and broadly get a kind of an idea of where we are, we as in Parliamentarians, the Government and others in relation to issues. You know, this will be a changing document that I hope in terms of colour will change over time, but at this stage I'm comfortable where we are, but I think that it's helpful to have comments and suggestions made so that we can always make the document as useful and have as much value as possible. Pauline, were you wanting to come in? Yeah, stop me if I'm coming in at the wrong bit. I wanted to just mention specialist courts. Okay, will we come to that just in a moment? I sure do, yeah. Perfect. Rona, did you want to come in? Pauline's just right the question I was going to ask. Okay, we'll move on then in that case. Thanks for the comments on the first section which is Covid and recovery. I'm aware that we've possibly covered some of the points further into the document, so if members want to move on to page 7 and we'll pick up on prisons and prison reform, I know that we've already had some comments in and around women and children in prisons. Fulton, do you want to come in? Yeah, thanks, convener. It's just a point in the first bit on remand. I wonder if it's maybe worth putting in there the, in the notes in additional information, the extra 3.2 million that's been recently announced for the diversions from prosecutions. Now, I know that I'm scrolling down and I know that it is put somewhere else because I did see that. It's there. Diversion funding, a further 3.2 million for bail supervision scheme. So I'm content that it is in, but I wonder whether it might be best placed in the first box in addition to where it currently is because it makes a point more clearly. Although, obviously, if AMD's got disagreement with that, I know that it is included. But I think that it's about remand and that the sentence says details from the Cabinet Secretary on how he plans to tackle remand numbers and he's made an announcement exactly on that. Okay, that's a fair point to raise. We've spoken a little bit about women and children. Obviously, Rona, you've mentioned the Bella Centre and the Lillias Centre. Quite keen on the suggestion at some point, maybe, to have a look at arranging a visit. If we can fit that in, that would be good. So working through page 8, what jumped out at me in terms of the residential rehabilitation just in relation to funding for improved provision, there was a debate in the chamber back in March that looked at a person-centred trauma-informed public health approach to substance use in the justice system. There was some reference in it to support funding and plans around residential rehabilitation, so that might be something that we can update on in the plan. So moving through, Jamie. Thank you. Are we still on page 8? Yeah. Yeah, okay, great. So the three middle points, recovery cafes, residential rehabilitation and through care, I think arguably are... My colleague also, Finlay, might disagree, on who has been very passionate about forecopying prisoner mail and has been for a long time. But actually, my personal interest in this is those three points specifically, and the idea that we're not quite sure who's responsible for it. So there's an indication that this is an operational matter from the SPS. The Government would say that, of course, to maintain that independence of the operation of the day-to-day activities. However, if you take a step back, there is a much wider point, and that is what is the Government's strategy around people who go into prison with mental health issues, addiction issues, and the link between that and the re-offending rates. The fact that we are asking for improvements to rehabilitation to funding to through care is an identification that there's a problem. Now, again, this is not acceptable to be no information provided yet to be decided, we don't know, it's not my responsibility. If we're asking the Government, I don't think it's good enough for them just to say, oh, that's a matter, operational matter for the police, or for the SPS, or the crown, or the courts, we're asking them, so they should get the answer for us. As that rolls into page eight, tackling drug use in prisons is probably the next big issue, which leads into the point around full copying mail. It's all very well tracking in green that there has been a practical change to one element of it, but what is the wider strategy? Again, whilst that may be an operational matter for the SPS, I would see that more as a Government policy matter, given the scale of the issue and the fact that the prison service is diverse and operated by different operators through different operational means and contracts, tackling drug use in prison is a big issue. It has been a running theme in this committee and others, and it just has no information provided. Again, I know it's our first session, but these are the sorts of big issues that I think I would expect to see a lot more detail on. The only final point on that page to allow us to come in is just a personal expression of disappointment around HMP, Greenock and our specific ask around investment plans and the five-year strategy around that, obviously declaring local interests. It is reflective of the fact that there are large chunks of the prison estate that are vastly out of date, and we know the length of time it takes to procure, rebuild and renovate and renew the estate. I do not think that we can wait another five years before that even kicks