 Ilyw mwyn i amgylch mewn gwneud y chymuchwyd yn 14 cwritoriol. We have no apologies this morning, and I ask everyone to please ensure that their mobile phones are switched silent, and if you can wait for the sound engineer to switch your microphone on before speaking. Our first item is to agree whether to take item 5 in private, And whether our work programme reviews of evidence held and our approach to forthcoming выб 머�項 legislation should be considered in private at future meetings? Does anybody disagree? Thank you very much. Our next item of business is the continuation of our consideration of evidence on efforts to improve the ways in which be prosecute violence against women and girls and also how we the survivors of such crimes, and I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I'm pleased to welcome to today's meeting two senior representatives from Police Scotland, Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham of the Crime and Operational Support Division, and Detective Chief Superintendent Sam Falls, head of the Public Protection Unit within the Specialist Crime Division. I'd like to allow up to an hour for this panel, but before I start, I'll just go through some a few practical points. This is a fully virtual meeting, and I intend to use chat function as the means of communicating between us. If you do want to come in, please type an hour in the chat function, and I'll bring you in if time allows. If we do lose connection at any point with a member or a key witness, I'll suspend the meeting and we'll try and get them back. If we can't do so after a reasonable period of time, I'll have to deem the member as not present and we'll continue. If we do lose connection to me, our deputy convener will take over convening, and if we lose him too, our colleague Rona Mackay will step in as our temporary convener with the committee's agreement. Please, can everyone keep their questions and answers as succinct as possible? If there are no questions at this point, we'll make a start. I refer members to the order of questions sheet. I'd like to open up this morning's session and come to you, DCC Graham. If I may ask just a little bit about Lady Dorian's review. In the written evidence that was submitted to the committee's round table on violence against women and girls back in September, Police Scotland listed the recommendations that they supported from Lady Dorian's review on the management of sexual offences cases, including, for example, the creation of a specialist court for serious cases, independent legal representation for complainers and single judge trials in rape cases. Can I ask you, DCC Graham, a little bit about what action Police Scotland has already taken to date in response to the recommendations bearing in mind that the report was first published back in March this year? I can bring you in. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning to everyone. I thank you very much for the opportunity to the session today. Sorry that we can't be with you in person, which I'm sure everybody shares with the sudden uptake in Omicron. It's a hugely valuable process that you're going through in terms of listening to victims and survivors' experiences, and it's critical to informing the shape of future and current work that Police Scotland is leading. It builds on work that we have been doing. I think that you're aware for many years, and most recently, just before this process started, the chief constable met with TCS Falls and others through Raid Crisis Scotland with survivors and heard the brave accounts of experiences and the valuable feedback that we have used to shape our both thinking and action. In relation to Lady Dorian's report, some elements that you've covered are less directly within the gift of Police Scotland to shape and influence at pace. The main thing that I would focus on, which is more within our gift, certainly in the earlier stages, is the visual recording of interviews to allow evidence to be given through that means. We have been involved in setting up and running a test of change, which commenced relatively shortly after the report was published and which just ended during the course of last month in which the evaluation is now being done. It's my full expectation that, following that test of change in three of the local policing divisions in Police Scotland, we will seek to look at the evaluation and see what worked well and what didn't. However, it's a direction of travel that we are fully supported and effectively engaged in, and I fully anticipate that that will roll out further. I think that the challenges to that are, as we will no doubt come to on other points, and as I alluded to in some of other Lady Dorian's recommendations, that this needs system-wide change. While we can record the interviews and there are some challenges for us in terms of making sure that we have appropriately skilled staff that would give them the time and space, the experience and the support to do those interviews in a way that's firstly going to gather the evidence properly and secondly going to support traumatised victims, there are cost implications for us, which we are working through in terms of ensuring that we have the resource to spend on the roll-out of new technology. More important, perhaps, for this committee, the material that we will produce, which will be high-quality, large-volume digital material, needs to be able to be shared and accessed across the criminal justice system in a way that commensurate with disclosure obligations and in a way that also treats the nature of the material and the rights of victims with all the safeguards that you would expect. At the moment, the system, through the Crown Office Procure Fiscal Service and into the Court Service and the Judiciary, isn't yet ready to do that fully, so I think that we are pushing ahead and we're engaged in the digital evidence-sharing programme, which all of the justice system is signed up to the police are leading and through measures like that and investment in the technology will make sure that these things happen in the future. Thank you very much, Mr Graham. I'm pleased to hear this update in particular around the visual recording of interviews and to take your point around the challenge of being part of a system change. In terms of pushing ahead with some of those changes, do you have a kind of timeframe in terms of what requires to be done to put visual recording in place, in particular around serious and sexual offences and interviews? There are three aspects to it. The first aspect is ensuring that we have the technical equipment and that we can get suitable facilities and understand quite rightly that there's been feedback on some of the police Scotland estate and facilities that victims of serious sexual crime and rape are interviewed in. We want to make sure that we are seriously looking at investing in that state as we move towards visual recording of interviews to ensure that people are as comfortable that they're in as suitable a setting as possible in such a difficult time in their life. That's then sort of complemented by the investment in the technology that's required. It's not just recording devices, it's really the infrastructure that sits behind that to manage the volume of data that is effectively gathered. That's the first area. I don't think that that's going to be the limiting factor in terms of pace going forward because we're well advanced with that. I think that the second factor is the skills and the training that we need to give to sexual offences, liaison officers. We commenced that in May of this year. We've already trained a large number of the solo cadre of the people that are involved in the pilots. I think that we've trained all the solos in those areas. I think that we've actually conducted 230 plus interviews during the course of the pilot, so it gives us a really good number to evaluate. We will of course feedback into that training loop and make sure that we get feedback from some of the trusted agencies in effect who are feeding back victims and survivors' experience to us so that we can shape that as we go. Again, I think that that's making good progress and we have plans to roll that out, commensurate with the evaluation. The third area is the point that I raised earlier about the wider justice system ability to absorb and use the material in the way that it's intended for. As a benefit, it can see its way through to the criminal justice system at the points where it's going to make a difference to the experience that a victim has and hopefully improve both the opportunities of evidence being used in the way that it's intended, as well as ensuring that the victims' experience is improved from those accounts that we've heard. The Scottish Government has convened a group now and have written, I believe that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to Lord Carlyway just in the course of the last two weeks. I am attending the first meeting of the group that the Scottish Government is convening next week to set up the procedures for how the wider considerations in Lady Dorian's report will be addressed collectively and collaboratively. Therefore, the timescales for that are not yet set. We certainly look forward to updates on how that particular area of work is progressing. I'm going to move things on now. I'd like members to open up some questions around taking statements. I'll bring in Collette Stevenson and then Pauline McNeill. Over to you, Collette. Good morning and thanks very much to our two witnesses from Police Scotland. As you'll probably be aware, we had a private session with victims of sexual crime, variant greas of it, and it's a quite powerful testament that they brought forward. I really just wanted to ask you some questions about your process in terms of taking statements and what information is provided to the complainer. If you could just give me a wee bit of insight, even just a walkthrough. If I present it to you today as a complainer of a sexual or violent crime, what would that expect to say from Police Scotland? Okay, thanks very much. I'm mindful of the experience that you've had in listening to and understanding the experience of survivors who have come forward. I've said that we really value that feedback and I've looked carefully at the reports coming from the committee, as well as all the experiences that we've put in place. The first thing I want to say, I suppose, is that we are actively exploring more structured and sustainable mechanisms for ensuring that we continue to listen, understand and reflect on victim experiences. It's hugely valuable getting that insight and I'm in active discussions with a number of groups who are keen to work with us in that regard. In terms of your question, I'll perhaps come to DCS Falls, as well, to provide a little bit more detail in that. Broadly speaking, there is a pathway that victims should experience when they come forward from the first point of making a report. It's likely that they will do that through a report being made by telephone. At that point, the people who answer calls and make assessments on prioritisation are trained both at a basic level in terms of trauma informed approaches, but also in terms of the steps that they need to take if somebody is reporting a serious sexual offence like a rape. That will be assessed by a supervisor and then it will be passed out for dispatch to an officer to attend as an emergency response in the instance of being a recent event and in the event of something that is perhaps non-recent. There may be an arrangement made at a more suitable time for the individual contact in the police to be seen directly by a specialist officer. In the case of a recent event, there is comprehensive guidance, which is in effect a set of things that an attending officer needs to do to ensure that they take account of medical and other welfare needs of the victim, that they take an initial account of what's happened to be able to assess the nature of what we're dealing with and that they capture any early evidence. On the back of some of the feedback that we've had recently, we have strengthened that advice because we recognise that at that point it needs to be every officer in Police Scotland that is trained and competent to do that work. Of course, a lot of those reports will come through a different route. They don't necessarily come through somebody phoning up and directly reporting what's happened. It may start off, for instance, with the report of a domestic assault, which then develops into an understanding of the being of sexual crime or a rape, for instance. Through the course of that, the route would still be the same, that there will be referral into a specialist department within a local policing division, and that specialist department will deploy a sexual offences liaison officer, who's a specially trained officer, to ensure that they then take a statement and gather all the evidence, as well as informing the victim at that time of what is likely to happen during the course of this process and what's likely to happen thereafter. Again, we've strengthened the information that's provided to victims at that point and the need, which has been consistent feedback to keep in touch with victims thereafter. There's an awful lot more detail that I could go into because the question is very broad and I'm conscious of time, so I won't do that, but I'd be very happy to answer any more detail points on bits that I might have covered at fairly high level, or indeed, as I suggested earlier, perhaps invite DCS Folds to provide some more detail on elements of that process that you're particularly interested in. Yeah, thank you very much for that response, and could I bring DCS Folds in and basically ask the same question and just explore her understanding of it? I don't know if we've got DCS Folds. Can you hear us okay? Good morning. Yeah, we can hear you now. Go ahead. All right, thank you. It's been covered very comprehensively by the Deputy Chief Constable there. What I would say is that the DCC has covered the various routes that we can get these reports on the fact that they're assessed in terms of threat, risk and harm, whether it's recent or non-recent, and there are a number of impact factors, for example, whether the incident falls within a forensic window. Regardless, we take on board, we have regular contact with the rape crisis Scotland and the various rape crisis support organisations across the country, the teams across the country and other advocacy services, and we take on board all the feedback that we get from them. In the actual fact, what has been reassuring is that we always listen to that and we do take it on board and we feed any positive and negative feedback