off in terms of the conversation, so that is something that we individuals can press with the Government. I will bring you in, and then we will move on. I am more of a suggestion based on the points that Jamie was raising in the fact that David Strang, who is heading up the task force, was a previous inspectorate of prisons. If you are so minded, we might get him in to see what updates we are doing in terms of prison, particularly through care. I know that David, having worked with him in the past, is particularly keen in terms of the whole through care transition for people in prisons, so I would be keen to hear what progress has been made in the task force, particularly in the justice area. I was not entirely sure where we were and what the status was with through care, and I think that something that we were all agreed was a priority. Again, I am just conscious that we are at a relatively early stage, and that is not at all making excuses, but I know that I am comfortable that, in terms of the three points that you raised, Jamie, I am optimistic that there are updates, we just have not received them, and we need to press for them, so I am happy to do that. Just moving on to page 9, Jamie, you have picked up on the estates issue. I am quite keen to know whether it will be decided contained in the Children's Care and Justice Bill, and if we had any idea of when that might be introduced, what year, and if that would be part of it, because I think that it is very important that that would be part of it, the fact that over 18s can remain in secure care if they do not have long left on their sentence and they would not be immediately transferred to an adult prison. I might be premature, but it would be good to get an idea. It is my understanding that it is likely to be in the Children's Care and Justice Bill, and it is my understanding that that bill might be introduced as part of the next legislative session. Of course, I am not party to the Government's programme for government in September, but I will try to find out a bit more information about that bill. It is likely provisions and whether we can expect to see it soon, and then I will let the committee know, but it is my understanding that it is likely to be. Although we used the word May, I think that we are fairly confident that it will be. The bit that seems to be missing that is a key issue is the fact that, in some cases, children were sent to polemont prison because there was no secure accommodation available in Lindsey Brown being one example of that. Obviously, there is crossover in terms of death and custody in that case, but can I make the presumption that that is the kind of issue that will come up in the bill? Given that that bill is not imminent, obviously, we have had a short debate as a Parliament around the comments made by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on where people are sent to. I would find it personally very helpful to understand what the Government's position is on where people go and under which circumstances. I think that there is a little bit of confusion as to the nature of whether, as a matter principle or a blanket position, no-one under 18 would ever be sent to HNP polemont, for example, or if there were circumstances in which case that would be an appropriate place for them to go, or whether the Government is simply ruling that out and what its plan for that would be. Therefore, it begs the question as to who goes to that institution and under which circumstance and for how long. Given that this is a very live discussion and I know that there is legislation coming down the line, it would be helpful if the Government set out its current position at the moment because people are obviously sentenced on a frequent basis. If that identifies a gap in, for example, secure care accommodation, which is the reason why people are being sent to polemont, then that is something that the Government or we as a committee can press upon the Government to take action on more quickly. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to just wait for that bill as we are currently implying that we will just wait and see what the Government is proposing. I think that it would be helpful to understand where the Government sits in response to the comments made by the wider public around this issue. Again, we have pressed the issue in the chamber and I just feel like it is not quite clear at the moment exactly where they sit in terms of the suitability of certain places for certain types of crimes and certain types of people. I do not have an issue with that. I think that it is one of the more pressing issues that we have constantly been interested in monitoring. I am quite happy that we may be able to go back and ask for some more clarity around that. The reference to the publication of a vision for justice document about serious organised crime strategy says that it is to be finalised by spring 2022 just to see if there is any way of getting an update as to when that might be and whether it is a public document as well. That would be helpful. I think that we have spoken a bit about purposeful activity. I think that we have already maybe covered that. We are moving on to page 11. I have spoken a little bit about that already. Russell, do you want to come in? I was a bit confused by this part about civil recovery. Forgive me if I have not seen what was provided and maybe the clerks can point me to that outward session. I just feel that we do not know very much about how much is actually recovered and whether that can be measured in any way as to whether it is sufficient or not. In paper 1, on page 8 and 9, there is some information from the cabinet secretary on civil recovery and some figures about how much the civil recovery unit has recovered since 2006. Of course, if that is not sufficient for members or you are looking for more, the clerks can follow that up for you. If members want to take some time to have a look at that and get back to us outwith this meeting, we can certainly ask for more information if that is not sufficient at this stage. Or if you want it in a different form or additional statistics. I do note that I am running through my tendency to amalgamate numbers for a whole bunch of years and present them without being able to break down year by year to see if there is any pattern or if there is any direction of travel. That might be useful just to get a table with the amounts in the years. Maybe more of a structural point is that we have obviously marked this now as completed. Essentially, we asked for information and information was given, so it is completed, but you could then argue that are we content with the information and do we think that it is a recommendation that has been met in terms of its objective? I would maybe refrain from the green box until where, as a committee, we have discussed whether we agree that it is sufficient or not, or it is a work in progress still. I will open that one again. That is absolutely fine. Page 12, longer-term actions. Again, I refer back to the recent debate. There is some update that may be relevant to include in the plan here. Trauma training. I did note the update on the Police Scotland submission on trauma training that I think was being delivered by NHS Education Scotland, which I was quite pleased to see. Page 13, I wonder if there is any, and then it is Russell. Let's see. Let's do the safe consumption rooms. I know that we have already stated that we have not had responses to a lot of stuff, but given that so many unanswered questions about that, as to where they might be, whether they be mobile, whether they be in communities, there are all issues about tolerant zones around them, it just seems that such a big omission. In the joint committee sessions that we held, there was quite a bit of discussion about safe consumption rooms when we took evidence from the UK minister on that. That is probably relevant just on that point. Moving on to violence against women and girls. Please to say that that was not my point. Mines was around diversion funding, but not just diversion funding was specifically around the issue of diversion as a matter of principle. We obviously note the references to budget increases. There are two things that are missing from that. One is that there is clear divergence in the range, volume and quality of diversionary activity that takes place across local councils. That is a piece of work in itself. I would also be keen to hear a response from COSLA and others as to whether they believe that that level of funding will meet what has been asked of them, because clearly the amount of people who come through the system is outside of their control. That seems like, although many budget increases are welcome, there is still a relatively small amount of number. I think that the proof really is in the pudding, though, whether they are successful or not. It is not just the issue of diversion funding, it is the issue of whether diversion as an alternative to prosecution is meeting its objective. Given that the delivery of that is largely through local authorities and whatever your views on that, it is clear that, when you are on earth, what is actually happening on the ground is quite a diverse picture. In some places the system has been done very well and others less so, if we are going to be quite honest. That is something that we as a committee need to be looking at, not just the Government's promising money but how it has been delivered and whether we are content that it has been meeting its objectives. Lady Dorian's report was mentioned at the start of the meeting. We are going to chase up the date of completion of the work of the multi-agency group. There is just a part in the notes that I am just not understanding, so perhaps a re-explanation here. The vision for justice indicates that the timescale for this is 2022, leading to a consultation on the police complaints, investigations and misconduct bill in 2022. I am not sure what the connection is there with Lady Dorian's report. I would need to go back to Government officials to clarify, but I suspect that there may be elements of Lady Dorian's report that relate to how the police deal with allegations or investigate allegations of violence against women and girls. That might lead to changes in practice in terms of how the police deal with that. It is the Government's intention for some of those changes to be made through a forthcoming bill that we might expect in the coming months, the police complaints investigations and misconduct bill. If the committee is happy, I am happy to go back and clarify that point. Specifically, what Police Scotland-related changes are we expecting to see from Lady Dorian's report? What is the vehicle for how these are going to be made and by when? Moving through the page that takes us on to sub-14-15, I am conscious of time. Sub-16-17, we have spoken about, in relation to