that gets passed back to the SIO cadre, the Senior Investigating Officer cadre, et cetera, to make sure that we continuously work to improve our response to victims. In the last year or two, the feedback has been causative in the majority, but we always welcome that negative or critical feedback so that we can learn from that. In terms of that initial response, we recently just this year refreshed and updated our initial briefing report, which is completed by the initial attending officers who go out and engage with the victim in the first instance. That briefing report provides clear and unequivocal guidance for the first responder police officers following the report of rape or serious sexual crime. That includes guidance on minimum standards of information that's required, guidance in respect of the use of early evidence kits, for example, forensic medical examination and rape crisis Scotland deferrals. It's a template to record any evidence that's seized at that point. After that, a solo officer will be deployed, so that IBR of that initial briefing report only captures the basic details because what we have tried to develop and improve is a victim-centred trauma-informed approach to this. We understand the impact of trauma. We try to train officers to understand the impact of trauma. A specialist officer, as the DCC mentioned, is a sexual offensives liaison officer who is specially trained while then being deployed to make contact with the victim and make arrangements to take a statement at a point that is suitable for the victim themselves, so that we're not retraumatising them or trying not to. However, as I said, we have had meetings with rape crisis. We've had a meeting with the survivors reference group. It's absolutely disappointing and disheartening to hear that people have had negative experiences, but those negative experiences that they're willing to share with us inform what we're doing and we're trying to learn from that and improve. Okay. Thanks very much for that, DCC. I just want to quickly come in and it was more or less a question slash observation that I made. I put forward to our witnesses from last week's committee and it was in terms of the feedback that we got from the survivor group and the disjointed approach and an expectation gap there in terms of reporting a sexual crime. One of the things was that within rape crisis Scotland there's a video there for it. I think that it's on YouTube. It's our survivor's guide to Scottish justice. Is that something that you currently use within your website or do you direct any complainers towards that? Is there something that you currently have in order to support that? Because I personally find that really helpful, albeit that the reality sometimes doesn't match up with the process. DCS folk, would you like to come back in very briefly if you would? Yes, thanks, convener. I'm personally aware of that video. I have watched it. It's been part of my training in the past and I am aware that other officers have seen it. What I would say is that I'm not sure if it's on our own internet and I will take that back and check, but if I've seen it and other colleagues I know have seen it, I'm sure that it actually forms part of the training. It is a very helpful resource and we always signpost rape victims. They are always asked if they would like a referral to rape crisis Scotland. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much indeed. If I can just ask for succinct questions and answers. We have until just before 10.30 this morning and I know that members have got quite a lot of questions that they'd like to get through. I'll hand over to Pauline McNeill and then I'll bring in Rona Mackay. Pauline McNeill. Thank you very much, convener. The first question that I have relates to DNA results. We heard from one survivor who told us that it took a year. I'm imagining that that's unusual, but I wonder if you could tell me if there's a window of certain timescale for DNA results, because we were advised or told by the survivor that the case could not proceed without that. I just wanted to get your answer on whether there was any other concerns in the system about getting quicker evidence in DNA results. Yeah, I'm happy to come in and answer that question in relation to forensics. First of all, it's important to say that every forensic examination is prioritised against threat risk and opportunity. It isn't a case of just sending a sample or a set of samples to be tested and waiting for one set of results. It's often an iterative process where different samples will be examined for different things at different stages during the course of an investigation, so it certainly wouldn't be the case that a set of samples would be taken, submitted for testing, where it was critical that there was an answer for how we could progress, and there would be a delay of a year, in, for instance, a rape, not tall, but it might be the case that through the course of a series of examinations that process takes some time. In terms of prioritisation, rape and sexual crime comes very high in that prioritisation list, along with other unsolved major investigations such as murders, where there isn't anything that we would prioritise more highly, and where we're looking at delays in forensic examinations more routinely and there has been some public reporting on that, it's likely to be round about high volume drugs offenses, for instance, in drugs examinations, or in less serious crimes where, for instance, we could solve things like housebreakings or accusative crime through perhaps DNA examination, and they would clearly not be prioritised to the same extent as rape and sexual crime. In terms of timescales, I don't have concerns that they are limiting cases in any way. The data shows us that clearly. I think that what we do need to do, and we've received this feedback before and Sam's alluded to our desire to improve this, is to make sure that we are explaining fully perhaps the complexity of some of the examination considerations and process to victims with samples from different opportunities, whether from a forensic examination of themselves or whether from clothing and other items. It can be hugely complex in any single case. Make sure that we're explaining that as much detail as is appropriate. We're also updating complainers to make sure that they understand why those timescales might be what they are and to make sure that we are able to give them confidence that reporting will come in good time for other elements of whatever process is playing out. I think that those points are well made. Pauline MacDonald, back to you. Thank you. Just a quick question to DS Walds. You talked about the specialist sexual offences as liaison officers, does every complainer get access to that or is that just getting there? I do apologise that the moderator was muting and then unmuting and the machine was talking over you, Ms McNeill. Did you repeat the question? You mentioned in answer to Claire Stevenson that there were sexual offence officers who took statements when it was more suitable for the victim. Does that happen in every case? I'm not being clear. The sexual offence liaison officer will always be deployed to a victim of rape on every occasion. What I'm saying is that the time and date of taking the statement would be at a time suitable for the victim wherever possible and where the threat, risk and harm allows that to happen. In every case of rape being reported, we will deploy a solo officer and we have a significant cadre of solos across the force, in excess of 700 specially trained officers across the force. That's really helpful to know that. Perhaps, DS Walds, I'm just going to maybe fall at my last question and might be to you perhaps. The potential use of recorded police interviews is something that the committee has heard about. I wondered if I, yourself or Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham could tell the committee how that might go forward. I do recall a time when there was such a thing as a precognition statement taken to all witnesses, but that doesn't seem to happen anymore. What will that actually be? In terms of the visually recorded interview or aim, it's not just our aim, it's the aim of the Crown Office procurator fiscal service and the court service. Everybody involved in that ultimately prevents witnesses or victims from having to attend at court and give evidence. If we record a visually recorded statement, that allows that evidence to be tested and evidence to be given on commission. The DCC mentioned the test of change that we were running. We've been running that for two years now in three areas. We've evaluated it from a police interview perspective. We're still waiting on that to be tested in court because there have been very obvious impacts on the court process and delays on that going through. However, we are continuing to run those VRIs and the feedback that we've had from them and from victims has been very positive. That is a more positive and supportive experience for them. In our view, we would like to be in a position to VRI every witness, but that wanted to be VRIs. It's just those interdependencies that the DCC already mentioned that are currently holding us back from that. However, our aim is to roll that out nationally. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'll now bring in Rona Mackay and then followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I just wanted to follow up on the questions from my colleagues there and to say that what you've put forward as the process sounds very encouraging. However, I'd like to put forward some of the evidence that we heard during our sessions and just to say that the process that you described certainly wasn't happening in this instance. We heard that survivors are often given asked to provide statements whether in a traumatised state officers didn't make them aware of the support available. One said that it was a solo male officer who took the statement and the process took hours. They weren't allowed to have a break or have a drink of water and then they were immediately given a forensic examination. I found all that pretty shocking, because I don't think that you need to be specially trained to know that that's not very considerate treatment. I suppose that my question is that if you hear of a situation in which the guidance wasn't followed, and that may be an extreme case, what action would you take? What redress does the complainer have if they've experienced a situation like that? How do they make it known to you that the guidance wasn't followed and do they have any redress? If I could ask DCC Malcolm Graham first and then maybe comment the faults after that. Thanks very much. I was aware of that example from reading the report. I suppose that just to repeat what I said about our desire to hear that kind of feedback and make sure that we've got means of doing that, I fully recognise that anybody who comes to report to the police, and clearly not everybody does who is a victim, which is an issue in itself, but when people do get to the point of coming to report to the police, it's highly likely that they will be in a traumatised state and that they will be in that state for a long period of time. It's not something that's necessarily going to be something that people can transition out of quickly. For us to recognise that and deal with the things that are going to best support them through the police, and then the criminal justice process needs to recognise how we do that in a trauma-informed way. I think that explaining the process, making sure that people have a choice of a female offensive liaison officer, making sure that there are breaks and water avail, these are all very basic things that I would expect to be in place on every occasion. If they're not in place on some occasions, then of course we would like to hear about that, but I also understand why people who are the victims at that state are unlikely to want to flag that at the time or find the means easily to do that. Therefore, that's why we have in place all the systems that we have with particularly rape crisis Scotland a structured approach of gathering feedback from victims about the experience with souls. The feedback from that is overwhelmingly positive. In over 80 per cent of examples, it's extremely positive. In the cases where it's not, we always pick up the issues, we play it back into individuals and we make sure that it's fed back to, if there's a team in a particular division or area with supervision at the time, but we also ensure that it's built into policy and practice going forward. The final thing that I would say is that it is an awful time in people's lives and to go back to that point about people being traumatised, we recognise that and to go through giving an account of what has happened to you to do it in what will be an unusual or unfamiliar environment and to have to undergo a forensic examination are never going to be pleasant experiences for anybody. I can only seek to appreciate that from listening to the experiences of others as I have done and make sure that we do everything we can to minimise any kind of further trauma that would come to people from that. Of course, the visually recorded interview is a part of that, to ensure that, as DCS Falls has already said, in the future people will only need to give that account once and that we get that account at the time that is most suitable and we're doing everything that we can to hear the feedback on the points that you've raised to address that through action in our part and to minimise any further trauma to victims at what is a horrendously difficult time in their lives. That's helpful. I'm not sure if DCS Falls wants to come in or she may have answered it in her earlier response. I think that there's probably one other part that I would add to that and we don't always get it right and we acknowledge that and one victim having a poor experience with us is one victim too many, but the whole feedback process has been reviewed this year in consultation with Rape Crisis Scotland and other advocacy services to capture feedback from victims in the broader violence against women and girls environment and what we're looking to do is set up structured feedback for all those services so that it's qualitative and that we can capture the learning in as quicker time as possible to inform the training and the guidance moving forward. That is something that has been under review for the last few months, particularly during COVID to make sure that we are capturing that feedback. Thank you very much. That's helpful. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Rona. Jamie, would you like to come in and then we'll move on to looking at trauma-informed training? Jamie, back to you. Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone. I just wanted to follow on this line of questioning. I won't elongate it too much because I think that you've covered a lot and there seems to be a general acceptance that, of course, things always don't go well 100 per cent of the time in every case that doesn't go well and I'm sure is unfortunate. I think that what struck members of the committee was just the scale and the volume of feedback that we got that was negative rather than that this seemed to be isolated incidents. The whole experience of reporting an incident like this does seem to be quite traumatic. I wanted to ask two quick things. The first one is just whether you think—or what improvements you think could be made around the environment in which crimes of this nature reported. Given that we tend to take place at certain time of day, on certain days of the week, so weekends during the night or early in the mornings, that some of the witnesses or indeed the victims may themselves be intoxicated or under the influence voluntarily or otherwise, and of course that during the night some of the officers at the front desk and on the front line maybe are not as trauma informed as other officers would be other times of day. Is there anything more that the police could do to ensure that that first point of contact isn't as traumatic and scary as it seems to be for many victims? That is directed at anyone who wants to respond. The short answer to that is yes, there could be improvements made. I look back as I do over all of the issues that we are discussing over nearly 30 years in policing and the changes that we have made have been seismic in terms of the approach towards victims, recognising the impact of trauma, the attitudes and behaviours of police officers and staff and the culture and the organisation has improved seismically, and I do not use those words lightly, but it is really clear that there are more improvements to make from the feedback that we are getting at the current time. I do not necessarily identify, I think that you have spoken to a number of victims whose experiences are undoubtedly those that have happened to them, but I think that with the broader feedback that we get, I would contextualise that in a very large amount of positive feedback about people's experiences as well, which go back to my earlier answer. It is an incredibly challenging time in people's lives. In terms of improvements, there are probably two things that I would say. The first is more general awareness and training, which we are engaged in as an organisation about trauma-informed approaches and the respect and human elements of addressing the needs of somebody who presents themselves at whatever time and in whatever circumstances so that we can ensure that person's needs are best met. Secondly, there is the point about our specially trained officers having a much higher level of understanding and the time and space in the right facilities to ensure that people's needs are met. Part of that is about skills training, which we are going through with our sexual offence liaison officers, and we are partway through that. It is now a key element that there are two days in the sexual offence liaison officer course that are entirely dedicated to trauma-informed approaches and, of course, estates and facilities in ensuring that it is welcoming and as conducive an environment as possible when we get to recording VRIs, etc. That is a key part of that as well. I acknowledge that there is more work to do, but I would also want to note that there has been a huge amount of work and improvement that has been made in a lot of those issues already. Thank you for that response. I know that we are going to come on to the issue of training and other questions on that, but my scenario that I paint is of four or five in the morning on a Saturday into Sunday. What is the likelihood of someone who has had that robust and comprehensive training being at hand in a local police station in the middle of nowhere who maybe only takes a couple of incidents like this a year? Is it more likely that we will see that sort of response in our large cities where the volume is higher or where you simply have more staff on duty and that those in rural environments or small towns will be less likely to get that sort of trauma-informed approach? It is a fair point to raise that we are certainly acutely aware of the potential for there being different responses because of rural or remote locations, but at times that can improve the response that people get as well. Our plan is to ensure that every officer member of staff gets a basic level of awareness around trauma-informed approaches and that specialist officers are available in every location, whether they are rural, remote or urban, across the whole of Scotland, and that is currently the case. Of course, it might take a little bit longer to get a sexual offences liaison officer to someone in a very remote area, but again, there are measures in place to ensure that that is the case. There are other challenges that are well reported, which we have been working as a part of, to ensure that people get access to suitable medical and forensic examination facilities as well in some of those areas, which I think are at times even more challenging and which we have been working through with some Scottish Government and NHS-led work, which is still continuing. I think that BCS Folds wants to come in as well. I will add to what the DCC is saying. We give very clear guidance about not obtaining statements from a very traumatised or a victim. You mentioned, Mr Greene, about a victim who was perhaps under the influence of alcohol during the night. That is what I mentioned earlier about that we take initial details for an initial briefing document to allow a senior investigating officer to deploy a specialist officer, and that would happen later in the morning, and there would be contact. I do not really recognise that. I absolutely accept that that has happened. That is a survivor's experience, and they have shared that with us and with ourselves. However, I would probably question when that happened, because the guidance in the last two years has been that that should not be happening. Obviously, where it does, we will pick that up and, hopefully, respond to that individual appropriately if they want to raise that with us. We would welcome them raising that with us. That is very helpful. Thank you for that. I know that we are tight for time, convener. Do you have time for one more question, and then I will have to pass on to others? Yes, absolutely. We will be able to extend the session by about 15 minutes, but, if again I can remind everyone for succinct questions and answers, that would be helpful. That is you, Jamie. Thank you. It is a short question, but it may be a difficult one. Last, in the year 2019-20, there were around 2,300 reported rapes in Scotland, reported to police, of which around 300 went to prosecution and around 130 were successfully prosecuted. We all know that that is a ratio that I think everyone wants to change and improve. What role do you think that the police can play in that? Obviously, taking over an initial statement is only one bit of it. There has to be more evidence gathering and a robust case being given to the Crown to improve those prosecution rates. Can I just ask what you think more the police could do to ensure that that ratio improves in the coming years? No, thank you. I certainly agree with you that we have all got the ambition to see that rate increase. The part that the police play is in gathering the evidence and ensuring that the material for the case is prepared to the highest of standards, is reported into the Crown, and we remain involved in ensuring that further evidence is gathered to support any prosecution. The number of rapes that are reported to the Crown is higher than it has ever been. I am not entirely sure, but it is certainly higher than it has been in recent years, at nearly 55 per cent during the first six months of this year. That is a remarkably high level. I acknowledge the number of prosecutions that are ultimately resulting in a binding of guilt through the courts is lower than people would want to see. I think that we should recognise some of the unique challenges in these cases in terms of the nature and availability of evidence compared with perhaps some other cases that have been well rehearsed. That said, there are some systemic challenges that have been well recognised. I think that the recommendations in Lady Doreen's report that we talked about earlier are seeking to address that in many ways and to be fully supportive of doing everything that we can to improve those. Specifically, what the police can do in addition to the commitment that we have already spoken about in Lady Doreen's report. I think that everything that we have spoken about today will contribute towards ensuring that those things that I mentioned earlier are achieved. The victims feel able to come forward in the first place to have confidence in the police and the criminal justice system needs some work, and we have spoken about that already. We know that there is a high level of underreporting for under recording of those crimes, and we need to do as much as we can to ensure that people do come forward. Again, there has been a steady trend despite a small drop in the midst of the initial stages of the pandemic, which I would attribute to the pandemic. There has been a steady trend of substantive increases in reporting and recording, a large portion of which I would put down to the victim confidence and the support that we have through a number of victim support and advocacy agencies in being a route into policing. I think that other things that we can do have covered largely already in terms of the professional trauma-informed approaches of officers to supporting victims' needs and making sure that we are gathering evidence to the highest of standards. As techniques and knowledge development in those areas can only be a good thing in terms of the likelihood of those contributing towards those aims that we share. Thanks very much. Jamie, do you have anything else that you would like to pick up on? No, other than to add some commentary to our DCS follow-ups. DCS follow-ups, would you like to come in? Yes, very quickly. The only other thing that I would add to that is that in the last few years we have developed significantly the proactive approach, which police officers are identifying victims and making a proactive approach to them and affording them the opportunity to report matters that they maybe never have previously reported. That is a very effective tactic that often allows us to gather corroboration and report cases to Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Obviously, we have tried to develop impact of prevention campaigns and work with other partners in terms of education as well, so that is the only part that I would add to that. I will move swiftly on, and I will bring in Fulton MacGregor to ask some questions about trauma-informed training, which I know that we have been covering off. Over to you, Fulton. Thanks, convener. As you said, the issues around trauma-informed training and practice have been quite well covered in the responses to my colleagues Jamie Greene and Rona Mackay throughout the session. I am in no way bothered about that, because I am in no way precious about my questioning, because it is good that both officers have come on and proactively talked about the trauma-informed training that they are doing. They are both aware that Lady Dorian recommended a one consistent trauma-informed source of contact from the outset. We are hearing today a wee bit about the LAs and officers. They could perhaps work to that, but they could perhaps fit into that model. I suppose that my question would be trying to find a new question around that, because, as I say, it has been covered. How do we get those specialist officers to the individual as quickly as possible? Some of the issues that we have heard as well will be a general level of training throughout the whole force and the various different criminal justice agencies. It might not always be to the same standard as those specialist officers, so how can we get them quickly and how long can they stay with the victim or the complainer or whatever word you want to use? How long can they stay with them in the process? I will kick off the acknowledgement of some of the other discussions that we have already had. I think that the role of the sexual offences liaison officer has been a huge improvement since it was introduced many years ago. The evolution and investment in that role has provided that single point of contact, but those individuals also have welfare and wellbeing needs. Although a lot of them I consistently see, and I am sure that DCS Falls will back that up from her own experience as well, I consistently see people making themselves available outwith duty hours and having mobile contact with victims. We need to make sure that people are not necessarily available 24 hours a day, seven days a week as individuals, because we need to make sure that they are also able to get some rest and recuperation from what is extremely demanding and challenging work for them. It may be the case that, although there is a single point of contact, that person is not always going to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I do not think that anyone would expect that they should be, so we need to make sure that there are other arrangements in place to ensure that people know who to contact and know that there have been understandable concerns about getting through to the right person through the 101 system. We are looking at that to ensure that there is some consistency in the eventuality of a solo not being immediately available. On the point of them being available for rapid deployment, I have not heard that that has been an issue in terms of the need of availability. I think that, in some cases, timing is one to be carefully considered. It is not always the case that you would want to get somebody out immediately. It might be better for the victim that somebody is available when it best suits them, particularly in non-recent cases that do make up about a third of those rapes that are reported to us. Therefore, consideration of when and where the most appropriate time on a case-by-case basis is really important. However, I have not heard any experiences that would suggest that a sexual offence lasing officer is not available for a prolonged period of time. I am going to let DCSFalds say a little bit more about that in detail from the feedback that we get from solos on their supervisors. If I could just come in behind the DCC with that one, as the DCC says, that is not something that we frequently get any feedback about about the timing, for example, that it takes to have a solo officer deployed to a victim, and we do do that as quickly as possible. I have made mention of the fact that somebody that was already mentioned the example that was given somebody under the influence of alcohol, perhaps, and during the night and needs a sleep, that person should be afforded at that time, and the solo would be deployed the following morning. In terms of contact throughout the solo, we try to make sure that it is the same individual who maintains solo contact if the solo changes for any reason. For example, if a person does happen, people move on, they get promoted or they retire or they leave the service, and we have to have a handover. That handover should be in a structured manner that makes sure that the victim remains informed at all times. I think that the way that Dorian's report goes beyond that, and it looks at a point of contact for victims throughout the whole criminal justice process. Obviously, that is not something that the police are probably best placed for those reasons that we cannot have the same person available 24-7. That is why victim advocacy services, victim support services, et cetera, are critical in this role throughout the whole entire journey for the victim, and not just for where there is police involvement up into the trial. I thank the convener in the interests of time, given that the responses have been quite extensive. I am quite happy to leave it at that. I thank both panellists for their contributions. I thank Fulton very much. In the spirit of timekeeping, I can ask for questions and answers to be succinct. I will hand over now to Katie Clark to come in with some questioning around misogyny within policing, and then I will finally bring in Russell Finlay. Over to you, Katie. Thank you very much. We know that there have been repeated concerns raised about misogyny and sexist behaviour in Police Scotland, and there have been numerous complaints. We try to look at it to get more detail on that, but there is not gender-specific information available. In terms of complaints that did get to the Police Commissioner in 2020-21, out of 279 referrals, we understand that only 202 were investigated at the time of reporting. All that we need to do is to open the papers and we see the Sarah Everard case, and the detail of that case will lead women to lose trust in the police. We read that there is a very high level of domestic abuse, violence by police officers if you read the media, and we know that there are harassment cases that have been reported to the police although we do not know the detail of that. Could you outline what work is being done to implement the final report on investigations, conducts and complaints from November 2020, if you could outline how you are going to address the issues raised by Dame Angeline in her report? Could you also outline what you believe needs to be done, whether you think that there is a significant cultural problem in the place that needs to be addressed? If you do not think that there is a cultural problem, how do you explain some of what is being reported and what is being said? PCC Dame, would you like to pick that up as briefly as you can? Yes, thank you. There is a lot in that question and I will try to be brief, but I think that there is a lot to say as well. The first thing is any such behaviour, and you have mentioned a range of cases from outwith Scotland and refer to Police Scotland. Any of those cases is important. It is directly in opposition to the values of Police Scotland and to the role of office that constable holds or any member of staff and the reasons that the vast majority of our people come to work to ensure that we are providing a service to the public and to do so in a way that commensurate with the values, ethics and rights of everyone to be safe at work and to be treated with equality. There is a strong link between the confidence that people should have in our ability to provide a public service for all the things that we have been talking about today in terms of rape, sexual crime and domestic abuse, and to ensure that, as an organisation, we are able to hold ourselves to the highest of standards. I should go back to Dame Elish Angeline's report, which you mentioned in your question from November 2020, since the highlight of some of those issues, which we were working against anyway. We have redoubled our efforts to ensure that we are tackling misogyny and improving sex equality across Police Scotland. We have done that in a number of ways. We have gone through a period similar to what you, as a committee, have done with listening, and we have understood the experiences of the groups and individuals that have been affected by some of those issues. We have set up an independent review group that is independently chaired and has members to provide advice, guidance and constructive criticism of policies, practices and actions that Police Scotland is taking at strategic and operational level. In relation to tackling misogyny and sex equality directly, we have gone out very strongly, as a public agency, in terms of our leadership of ensuring that, although that is an issue that affects women, men have a responsibility to stand up and challenge any behaviours where the respect and the equality that people should rightly expect on every occasion to be in place, whilst they are at work and whilst they are providing a service to communities that have the faith in us to do that. It is not there that men need to be responsible for standing up and challenging that behaviour. We have done that internally and externally. Through personal leadership, the chief constable has been very clear that men need to stand up and take responsibility for not only their own behaviour but for challenging that of the minority who choose not to behave to the standards and values of the organisation. In the final point, you talked about there being a culture that is systemic across the organisation. I do not identify with that, but there are enough examples of it coming forward that we know that there is a problem that we need to address to make sure that we are tackling on each and every occasion of where it arises. I am encouraged that the vast majority of those cases that are coming forward are being reported by colleagues who are saying that this is not acceptable. By the fact that we are addressing that and as the leadership of the service is calling out very clearly, we expect people to let us know when they experience others behaving in a way that is not acceptable. We are getting more reports coming through and that is a positive thing to ensure that we make sure that there are none in the future. The final point is that this is a massive wider societal issue that does not start and finish with the police. We are very keen to play our part in the leadership across society, as I have said, with some of the campaigning and public messaging that we do across civic society as a national organisation. I think that we are a very strong position to do that and step up to that role, but others need to look within themselves as well. The first way of doing that is to listen to the experiences of the people within your own organisation and understand what it is like for people who come from different perspectives and have experiences that they will not fully understand until they reach out and want to hear them. I was using examples from outside of Scotland. I said that the Everard case was a case that obviously was down south, but it erodes women's confidence in the place. There are many, many examples in Scotland. I do not want to draw you in that, if you are trying to suggest that that is a problem that does not exist in Scotland but exists elsewhere. I am quite happy to put cases to you and to put a lot of the information from the media. For example, you will know better than myself that the channel for the Dispatches, Documentary, Cockroland trial that was reported only in October. It was reported that 166 police officers in special hospitals within Police Scotland have been accused of 245 council sexual misconduct. We can go through some of the Scottish examples. The reason why I mentioned the Everard case was that the saturation and media coverage of that case and the details of that case erodes women's confidence in the place. Are you trying to suggest that the problems that might exist down south in terms of, for example, domestic abuse are not something that is a problem in Police Scotland? I would like to know whether you are trying to suggest that you believe that you are in a better position on those issues than those that might exist down south? I am just very aware of time being tied. We have the cabinet secretary waiting. We have already pushed him back. I suggest with members' agreement that DCC Graham, if he could follow up a response to Katie's question in writing, that would be helpful. That is helpful. My main point is that he believes that it is a cultural problem. I think that if I could just add, convener, I do not think that my previous answer is in any way be as suggesting that there are not issues to be addressed in Scotland. Thank you very much for that. Thank you, Katie, for your forbearance. Can I finally move on to hand over to Russell? I think that you have a couple of questions on the gender recognition act. Good morning, DCC Graham. It has been reported that Police Scotland may record rape as being committed by a woman when the alleged male-born rapist does not have a gender recognition certificate. How did Police Scotland arrive at that decision? DCC Graham, would you like to come in on that? I will do very briefly, convener. I am conscious of time. The sex and gender identification of individuals who come into contact with the police will be based on how they present or how they self-declare, which is entirely consistent with the values of our organisation. We do not require evidence or certification as proof of biological sex or gender identity other than a person's self-declaration unless it is pertinent in investigating with which they are linked as a victim, witness or accused. I appreciate that the debate and some of the recent media publicity around complex issues has become extremely polarised. I think that, on the scale of what we are dealing with, we have had 1,229 rapes reported to us in the first six months of this year. That is nearly 47 rapes every week. Nearly seven rapes reported every day. There has never been a set of circumstances where we have had to do what you have suggested, where we would have somebody who has committed a rape in terms of the act of rape, who was biologically a man and self-identifying as a woman. At the moment, it is a hypothetical debate. If it were to happen, we would look carefully at each set of circumstances. We are awaiting clarity of Scottish Government guidance on this complex issue and our desire is to ensure that the rights and equality interests of any individual, whether somebody who is from the trans community or, indeed, the hard and long fought for rights of women, are equally recognised. I believe that that can be done in a way that does not have to be mutually exclusive. Russell, do you want to come back in? Yes, please. For all that has not happened yet, there is a possibility that it might. That is what we would then inspire. In such a situation, would a female victim be informed that the alleged rapist was choosing to identify as a female? In the eventuality that this set of circumstances were to arise, we would have to work very carefully through ensuring that the specific circumstances were addressed to ensure that everybody's rights were respected and upheld. As a situation that has not arisen yet, we have not gone through that detailed planning. I go back to the point that I have made. The substantive issue here is the scale, prevalence and impact of sexual violence and domestic abuse in Scotland. It is enormous. A large proportion of what I have said in terms of figures already goes unreported to the police. Although that is clearly an important issue, I do not think that it is the dominant issue that we need to address in terms of violence against women and girls across society today. Convener, do I have time to go back to the line of questioning that Katie was on a moment ago? I am afraid not. The cabinet secretary is waiting to come in and we have already overrun. As I have said to Katie, I am very happy for additional questions to be sent across to DCC Graham for a response. Thank you for coming along today, DCC Graham and DCS Folds. I am sorry that it was rather rushed at the end, but thank you for your appearance. Obviously, there are a number of questions that we will likely follow up in writing with you. My thanks to you both. We will take a very short suspension to change over witnesses. I welcome our second panel of witnesses this morning. I am very pleased to welcome Keith Brown, cabinet secretary for justice and veterans, and Mr William Willie Cowan, deputy director of the criminal justice division. Can I please ask everybody to keep questions and answers as succinct as possible? I am going to allow up to an hour for this panel and I invite the cabinet secretary to make some brief opening remarks and then we will move on to questions. I am once again grateful to the committee for the opportunity to meet today. I was going to make some remarks based on the areas that were covered by the clerks. It relates with the intention of trying to help to answer some questions that might help to think-keeping. First of all, the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, as we are all aware, have placed huge pressure on the criminal justice system and those who work within it. We believe that our justice partners have worked incredibly hard and very creatively to adapt to the sustained and complex challenges that are presented. I want to put on record my gratitude then for their efforts. The backlog in cases is one of the areas that have been asked to cover, and its impact on victims and the perception of justice cannot be underestimated. The additional £50 million that is made available in this financial year provided via the Recover, Renew and Transform programme is being used to increase capacity across the justice system. That includes additional staff, greater use of digital tools and improved support for victims and witnesses. That supports being extended into the next financial year, as outlined in the budget last week. The budget delivers over £3.1 million for justice in 2020-22 in Renew, Renew and Reform, which are vital front-line