the review of service standards, pleased to see the stocking and harassment sought by the training from the Suzy Lamp Blue Trust. I think that that is really of value. I think that it is worth noting that, in respect of victims, there is no response from Crown Office, Court Service or Parole Board, which just seems... Orn at the mood of, did you say? No. On the review, yes. Victims? I just think that I do not know whether that is a problem or not, but it just seems as fine the police have responded and they have told us what they are doing in respect of stocking. It goes much deeper than that. It is about the courts, it is about the lack of communication, it is about the crown, it is about decisions that are getting made and not communicated. There is no response, it does not suggest that... I would not reassure a victim, I do not think, to see that. Okay, so maybe pick that up, yes, that is a good point. Pauline, do you want to come in? Just two points in that section. I just want to highlight the section under Lady Dawn's report, where she says, improve communication with complainers, including provision of a single trauma-informed source of contact, which makes total sense given the evidence that we have heard, but I do not know if that is the point where I might want to register. I would like to know more about that and I am never clear about the relationship between that and victim support Scotland in the work that they do, but I would just like to mark that for future reference. Given the evidence that we had from complainers, the expansion of advocacy support services is maybe something that they would like to hear more about. My only point on specialist courts was that I understood that the specialist court proposal was for 10-year sentences, where the actual key issue box says, if one were to be established, could have unlimited sentencing powers. I do not recall the Government suggesting that they would be unlimited. I remember us questioning whether or not a specialist court should have a maximum sentence of 10 years. I wondered if that no problem with the principle of it, but that was not what was said to the committee. That is my recollection anyway, so I would not disagree with that. I am conscious of time, so if I may just keep us moving through up to page 18, which takes us on too big. Again, it is just that the use of the Moor of Doctrine sheriffs and judges should ensure that juries understand the consequences. Now, if you remember, I do not know who was in my group, but there was a big issue about a lack of understanding. The Moor of Doctrine is used more commonly, as my understanding for good reason to try and get convictions. The Crown Office said that they did not agree with the recommendation, but it does not really square with what is in the box, because it is not for them to see whether sheriffs and judges should explain it. I do accept when the Crown Office would say that it is undesirable for prosecutors to discuss hypotheticals. I am okay with what they have said, but there needs to be a separation out here of the role of the sheriffs and judges. I am absolutely clear in my own mind that that is a good thing to explain to juries the implications so that what we have heard about not conviction juries are clear about that. I am totally fine with that not being explained by the Crown. To me, there are two separate points and should be in two separate boxes. Otherwise, there will be confusion on that very important point. It has a big green completed on it, and I do not want to ruin anyone's happiness, but there is no response from the Lord President or from the court service about complaints, and about how people might get redress, not through non-respective judicial decisions, but in respect of conduct issues. I do not know whether they just did not choose to respond, or whether there is any desire to go back to them. That is helpful. It has been some historic issues with the judicial complaints process that resulted in the judicial complaints reviewer, the first one standing down saying that it was pretty toothless, so it is worth seeing if anything has changed. I am just going to move on to victims' rights and victim support. I am just going to go through them section by section rather than page by page, just in the spirit of timekeeping. In terms of victims' rights and support, starting from page 19, anything in that section that anybody wants to raise? All of the in-part, under-progress illusion is that the Government is conducting a review of the victims' task force, the victims' commissioner, etc. I just wonder when we expect the Government to come back in what format it will come back with. Is it a report? Will it be a parliamentary debate? Will it be legislation? Given that there are quite a lot of wide and varied issues—I do not want to go into them all in detail today—about the VNS and other issues around supporting victims, if the Government will come back with a specific victims strategy or in what format and in what timescale. That might perhaps take the pressure off us to chase on individual points. If there is nothing else in terms of victims' rights, moving on to reducing youth offending. Sorry, there was just one. On you go. On page 20, the Pro-Board did not respond. There was some data recently in which suggested that people who had applied to attend Pro-Hearing had all been turned down, so it would be nice to know what is going on. Anything in the section relating to reducing youth offending, offering community justice solutions and custody alternatives? So, we had the statement from Cabinet Secretary on 2 February about accepting all the recommendations, and so we will get an update on the summer 2022. I mean nothing to say other than just to highlight the importance of that statement, because if I recall, accepting all the recommendations means that the death in custody would be dealt with quicker and that the evidence gathered would be so—for by whether there is police investigation or not, there would be an immediate access to all the relevant information. The thing that struck me at the time was that I am very surprised that either Police Scotland or the Crown Office have not said anything about that, because there are two things running in parallel, which is, if you take some recent cases where there might have been criminal behaviour, the Alan Marshall case for example. In that case, that would mean that the word unfettered access to the prison and the staff to find out what happened would—does that sit well against the current situation, which is either you wait to see there's an FAI or a police prosecution? I mean, I'm for the recommendations, but I kind of was expecting that something else would clarify whether or not those two processes can sit alongside one another. And given the number of deaths we've had in custody, it's quite an important issue, but I just wanted to— Okay, thank you. Just picking up from Pauline's point, we've seen a 60 per cent increase year-on-year in deaths in custody. Each of those is subject to a fatal accident inquiry. The fatal accident inquiry is beset by chronic delays that predate Covid. Some of them can take years, and very few, I think, 90 per cent of FAIs make any form of recommendation in respect of deaths in custody. So, this just feels slightly superficial, as so much of this does because of the volume and the huge amount of ground that we're covering. But it would be very interesting to see what the Government is saying in summer 2022 and really how thorough and detailed it is, whether it's a tinkering or whether it's a serious look at trying to do something about this. Okay, thank you. And finally, legal aid. Any points anybody wants to make, Jamie? I can cover off 26. Everyone's got a frog in their throat this morning. Excuse me, because we're all sitting close together. Page 26 and 27. So, the first point is obviously information on the Government's plans. We have identified that there's still more clarity needed on the short-term measures that will be taken. It's obviously playing itself out in the wider domain, but there's clearly still substantial disagreement between the sector and the Government on this. And I think it's obviously something we need to keep a close eye on, and we'd invite representation from all parties on to update us on their views on this. It's all very well-reading about it in the times, but it'd be nice to hear from them in the formal setting of the committee. The other issue, if I may, is just around the PDSO and the role of the... I wasn't going to button on the point that Pauline McNeill made on Moore Doctrine, but I noted in the response from the Crown Office that they were very clear that they do not believe that the role of the Procurator of Fiscal is to inform complainers around potential outcomes and scenarios and why or how that may arise at a certain outcome. I think that that itself identifies the importance of the point of the PDSO and its potential role in improving that, because if the Crown Office is going to back back and say, sorry, it's not our job and it's not the prosecutor's role because that would be inappropriate, then it begs the question as to whose role it is, and this seems to me like the fact that this recognition has not been agreed to does leave a gap. And I think, as a committee, we need to look at pushing the Government in terms of, well, if this is not the mechanism, the body to better inform complainers what is and how are you going to address those issues, the very issues that the Moore Doctrine question raised. We agree that it is a complex part of law that it's important that people are clear of what the implications of it are, so, Pauline, quickly, if I may ask you. I get quite strong feelings about the PDSO insofar as I'm not in principle against it, but it's just my past experiences of it because, I suppose, Governments, successive Governments have tinkered with it. What I would prefer to see in that covers both PDSO and the issue of legal aid rates is that I would have thought, as a nation, we'd still want a criminal justice system that serves the interests of the accused, and that we should not lower the quality of that representation just because we've arrived at a point where we've got a mass problem that has been building up over a number of years, as to be said. I think that it's really important to get the Government maybe to recognise that point, regardless of the progress or the on-going discussions. I would like to hear them say, as part of the vision, that they believe that principle is important, which I think they have said, but I really think that it's important to me neither. The direction that we head in, whether it's more public funding, whatever path we take to resolve it, the principle continues to apply because what kind of justice system would it be if an accused person doesn't have the best quality of representation or a choice of representation