services. That includes £188 million in additional investment, which amounts to around a 7 per cent increase in recognition of the challenges that the pandemic has presented and those that it continues to present. That includes £40.5 million for the SPA maintaining our commitment to protect the police resource budget in real terms each year for the entirety of this Parliament. The £9.5 million support in the modernisation of fire and rescue service. That includes investment to allow it to expand its work on fire preserve prevention and fire safety with vulnerable households. £4 million for victim services measures to tackle violence against women and girls and support for the justice system to respond to victims' needs. The £53.2 million will also go for renewal and transformation of the justice sector. That includes court recovery, addressing trial backlogs and expanding community justice services. We are starting to see some signs of recovery. I welcome the additional 16 court capacity introduced from September, and the statistics from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service appear to show a positive impact. There is obviously a long way to go, unlike much of society, just the system recovery from the pandemic will take time. Last month I participated as many of you did, I think, in a debate focused on men's violence against women and girls and their efforts to tackle the devastating impacts that that causes. Right at the centre of that discussion is the justice response to gender-based violence. Recently, I should tell the committee I've been in discussions with the chief constable on the issue of spiking, a despicable cowardly act. From what we know, spiking is committed mainly by men and we understand that victims are mostly women. Yet another example of the disproportionate impact on women by men's offending. I'm reassured that our legislation on that matter is robust and that Police Scotland is actively pursuing every single report of spiking and that it has established a gold command on the serious spiking specifically. Last week, I convened the second round table with justice partners, health and education and the night-time economy sector to further discuss the issue. I'm very reassured by the concerted efforts of our cross-sector partners to better understand the problem and to take appropriate measures to address spiking. That will include development of standard reporting, protocols, consistent messaging and training to raise awareness and investigation into the use of drug testing for drinks. I'm keen to ensure that preventative approach continues through our equally safe strategy and Police Scotland's own strategic approach to investigating and preventing those issues. I announced after careful consideration that we'll now move on with the immediate establishment of the Scottish Government-led governance group, which comprises of key stakeholder interests, enable progress and detailed consideration of the individual and collective recommendations, more just as Clarkshire youth group report on improving the management of sexual offence cases. In coming to that determination, I'm very much of the mind that what is required is a whole system approach to both consideration and delivery. Gros the recommendation to provide complainers in sexual offences with a lifelong right to anonymity is freestanding and we have committed to legislate to give effect to it in this Parliament. Many of the recommendations cross multiple interests and it's self-evident that, given the many dependencies, we will require support of key partners in order to deliver that change. That much has come through from the evidence that you just heard from the police. I think that it's important to reflect that the report was the product of a cross-justice review group to recognise that ownership, responsibility and delivery rests with us all. I have expectations that the group will move at pace with the first meeting of the group taking place next week, but if an equal focus on ensuring recognition is taken of wider and related Scottish Government initiatives, we all recognise that the report has potential to drive transformational change if we can get this right across the system and also beyond sexual offence cases. There is a great deal of cross-sector consensus as demonstrated by several statements of support at publication. It's my view that the recommendations can be utilised as a catalyst for whole system transformation. That's the intention. I appreciate that the committee is keen to see progress on the recommendations. However, it's also true to say that, given the complexity of the potential changes proposed, careful consideration is essential and I would assure the committee that I consider the recommendations a priority. Looking to next year, we'll hold a consultation on sexual offences and victim rights in the spring, which will cover many of the recommendations. Some of those can be pursued now, and we've supported the two-year pilot project to visually record rape complainers police statements that you've heard about, which was named in Lady Dorian's report. Working closely with Police Scotland's Crown Office and Rape Crisis Scotland, we've enabled this initiative to become a reality in Edinburgh, in Highlands and Irms, and in Dumfries and Galloway. As at 12 December 2021, 266 VRIs have been carried out with a total of 247 complainers. However, no cases have proceeded to trial, so we don't have the data throughput for evaluation purposes. We want the initiative, as the police do, to be available across the whole of Scotland in the future, and we have secured collective agreement to start preparing to scale this up beyond the pilot. There is a clear direction to move as fast as we can without compromising the training and the skill required of those who are delivering this for court use. The Courts and Tribunals Service led the RRT workstream, which championed the introduction of virtual summary trials. Working closely with the third sector, we were enthusiastic supporters of this innovation. I met last week with Sheriff Principal Pyle and I look forward to receiving his anticipated report from the virtual trials national project board to consider next steps. On Monday, we launched a consultation on the not proven verdict, as you will, convener, and related reforms, in recognition of what we believe is a strong case being put forward for its abolition. There are complex issues, and many stakeholders have principled objections to a move to a two verdict situation, or they have highlighted the interconnectedness of the system, including the potential interaction with the jury majority, so we have to consider those issues carefully. As we discussed at the recent cross-party round table, as a Government, we take very seriously the concerns that some stakeholders have with how the corroboration rule can affect access to justice for survivors of crimes committed in private, and therefore there are questions on this matter contained within that consultation as well. We are committed to ensuring that victims' rights at the centre are justice system. We have invested £88 million over the past five years for victim services. We recently announced details of a new victim-centred approach fund, worth at least £30 million over three years, which will provide support to victims' organisations across Scotland, and we are working closely with victims and support organisations to scope out the role of the new victims commissioner. Furthermore, we have already strengthened the victim notification scheme. We are committed to undertaking a detailed review early next year, so there is much to do. My colleague Ash Regan will be taking forward a strategic longer-term evidence-based assessment of the totality of the experience of women in relation to the justice system, with a view to understanding where innovation, better data collection and learning, perhaps from different jurisdictions, could help to reform or redesign aspects of it to better meet women's needs. Over recent months, in collaboration with the justice partners, we have been developing a new justice strategy for Scotland. In the new year, we will set out a new vision for justice and take forward a vital and transformative action in this paramedic term and beyond. As we emerge from the pandemic, it is right that we should look at how we renew our public services, build on the lessons that we have learned, both on the progress that is made and the opportunities that might be there to provide greater resilience in critical services. We have to continue to be steadfast in our zeal of tolerance of men's violence against women and girls and their relentless challenge, the spectrum of behaviours that enable it. With that, I am happy to take your questions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I appreciate the comprehensive opening comments. Before we move into questions, I remind members and our witnesses to seek questions and answers as succinct as possible. If I may, cabinet secretary, just kick things off with a general question relating to your recent announcement regarding the establishment of the governance group to progress the detailed consideration of the Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations. I wonder if I can just ask you to outline a little bit more detail around the remit and the timetable for the work of the governance group in particular. How you will ensure that the work of the group is not a duplication, if you like, of the review that has already taken place and rather that it focuses on making real progress on the recommendations and to take them forward. I have seen in the letter that I sent to the Lord Justice General, which I copied to yourself in the committee, the draft remit of the governance group. I expect that that will be finalised when it meets, as I have said next week. I can provide some details, but I can provide the correspondence of the members of the committee who are already happy to do that. The discussion next week will also include the work plan, the timetable, the identification of any working groups that the governance group itself wants to set up, look at specific areas covered in the report—you will know the breadth of the report already. The committee will be very aware that we have a very public timetable commitment as outlined in the programme for government to legislate in this session of Parliament for a statutory right to anonymity, lifelong anonymity for complainers and sexual offence cases, and also to giving serious consideration to the other recommendations of the Dorian review, including the potential introduction of specialist courts and what the implications of that would be. I have already said that I expect that the group will work at pace and that they provide regular updates to the criminal justice board and the Lord Justice Court's review group. I would also expect that, of course, the committee will be kept fully up to date. One final thing to say in being, because your question touched on the idea of duplication, mentioned that we have this week initiated the consultation, not proven, which has a number of related issues, the size of the majority and so on, the size of the jury and the majority that is required for our conviction. I think that many of the Lady Dorian's recommendations, a number of which we require legislation to take them through, start to come in at that point once we have heard that consultation, when we are a way forward, I think that they are not of a pace but certainly they are very interrelated, so we would want to try and take those through at council, which might give it in concert, which might give you an idea of the kind of timetable that we are looking towards. It is also true to say, and I say this just now because I am sure that it will come up again, that we have around 22 different pieces of legislation to take through that we know of and that there are others that others may want to bring forward. It is a crowded landscape, we cannot do it all at once and we are trying to do some of those things as quickly as we possibly can, but taking the due time to consider them properly. Thanks very much, cabinet secretary. Just in the spirit of letting members come in with more questions, I will hand over to Katie Clark and then Rona Mackay, who I think have some follow-up questions around the governance group. Katie? Yes, and I think that the minister has answered some of what I was going to ask already, so thank you. What extent has it been possible to implement any of Lady Dorian's recommendations already? You have outlined the timetable going forward, but what extent is there already implementation of some of the recommendations? We have produced one thematic report already, which has detailed a number of 11 or 14 categories of which we are right to take forward right away. There is another challenge, which we are also taking forward right away, which does not require legislation and will continue to do that. Some of them are for other agencies like the police, and they will take their time to come through with what they are doing as well, but the governance arrangements in place already before the governance group establishes has looked at this. There is progress to be made already where it is possible to do that, but perhaps Willie Cowan can give you more detail on that. That would be really helpful, thank you. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I myself will be chairing this governance group, and we fully recognise that it is a joint endeavour, as the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks. This is a whole system approach to the transformation of change. One of the first issues for us next week is to establish the work programme, as the cabinet secretary said. There are various aspects of Leridoria's report, which might be described as policy, practice and culture, which can be progressed at individual organisational level and as a system as a whole, but there are also aspects of the report that could require legislation to deliver. I suppose that there is a third aspect that the group will want to consider, which is are there any aspects that technically do not require legislation to deliver, but might benefit from an underpinning of that legislation? I do not want to prejudge what the work programme will look like following the meeting of the governance group next week. We are all quite clear from the evidence that you received last week from David Fraser and Danielle McLaughlin from the court service, and Danielle is heading up the team in the court service, taking forward Leridoria's work. There is active consideration in what is going on about what can be worked on, developed and implemented now. At the same time, as policy consideration towards a consultation towards legislation is being considered as outlined by the cabinet secretary. Is there any of the recommendations that you believe have already been implemented? Is there any particular reason why there has been a delay up till now in terms of any recommendations that could have already been implemented? Some of the thinking and development work has been done. The actual implementation has yet to move forward that pace. Chums of that come down to a couple of major issues. A lot of the people who will be involved in this have been involved in the front-line recovery work for Covid and addressing the backlogs. A lot of the people involved in this have also been involved in the work leading up to Enduring COP 26. What we are hoping for as of now, as the establishment of the governance group, is that we collectively will be able to take forward this work at pace. The recommendations that can be developed and implemented without legislation can move forward in parallel, as I say, with the policy development for those aspects that could require legislation. I will hand over to Rona Mackay. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to ask you about an aspect of the specialist courts that one of the Llywodraeans recommendations has referenced. Last week, the SCTS told us that they did not envisage any specialist training for jurors in the court. Given the nature of the court in general and the need for trauma-informed practice, do you think that there should be? How practically could that be done? Thanks for the question. If I can be a little bit cagey on this, just to say that when the proposals to change the courts, the decisions on it rests with the judiciary and not with he. I think that we would tend to wait to see how the judiciary is approaching a particular issue, for example, the establishment of specialist courts before becoming too involved. That is why, given that Lady Dorin has made one of her recommendations, it is easier for us to talk about that now, as it is not being seen to try and determine how the court system should run. It is also true to say that the governance group will look at the issue starting from next week, but my own view is that I would especially not want to talk about how we might treat jurors, I think that is for the judiciary to talk about. However, your point about trauma-informed approaches is a really important one and the point that I was trying to make earlier on is that, in addition to all the different pieces of legislation, what I hope to see achieved is an entire end-to-end justice system that is trauma-informed and victim-centred. I think that those things can be in danger of becoming buzzwords that people just throw around. The real challenge is to see how we can make that real, so that some of the training that we are undertaking with the NHS to try to make sure that that happens. We have a very good discussion on that at the victim's task force recently. If we can get to the stage where there are different elements of the system and a call-out system, there are areas that I know that you are aware of, for example, to do with the judiciary and the courts, which are quite distinct and independent. Also, with the police, they have an independent know-how in many respects of ministers. However, we have to have an end-to-end process in which it is victim-centred. We are focused on people who have suffered crimes and it is trauma-informed. I will give you just one example. It is not the one that you have asked about because I have explained why I do not want to go into too much detail. One of the survivors—the chap was not a victim, he was the father of somebody who was murdered and said that when he had to go to court and sit a couple of feet away from the family of the person who was accused of murdering his son—he just fell off to him in so many ways. I think that the justice system is being very focused on trying to get justice delivered. It has got to future much more in its thinking around how victims are treated and to be trauma-informed. I have a general support for the idea of people being trauma-informed, but it would not be for me to say that the jurors should be trained or given background information. I am now going to bring in Russell Finlay to kick off with some questioning around reporting and recording. Russell Finlay, you have a good morning, Mr Brown. We have already heard from Police Scotland this morning confirmation that the record rate has been committed by a woman when the alleged male-born rapist does not have a gender recognition certificate. There are many concerns about that, not least that it could corrupt crime statistics. You have already spoken in your opening remarks about the importance of data collection being accurate. The former SNP justice secretary calls this legal absurdity. Do you agree with him? From D.C. Malcolm Graham, when he pointed out that there has not been a single case of the type that has been mentioned, despite the fact that he said that there has been 1,129, if I have got the figure correct, rape cases in the first six months of this year, which is a horrendous figure in which we are trying to deal with some of the reforms that have been mentioned. He said that there has not been a single case of the type that you mentioned. What he said was that the police's approach and the police will, in many cases, be the ones that do the data collection, although you are quite right to suggest that the Government will have the best review on that as well. It is important that the police take the human rights approach. I think that making sure that the rights of everybody involved are observed and respected and upheld, which is what D.C. Graham said, and that the safety of everybody involved is upheld as well. I think that that is the right approach that the police have taken. Are we very supportive of the promise that is made by D.C. Graham? I did not catch the beginning of your answer. I do not know if it is a tech problem, but do you therefore not agree with your predecessor, Mr MacAskill? I have not seen Mr MacAskill's views much more inclined to take the up-to-date positions that were presented by the D.C.C. that you heard from in the previous evidence session. One question that I asked of Mr Graham was whether a rape victim would be informed if, indeed, that would transpire. I understand that it has not yet happened, but that might just be because this is a new development and it is clearly causing significant concern to women across Scotland. How do you think that a woman who had been raped would feel if they found her attacker who had been categorised as a woman by Police Scotland? What I think is important is that the police do respect the rights of everybody in this situation. It is not just a cliché to say that Police Scotland is very much, as we were at COP26 and in various other respects, very focused on human rights. I think that you are trying to uphold the rights, as D.C. Malcolm Graham said, of everybody involved. You say that it is a new situation and I am not sure what new situation you are referring to. Trans people have been a feature of the justice system for a long time. I think that the police dealt with it in the right way, as D.C. Graham suggested. Just in case there is any confusion, there is nothing in terms of the gender recognition act that should impinge in this area. There is nothing in the proposed gender recognition reform that proposes any changes to crime recording. I do think that the proportionate approach of the police when they mentioned 1,129 rape cases in the first six months and not one following into the category that you mentioned, I think the approach that they are taking is the right one. Just a quick clarification. What I meant by new was the recent confirmation from Police Scotland that that is indeed how it could be applied. I have just come back to one point that the member raises, because he mentioned the response that you received from D.C. about notification for a victim. I think that the Deputy Chief Constable's response says that he has not had that situation arise yet, but he would have to look at that. I think that that is the right approach to take. That is consistent with looking at the rights of victims, making sure that public safety and human rights are at the forefront. Of course, his right to say that they have not encountered this yet, but they will have to give some thought as to how they deal with that, and I would support the police in doing so. Sure. While that is largely theoretical, if you follow that to its logical conclusion, you may have rape victims in court having to call their alleged rapist, P. The court system is something that I do not control. It is the justice system, the judiciary and the Scottish court system that deals with that. All I would say is that whether it is a court system, whether it is a prison system or whether it is a police, from all the evidence that I have seen and I have looked at this in some detail, they are very cognisant of the rights of individuals and also the safety of individuals. They are trying extremely hard to make sure that those are upheld and that I support them in that process. Thank you very much. I think that Pauline McNeill would like to come in on this topic and briefly if you would, Pauline. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am not going to draw you into policy discussion this morning on that. I just wanted to take some clarity. I think that, according to the reports, we need to be clear that what we are talking about here, that I understand it, is not a trans person perceived, but where an alleged crime is, where they present for the purposes of the crime, is my understanding of what Police Scotland has said. I just think that there needs to be clarity over that. That is the way that times have reported it, if the accused person then presents as a woman that Police Scotland would seem to protect that and not someone who previously identified it. That needs to be clarity over that, but I am not drawing you into that today. What the Deputy Chief Constable did say was that the Scottish Government was going to provide clarity over that. I was not sure what the Deputy Chief Constable meant by that. Did he mean that you are having on-going discussions? It is just an answer to that. Is it on-going discussions or does he mean the gender reform act or something else? I wanted an answer of what he meant if you could tell the committee things. I am afraid that I cannot tell you what the Chief Constable meant. Maybe he was talking about when he moved forward with the gender recognition. That may be the most obvious thing to say that he meant, but I do not know, and I am happy to know whether he is watching this not in any sinister way, and I am sure that he can provide a response. I think that they are aware, as you are hinting at, of the complexities of this and the dangers in this situation. I think that, having looked at the approach that they take, I think that the same is true of the prison service. It is a very sensitive one, and it is sensitive to both the human rights of people involved and the safety of those involved. Your basic point, which I think that somebody is trying to use this system in some way, I think that they are very well aware of that, but they are also aware of the individual rights of people. In any event, it may be for DCC Graham to come back and clarify exactly what he meant by his comments, rather than for me to say. If that could be finished by just asking the Cabinet Secretary to read the press release from Police Scotland after today, because the press release implies—you can see it in the Times article—that anyone who presents, and maybe they did not mean to say that, but maybe that is something that you want to discuss. I would like to move things on, if I may, to some questions around the introduction of a specialist court. Pauline Cymru, I can come back to you on this and then move across to Jamie Greene. Cabinet Secretary, we had a bit of a really interesting and good exchange with David Fraser last week on what a specialist court is. My question is, are you satisfied that in legislating to create a specialist court, which I understand you have to do? It would not look like you were downgrading sexual offences. On one view of what we have been told, it will be part of the high court, but we need to legislate to create a specialist court. I think that that is a bit unclear, because I might not say that the bench is about 32 or 35 judges who deal with rape every day. I would have thought in their daily cases. I think that we need some clarity about why we need a specialist court and what a specialist court would do. I can see the case for a court that treats victims differently. We have heard evidence about trauma that victims experience going to courts that are not equipped space-wise, so that they can enter the building without coming across the person that they have accused of a crime. Do you share any concerns that legislating for a specialist court might look like? Of course, there is only a 10-year sentence that might look like we have downgraded sexual offences. It is a very good question that might be useful to hear from Willie Cowan in relation to us. It will be the case that the Govern's group will look at the issue. There is a particular issue around—for example, the court might be looking at domestic abuse, but rape is part of what they are looking at at that time and where does that properly sit. The Lord Advocate next week has talked about how we can get the pace to address the backlog. There is a huge issue. Part of the issue with the backlog is to do with the impact that it is having on victims and witnesses, and given the preponderance of sexual assault and rape cases in the backlog, that is why we want to try and deal with it. That is one of the drivers for the specialist courts. However, it is also true to say that, as you will know, I am sure that the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and the Bar Association have expressed concerns about some of those proposals. That will last more to do with judge-only trials, but it is also true to say that specialist courts and the proposer for judge-only trials of the latter, at least, were one area where there was no consensus when Lady Dorian's group looked at that. Those are things that have to be given more thought in the Govern's group. Of course, it is the case. Whatever we chose to do, Parliament will get the chance. We will have to legislate if we are going to do specialist courts in any event, Parliament will get the chance to do that. However, it might be worth hearing from Willie Cowell on that detail, if that is okay. Mr Cowell, would you like to come in? Absolutely. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Thing with McNeill raises a hugely valid point, that sexual offences are clearly a heinous crime, and how they are viewed by the public is important. The lady Dorian set out her recommendations on why she thought specialist court could add to the, I hesitate to say, positive experience of victims in the justice system, but it is to improve the way that victims experience the justice system. One of the key aspects of the Govern's group and the subsequent policy development and consultation that will follow will be exactly that. Lady Dorian recommends 10 years for the sentencing judge in the specialist court, which David Fraser referenced last week. The high 90 per cent of sentencing in relation to sexual offence cases at the moment. My take on Lady Dorian's report and her recommendations, and I was on the early part of the group before moving to do some Covid work, was that far from downgrading sexual offences, the specialist court would take due cognisance of the particular experiences of people caught up in those types of offences. There is a question around how we would transist from rape cases being automatically heard in high court to how sexual offences in the round, including rape cases, could be heard in a specialist court. As the cabinet secretary said, one of the potential complications around all of that, which would be for the law advocate to consider in terms of the subsequent marking decisions on individual cases, is what is the mix of offences within any particular case that would either divert or not. We would point it towards a specialist court or maybe towards the high court. For example, rape and attempted murder, I suspect, although I hesitate to speak for the law advocate, but I suspect that that would be considered from the high court as opposed to the specialist court, whereas a sexual assault without the additional murder or that additional violence would be considered more appropriate for the specialist court. However, I acknowledge that there are concerns out there, and the cabinet secretary has outlined concerns from some groups. We will need to work through that with the governance group towards, as I say, consultation to bring forward a proposition that will be considered both by the public from the consultation and subsequently by the Parliament if the Government brings forward that draft legislation. Can I bring in Jamie Greene followed by Kitty Clark on this issue? Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and the guests. I think that the question really is around specialist courts as well as whether they are instead of or as well as existing infrastructure. That is a fundamental issue, which is still unclear. What would you be taking away from other court mechanisms to specialise in those dedicated courts or whether we would simply be adding to the capacity of the courts in order to clear the background? We need to clear the background, but nobody disagrees with that. However, each of those creates its own set of very different issues. That is really what the committee is struggling with. There was a very top-level recommendation from Lady Dorian, which seems to have a lot of positive elements in the trauma-informed aspect. However, I think that the devil is in the detail. I will ask the cabinet secretary how the Government might present that back to the committee and to the Parliament so that we can work through some of that detail so that we understand, because clearly there are going to be financial and resource issues around how any such specialist courts might work in the future. I think that it will be hard to be honest and say that this is central to how the court systems run and, as such, is a decision ultimately for the judiciary. However, the committee is right to say that it is going to have implications. For example, in relation to sentencing, I do understand the point that you do not want to have the court systems tripping over each other or cutting across each other. However, what is intended, and it is not for me to speak for a law justice court, is that both the specialist court will be able to build up a body of experience, as Pauline Neill referred to the high court with frequency of dealing with the same issues. There will also be an efficiency in that as well, which might help to deal with the backlog. However, I hesitate to come in and say much more as to how those potential duplications or crossovers might be detrimental for Lady Dorian and the judiciary to say. However, as Willie Cowan has mentioned, there is only the group that will look at this, the governance group will look at this, and the Government, for our part, and it may be only partially answers the question, is ready to help, whether it is in terms of legislation required in sentencing powers or, as Jamie Greene suggests, in terms of resources fund what the judiciary eventually will expect to report next year on this. There are likely to be resource implications if there is a change, and I would hope and I would expect that the law justice would be well aware of any potential problems from duplication or overlap. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for that. I think that not just the resource implication for the SCTS or the crime, but also for the defence sector as well. We obviously have to ensure that there is sufficient resource to ensure that people are represented if there are more cases running per day than currently running, for example. I would hope that we could take some learning from the integrated domestic abuse courts. I wonder if you could share any more on that, because the concept of a specialist court is not a new one, in the sense that we accept that if a large amount of crimes are of a similar nature, they could be dealt with in a similar way, for example, in a central place. That is not a new concept, but I wonder what has been the feedback from the domestic abuse courts from either the faculty, the law society, the police, victims, organisations or the third sector themselves, who have obviously had to interact with that specialist court in the past and whether there are any learnings positive or otherwise that might come from that. It is a good question. We are not probably yet fully ready to answer it completely, but just for backgrounds. We are working with Police Scotland, Crown Office, Great Crisis Scotland and so on, which I have all been involved in developing the domestic abuse courts so far in Edinburgh, Highlands and Islands and Dumfries and Galloway. The evaluation of that has still to be undertaken. Earlier this year, Crown Office stats showed that the number of charges related to domestic abuse last year was the highest since 2015-16. It is important to reflect that specialist courts, as was mentioned, are for the judiciary to consider. Where they indicate a willingness to progress specialist courts such as Lady Dorian, we would consider what might be needed, but specifically on domestic abuse, there are areas where those courts operate. There are also areas where there are ad hoc domestic abuse cases and they are all operational decisions for the Scottish courts. The first two or three years of operation of the new domestic offence, which you will be aware of, will complete in 31 March, which triggers a need for a statutory report to be published by the Government detailing both the qualitative and quantitative information about the operation of the new offence and the experience of victims. That will probably be the most useful publication, I can think, to answer Jamie Greene's question, but his point about whether there has been feedback informally from these different partners might be able to come back on that. There is broad support for specialist courts and the build-up of experience of all the practitioners be that defends prosecution, court service and third sector support organisations. As the cabinet secretary said, the concept of a specialist court is not new. The difference with Lady Dorian's recommendation is that we would require some legislation to enable that specialist court to be put into place. Whereas with domestic abuse courts and perhaps drugs courts and the like, those can be put into place at the behest of the SCTS and the Lord President within the existing legislative framework. That's fine. I'm happy to leave it there, convener. Thanks very much. I'll bring in Katie Clark now and then I'll bring in Fulton MacGregor to ask some questions around use of recorded police interviews. Katie. Thank you. From what Mr Cowan has said, it's likely that the proccate of the school would have the crown of material for referral in terms of whether a case, a rape case or other sexual offence case would go to the High Court or would go to the specialist court. But to go back to this issue of downgrading, I think that the concern is that if there's a cap on sentencing for the specialist court 10 years, that makes it look like a lower court. In the same way as at the moment, the share of court has a range of disposals and if a sentence is longer than within the share of court's powers, it gets the sentencing aspects that get referred to the High Court. I understand that thinking is that that's how the specialist court would operate. Even though it's the High Court judge that's sitting in the specialist court, they would only be able to sentence 10 years. If they wished to or they thought it might be appropriate to sentence for more than 10 years, it would have to be referred to the High Court. Is that the kind of issue that the Government group will look at in terms of whether they're going to have that sentencing cap or whether the specialist court will have the full range of disposals? Is that still a live issue, if I could ask the cabinet secretary? I think that it has to be. The Government's group will decide what the Government's group is going to look at, but I think that you make a very reasonable point. The referral to the High Court in a situation where the specialist court doesn't think that it requires sentencing powers is a duplication of what happens just now in other spheres. However, the basic point is about ensuring that there's not either confusion or overlap or duplication. I think that knowing the people in the Government's review group, not least Willie Cowen, but he can mention the others, that they will have that in their minds. It's not in anybody's interest, especially when we're in the context of the backlog that we've got for us to duplicate anything. We want to try to make it as efficient as possible, but at the same time, we want to ensure that both justice is delivered best in a trauma-informed and victim-centred way. They will be concerned about that. Willie, you'll tell me as well that it may be that the group will set up different working groups to look at different aspects, and it may be that this is one of them, but that will be for the group to decide. I don't know if that really works. I'll be interested here from Mr Cowen. The issue is that the High Court is a higher court than the Sheriff Court, and we wouldn't want there to be an impression that the Specialist Court was a lesser court than the High Court. I think that that, understanding that it would be depending on how the legislation is constructed, it would effectively be a part of the High Court, but it's a specialist part. Is that fair? Obviously, it depends on how decisions are made in terms of how the legislation will be brought forward. Mr Cowen likes to come in on that. Absolutely. Again, that is one of the key aspects of the Government's group discussion, which will then lead to consultation. Lady Dorian says that Lady Dorian is to make a recommendation. The recommendation is a specialist court with 10 years on the basis that, as I have said before, the high 90 per cent of existing sexual offence convictions fall within that 10-year bracket. The Government's group will need to consider the advice that it wants to put forward to the Government, and the Government will need to consider the basis on which we want to consult. If you take the report that I have read, the Government may decide to consult exactly on the basis of Lady Dorian's recommendation, which is a specialist court that has a 10-year sentencing power. It is then in the same way for every consultation, for every legislation, for interested parties to respond to that consultation and for the Government to then take account of the evidence that comes before it brings in a final composition to Parliament. There are a couple of steps that I absolutely understand, and I have had the same feedback from many sources that I deal with day and day. That perception, that optic, is quite difficult for some people and that is something that both the Government's group and the Government in due course are going to have to consider carefully. I have a further point about the court establishment. When you listen to victims of sexual offences, the physical process of going to court can be very, very traumatic. Cabinet Secretary, you have already referred to the family of a murder victim having to sit in a court with the accused. Is it envisaged that those new specialist courts would have separate facilities, which I have got big resource implications? At the moment, we are developing facilities such as Inverness in terms of witness seats, etc. Is it envisaged that there will be significant resource implications of those specialist courts and that they would have separate facilities that would be designed in a different way, or is it envisaged that they would continue to operate within the current court estate? Are those facilities that are going to have to be discussed? Cabinet Secretary, do you want me to respond? Can I just say first that, before you do, I am going to say the same thing here, which would be good. The basic point that Katie Clark makes is an important one. I mentioned before to the committee about friends like medical examination switch, which we are trying to roll out across the country, which are a very different experience for those who have been traumatised by sexual offences in the way that they are initially treated and dealt with. I mentioned that the court physical infrastructure just now is of a different time. I am not going to pretend that we can completely recast the physical built infrastructure of the entire justice system overnight. We certainly cannot do that. We cannot hold back dealing with the backlog until we do that. I think that we just want to make sure that wherever we are making changes, and I cannot assume what the specialist courts proposals will end up looking like from the judiciary and what we will be asked in relation to it, we want to try and ensure that every opportunity that we can