or a deficient representation? Thank you everybody. That brings us to the end of the action plan. I appreciate your comments on that. Before we leave this agenda item, I'd like, if I may, to turn to paragraphs 11 to 13 in paper 2. Do members agree that we should take forward these suggestions? This includes the suggestion from the survivor that we met and that you spoke about earlier, Jamie, that we should raise their case about the fees charged for accessing court records with the Lord President. Are members agreed that we pick that up and take that forward? Just very quickly, I've had past experience of trying to obtain court transcripts and it's not easy, if not impossible. I'm not surprised at the experience of the survivor. I do wonder if it's designed not to be easy because I don't see any good reason why transcripts shouldn't be freely available. Okay, so thanks for that, Collette. On that, you do. I think that when we visited the High Court, I asked a question to the Lord President about judging the sentencing statements on the websites and why they choose to have them on there, but it's not quite clear in terms of what she's asking for there. Is it the transcripts or is it everything in its totality in relation to that case? The transcripts, if you look at the Crown website as well, I think I picked up on that. I might be wrong and I might not be looking in the right place, but there seems to be an element of a lot of information there to do with criminal appeal cases, and very little. It's just how and why do they publish them in that sense, and is it down to confidentiality that there's no rhyme or reason to be just like more information as to what is on the public domain there, because almost is the transcript from that court case? I don't think it is clear, and it's maybe part of the request that we send to the Lord President very quickly. The idea that a victim should have to pay £3,000 or £4,000 to get access to records, everything that we've just said this morning will be online by 9 o'clock tomorrow, I mean it's utterly ridiculous, but just to the wider point around what we do next with the discussion that we've just had, I think clearly there are a number of issues that raised not just those in paragraphs 11 to 13, which were before we had the discussion, so I would appreciate if we collated those, if the clerks could help us to collate those, and write to the Government about the general feedback that we've given today. Okay, thank you very much. We're just a wee bit over time at this point, so I appreciate your comments, and obviously we'll be returning to the action plan before summer recess just to see what further progress is being made on the points that we have picked up and the recommendations that we've previously made, so I appreciate that. Okay, so our next agenda item is consideration of five statutory instruments. They are the Crime International Cooperation Act of 2003, freezing order Scotland regulations of 2022, and that's SSI number 95 of 2022. The Farman's Pensions Scheme, amendment Scotland order of 2022, that's SSI number 79 of 2022. The Police Pensions Commutation Amendment Scotland regulations of 2022, SSI number 80 of 2022. The Police Pensions Scotland amendment regulations of 2022, that's SSI number 101 of 2022. Finally, the Far Fighters Pensions Scheme, Scotland amendment regulations of 2022, that's SSI number 103 of 2022. I'll take a bit of a deep breath. I refer members to papers 325, and for the record, I just remind members that I'm a former police officer with Grampian Police and Police Scotland. Paper 3 relates to the Crime International Cooperation Act of 2003, freezing order EU exit Scotland regulations of 2022, SSI number 95 of 2022, and there are three decisions we need to make on this particular SSI. Number one, if we agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that the use of the negative procedure is appropriate. Number two, if we agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that the Scottish Government is correct to assess this instrument of being of low significance for the reason that the instrument contains minor and technical changes and relates to continuity of law without any actual change to policy. And three, if we have any further comments to make on it. So do members have any comments or are we content? No, just on the first one. Okay, thank you very much. Paper 4 covers the next two instruments. So there are the Farman's Pensions Scheme Amendment Scotland order of 2022, and that's SSI number 79 of 2022, and the Police Pensions Commutation Amendment Scotland regulations of 2022, and that's SSI number 80 of 2022. So do members have any comments they wish to make? Otherwise, we will consider these SSIs as coming into force. Yes. So members may be aware recently that there was some press stuff on the changes to the police pension. Now I've already written to the chief constable about this, who I believe is concerned about the exodus of police officers, which is totally understandable, because the changes which I understand are apparently legally necessary encourages them to go, and we're going to lose 100s of police officers aged 50. And whilst there's no additional cost to the public purse, according to the SSI, like that's correct, it would be remiss not to note, I think, that this SSI relates to something that's of deep concern to running our police service, and in no way am I, you know, I think I've said already that it's quite understandable that police officers are going to take their debate, but we're going to be a huge skills deficit in Police Scotland, and for, I think, a future point, I'd like to suggest that we may want to think about how the committee would want to try and address that with the Government and with Police Scotland. Okay, thank you. Russell? Thank you. Just continuing on from that, the media stuff, I don't know if it's in any detail, because apparently I'm told that they expected something in the region of 20 to 30 per cent of those who could apply, which I believe numbers about 1700, but in terms of about 80 per cent of those have applied, so it clearly does have serious potential implications. Yeah, I'm certainly aware of the recent media coverage and the sort of inferred link between the two, so that's probably something that is appropriate for us to monitor. Jamie, did you want to go on? I mean, I won't oppose the SSI who might stand in the way of someone's retirement, but I think that the point that we could follow on from is the requesting of the Government and Police Scotland the strategy on recruitment and some data around it and the time lags involved in that, so increases in intake at the police college and when those people could become operational, so that we are looking ahead to make sure that there's not a lag in resource in Police Scotland, because that any potential of that is something that we need to keep our eye on. Yeah, I think that what sort of recruitment mitigation is being put in place. Okay, thanks very much. So are we anything else that anybody wants to otherwise consider these SSIs that I've just gone through? Given what Jamie Gain has said, I mean, I'm not suggesting that I'm going to vote against it, but I mean, theoretically, we don't think we can, because I think it's a legal requirement. It just kind of feels like whether we vote for or against it, does it make any difference, because I feel like our hands are tied. Even if I was inclined to vote against it so that we could maybe get the timeline so that I knew exactly what I was voting for as a legislator, I kind of feel, well, there's a legal requirement on us, but the note doesn't say that, so we'd be helpful to get that. Do you think that to come in, just clarify that? Yeah, well, the only point I should clarify on the record that if any member does want to suggest that this instrument doesn't come into force, then you'd be required to lodge a motion of a null to annul the instrument, excuse me, in the chamber desk, and the committee is required to report on this instrument by the 27th of April. So, if someone is so minded to suggest that this instrument doesn't come into force, you would need to speak to the chamber desk between now and the 27th and order that this could go on the agenda next week as a formal suggestion that the instrument doesn't come into force. Otherwise, the instrument will come into force, so you have to lodge a motion to annul before the 27th so that the committee can take that if you don't want this instrument and its provisions to come into force. Okay, thank you. Pauline, are you content with that? I'm content with that, but given what we already know, I think that it would be helpful. I'm not intending to do that, by the way, but I think that we need to know what the legal position is, because what is the point of laying a motion to annul if we have a kind of legal obligation because this arose from a court case, and Russell Findlay is quite correct. Will press reports suggest that 80 per cent of police officers have already applied with 1,700 people eligible? Can you imagine that? I feel that the note before us doesn't really reflect the enormity of what the Parliament has been asked to sign off, which I feel that we have no choice, but I think that it's really important to say that we feel that what choice do we have? Okay, I accept the points that they're making, and they're obviously shared by other members, so I'm happy for us to pick this up offline and look at this more closely. It's a very valid issue to raise. Okay, finally, Collette Lee, you want to come in? I don't know. I was just done what you're saying, Pauline, but there's a result. This is the first, a two-pieces subordinate legislation that's coming through, so it might be worth pursuing that and answering some of the questions that you have just raised, because there's two aspects to it, but the heart of it is about levelling up in terms of the McLeod judgment and the discrimination that came about. Okay, and that brings me on to, obviously, paper five, which covers the final two instruments that relate to this, and they are the Police Pensions Scotland amendment regulations of 2022, that's SSI number 101 of 2022, and the Firefighters Pensions Scheme Scotland amendment regulations of 2022, and that's SSI number 103 of 2022. Do members have any comments over and above what we've perhaps already discussed that they wish to make? Otherwise, we will consider these SSIs as coming into force, but obviously agreeing that we'll take some further, we'll look at this further offline in relation to the unintended consequence perhaps of it. Members happy with that in agreement? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, that completes our consideration of the SSIs, and that also concludes the public part of our meeting, and we'll now move into private session and we'll have a short five-minute suspension. Thank you very much.