push through that trauma-informed nature. Although I mentioned that case, which I did, it is also true that there is a very large public demand to have poor proceedings done in public transparently with everybody there, so there are different pressures applied there. However, we are trying, as is evidenced by some of the stuff that we have done already, so giving evidence by commission, video recorded interviews, forensic medical examinations, we are trying to make it as victim-centred as we can. I do not want to add to that, Willie. I think that you have covered the basis, cabinet secretary. The general point here, and this goes back to your opening statement, is that this is a system-level approach, and Lady Dorian's report looks at the system end to end. As the cabinet secretary has touched on their evidence by commission, where victims give evidence and get cross-examined, away from the court in a private setting, and we have invested in Glasgow, and we have touched on inverness, and we are looking at other areas. The whole concept of, as in Lady Dorian's report, and as is touched on by DCC Graham, of having the initial interview via ride, that being the primary source of the evidence of the case. If necessary, I will follow up evidence by commission in advance of the court case. The intention of that flow is that the victim may never require to attend the final trial to give evidence, either in person or remotely. The other thing to bear in mind is that vulnerable witnesses already have the right to give evidence, either behind screens with protections, or indeed from a remote location. The whole drive of that is to reduce the drama, to have the victim give their evidence as early as possible, and that is only revisited for specific issues, and they are not re-traumatised by revisiting at various parts of the system. We already know and we have invested in the facilities to improve evidence by commission, and we know that if we are going to do that for VRI and we are going to increase evidence by commission, then the infrastructure to enable that will require investment. The key thing all the way through this is the trauma-informed person centre, that the victim gives evidence at an appropriate place is not re-traumatised, and wherever possible, the whole system of giving evidence means that the individual does not need to attend the trial. That is helpful, thank you. Finally, and briefly, could I pass— I wonder, Katie, if I can maybe just come in. Of course. I am sorry to cut you off. There are a couple of other areas for questioning that I would very much like to bring in before we close the session at 10.2. If I may just come in and ask a couple of questions around independent legal representation, which I think you covered off in your opening statement, cabinet secretary. In the testimony that we took in private from survivors, many of them said that they felt that their voice was not heard in court, whereas they felt that the accused's voice was. Of course, section 275 of the criminal procedure act means that particularly intimate and sensitive information about a complainer can be used in the court. I am just wondering what your views are on victims of sexual assault and rape having access to legal representation. Do you think that that could also be extended to domestic abuse victims? I hate to preface my answer with the same point, which is that this will be a matter for the courts as to how they run the system, but you are right to say that Lady Dorian has made this as a recommendation, and we will give careful consideration to both the ongoing research in relation to this issue and to her recommendation. We are clear that there should be restrictions in the usual sexual history evidence with the court having, as always, a critical role in setting whether to allow such evidence in any given case. There are safeguards in Scots law, as you will know, which means that the court must give explicit approval for character and past behaviour evidence to be used in sexual offences cases. You might know as well, convener, that we hosted a round table in November 2020, before either of us were doing these jobs, on the safeguarding of privacy rights for sexual offence victims and perceived barriers for them coming forward to report crimes against them. We also have to make sure that complainers are aware of their rights, which has been an issue that has been covered in the previous evidence session today from some of the victims that you heard from. We have to make sure that they are aware of their rights, and we look forward to receiving further information on the proposal for the Scottish legal aid board funded pilot project. That is not to say definitively, because we will wait and see how Lady Dorian's recommendation is taking forward in the governance group. There are important safeguards there now, and we have to make sure that people are aware of how their rights can be safeguarded better than is currently the case. Thank you very much. This is certainly an issue that I will be interested in watching closely as it develops. I will bring in Rona Mackay to cover off the option to pilot a single judge rape trial option. Rona, over to you. Thank you, convener. We heard in evidence from survivors that they got the impression sometimes that juries had not fully understood the legal implications of what was going on, the legal process. We also heard that there could have been a perception of unconscious prejudice surrounding the case, for example, if the complainer had been drinking or the way she was dressed or whatever. Many victims groups are in support of the single judge trials, but I know that it is split within the legal profession. I wonder what your view was on that, and what kind of circumstances would you think that that could apply to? First of all, as you said, you have that recommendation from Lady Dorian. I know that the committee has heard from Lord Advocate in relation to that as well. One of her main concerns is about how that might help to impact the backlog in a positive way. However, there are other factors, as you mentioned, which are the specialist nature of the knowledge of the judges themselves. I think that we would want to see how that is taken forward through the Governance Review Group. I know that that is not giving a definitive answer just now, but we are mindful of the fact that that raises these concerns on the part of different groups. Some political parties, some people on your committee as well, have serious concerns, as would the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and others in the system, who say that there is no widespread support for such a view. That has probably reflected the fact that the review group itself, Lady Dorian's review group, could not come to a consensus on that. It will be part of the work of the Governance Review Group. There is no way that it would ever be preceded by the full parliamentary involvement that extended that. That is inappropriate. However, we have to wait and see what the Governance Review Group comes up with. Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much for your time this morning. I am very much appreciated, as ever. We have run out of time and I appreciate your forbearance in letting us run over a little bit. There are some other questions that we would have liked to have asked. However, we will likely follow up in writing with you. Again, my thanks to you both. We will now take a short suspension before we move on to the next agenda item. Welcome back, everybody. Our next item of business this morning is consideration of two legislative consent memoranda. First, the police crime sentencing in courts bill and the judicial review and courts bill. I am pleased to welcome back the cabinet secretary for justice and veterans and also two of his officials under the full amount of the criminal justice division and Ms Alison Morris, head of serious organised crime policy, Divert and Deter. I refer members to papers 3 and 4. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some very brief opening remarks on the first of our LCMs, the police crime sentencing and courts bill. We will move on to any questions on that LCM. The LCM for the judicial review and courts bill relates to a minor provision in the schedule to the bill. It is uncontroversial and relates to fines enforcement. There is provision within the schedule, which has the effect that Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service will be able to enforce a new type of financial penalty imposed in England and Wales through their online justice procedure. Cross-border enforcement of fines, of course, is a long-standing approach within the nations of the UK. The UK Government and the Scottish Government agree on the need for cross-border enforcement as a normal part of the operation of respective justice systems. It relates to the fact that people in the UK can obviously move between nations and so where, as in this case, a person who receives a financial penalty through this new online procedure moves to Scotland, and enforcement in Scotland is needed. However, there is an issue that is worth mentioning for the committee. The Scottish Government believes that the provision necessitates an LCM whereas the UK Government believes that it does not require an LCM. However, as the LCM explains, fines enforcement is devolved, so we consider the area of additional provision that adds responsibilities for SCTS to enforce fines imposed in England and Wales is devolved and therefore necessitates an LCM. The UK Government disagrees that the provision in the schedule could not be included in the Scottish Bill and that such is outwith competence. The Parliament agrees with the Scottish Government's position, which is why we now have it in front of you. We believe that the position is at the purpose of the relevant provision, which, namely, is to empower the courts and tribunals service to enforce fines imposed in England and Wales, is devolved and it is only through the manner in which the provision is drafted that it takes the provision outwith competence. The purpose of the provision is clearly devolved. As the LCM was accepted for lodging, as I said, the Scottish Parliament appears to agree the necessity for an LCM has been triggered by the Bill. Finally, it is important to stress that the LCM does not mean that the Scottish Government supports the entire policy content of the Bill and will wear other provisions in the Bill, which have created some controversy, such as changes to the operation of judicial review powers. This LCM is very narrow, only about the fines enforcement issue. I would be happy to take any questions of questions to do so, convener. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Just for clarity, your remarks were in relation to the judicial review and courts bill. That is absolutely fine. What I will maybe do is ask if you would be able to make your brief remarks in relation to the police crime sentencing and courts bill LCM, and then we can maybe take questions after that. The policy is up, but the wrong one there, convener. I am happy to cover the second of the LCMs. Again, I am grateful to the committee for the chance to take questions on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the police crime sentencing and courts bill today, which the committee has had before it previously. It covers the extraction of data clauses that are intended to clarify the existing position following the information commissioners report of procedures in England and Wales, and the measures are not intended to create any new powers. The Government lodged an LCM on 5 August for those provisions that extend to Scotland. Time of lodging, I advised that the Government was not in a position to be able to recommend consent for the power to extract information from digital devices of witnesses, victims and others, as discussions at that time were still on-going between the former Lord Advocate and UK ministers. I also stated my intention once in position around the investigation of deaths that was resolved satisfactorily to bring forward a supplementary memorandum for those provisions in order to ensure a consistent approach that takes account of Scotland's distinct position. Following confirmation from the UK Government that the issue of investigation of deaths will be kept under review once in force, we have now concluded that the identified risk is not sufficiently material to prevent the Scottish Government from recommending that the Scottish Parliament consent to those provisions. I will open up to members and I will ask first if anyone has any questions on the police crime sentencing and courts bill LCM. I will indicate if you have any questions on that one. I am not seeing any indication. That is fine. Likewise, I will ask if any members have any questions in relation to the judicial review and courts bill LCM. Again, if you can just indicate with an R or put your hand up. No, thank you very much. In that case, we will now move on to the next item. Our next item of business is consideration of any issues in our final reports on the LCMs. Let me start again with the police crime sentencing and courts bill. Any final views from members that they wish to include in the committee's report on the LCM? No, I am not seeing anything at all. On that basis, no issues have been raised by members. That being the case, does the committee agree that the Scottish Parliament should give its consent to the relevant provisions in the police crime courts and sentencing bill as set out in the Scottish Government's draft motion? Thank you. Are members content to delegate to me the publication of a very short factual report on the outcome of our deliberations on the LCM? Thank you very much indeed. The issue now moves to the chamber for all members to decide on the basis of the report that we will prepare. Thank you very much for that. If I can now turn to the second LCM, the judicial review and courts bill. Again, I will invite any members to share their views on any issues that they would like to include in the committee's report on the LCM. I would like to indicate or put an R in the chat function, not seeing anything. No issues have been raised by members. That being the case, does the committee agree that the Scottish Parliament should give its consent to the relevant provisions of the judicial review and courts bill as set out in the Scottish Government's draft motion? I will be happy with that. Are members content to delegate to me the publication of a very short factual report on the outcome of our deliberations on the LCM? The issue now moves to the chamber for all members to decide on the basis of our report. Thank you. That concludes our consideration of the two LCMs.