 I welcome everyone to this, the 22nd meeting of the Public Audit Committee in 2023. The first item on our agenda is for members of the committee to agree or not to take agenda item 3, 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. A agenda item 2 this morning is consideration of the Auditor General for Scotland's report, the criminal court backlog. I am pleased to welcome three witnesses for the committee this morning. We are joined by Neil Renwick, who is the director general education and justice. Mr Renwick is joined by Katrina Dalrymple, who is the interim director of justice in the Scottish Government. They are joined by Eric McQueen, who is the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We have quite a number of questions to put to you, but before we get to those questions, I am going to invite Mr Renwick and Mr McQueen to give some opening remarks. I will be brief. This is my first opportunity to appear before the committee in my new role as director general for education and justice. I am not new to the justice system. I have worked in various roles over the last 14 years, including through the Covid pandemic and its aftermath. I really welcome the Audit Scotland report looking at the impact of backlogs that were unavoidably built up during the pandemic. I am particularly pleased that the Audit Scotland report acknowledges the quick and effective work that partners across the justice system undertook during the pandemic and since to respond to the pressures that were raised. Importantly, that was not just senior leaders like Eric McQueen. It was also a whole range of staff within local courts, the judiciary, members of the legal profession, social workers, ffiscals, et cetera, who worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic. The other point that I want to acknowledge is the one that is within the Audit Scotland report that the backlog of cases is having a significant impact on victims, on witnesses and those accused of crime, especially those held on remand. Part of the work that we have undertaken throughout the pandemic and beyond is to try to mitigate the impact that the necessary health restrictions had on the justice system. I am sure that those are all issues that the committee will want to raise questions about, and I am happy to leave it at that. Good morning, committee. This is almost my first time at this committee, so it's nice to be here this morning. A lot of what Neil was saying was things that I was going to cover, so I think that I can be even more brief than Neil in that regard. First of all, I would like to say a thanks to the Audit Scotland report that it produced. It took extensive time to really understand the challenges and complexities that we were dealing with within the criminal justice system during the period of the pandemic. I have taken some significant reassurance from the findings of the report, so the fact that it recognised that we responded quickly and effectively to the pandemic in terms of our planning. That we have made a significant progress in reducing the backlog, currently reduced by 66 per cent as we stand at the moment, and that we made very good use of the data and modelling to help inform our decision making. Equally, the recommendations that they have made will help us in the future as we start to take forward the next phase of the world, which is much more about the transformation side. The pandemic was an area that none of us could have foreseen to that extent. It was very much moving into a very much of the unknown. At the start, we set ourselves three guiding principles to help us to work through that. Our first priority was about protecting the life and safety of all court users. Secondly, it was about maintaining essential court business and categorising what that essential part meant. Thirdly, it was about making sure that whatever steps we did take, then it tried to facilitate the road back to recovery as soon as the pandemic was over. That was guiding principles that worked through the whole pandemic as we went through our planning. Obviously, the data and modelling were a key part of that. We were very clear from the start that we had to be evidence-based. That was going to have a significant long-term impact on the criminal justice system. We needed to make sure that we had both the data and the modelling to help us guide through that. Recognising very much that modelling is not exact, it is not a science, it is a prediction and there are a whole range of variables that can change and did change at different stages as we went throughout the pandemic. The fact that that underpinned our decision-making and continues to underpin our decision-making is one of the very strong attributes. The other thing that I would say is that there was a lot of change during the time of the pandemic. We brought off, in a lot of innovation, whether it was remote jury centres, virtual custodies, moving to electronic processing and business, moving tribunials and civil into largely a virtual world. The vast majority of the changes that we brought in, while those were brought in at pace, are now creating the foundations for the long-term change that we want to see. None of the benefits of the change that we brought in has been lost. They are now underpinning the way that we are going forward. On Neil's point, one thing through the pandemic has strengthened relations across the entire justice system, both within the formal justice organisations, but importantly across the legal professions and across the third sector. The type of discussions, the relationships that we have now have been greatly enhanced by some of that close working that developed during the time of the pandemic. I say looking forward to this morning's discussions and looking forward to questions. I will bring in the rest of the committee shortly, but let me begin by asking you something that you alluded to in your opening comments. The backlog in our criminal courts has had a significant effect on victims and witnesses who are waiting for justice to be served. What additional support has been given either directly by the Scottish Government, Mr McQueen directly by the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, or through other relevant support and advocacy organisations to help to allay some of the impacts that those delays have had on those victims and those witnesses? Thank you. It's a really important point and I would not want to downplay in any way the significant impact that those unavoidable delays have had on individuals. It was recognised right from the beginning of the pandemic that one of the most significant impacts was going to be on the people within the system. During the early part of the pandemic, while we still had restrictions in place, staff within the justice directorate met on a fortnightly basis with victims organisations to talk through the experiences that people were having, the mitigating factors that we could take forward. As we emerge from the pandemic, we reviewed the funding that we provide to victims organisations and established the Victim Centred Support Fund that is providing £48 million in funding over three years for victims organisations. Separate funding is provided through our equalities colleagues directly to organisations working with victims of violence against women and girls. Funding is also available through the Victim Surcharge Fund. There is a range of support for victims and victims organisations, but we have maintained engagement with those organisations following the initial period of the pandemic through the victims task force that meets regularly to talk through the experience and make sure that we are reflecting that. I suspect that we will get on to it, but, as we emerge from the pandemic and look forward to what the future system looks like, trying to ensure that decisions that we are taking are focused around the needs of individuals within that system. I am sure that we will get on to that further. Anything to add, Mr McQueen? Obviously, it is very similar to what Neil McQueen has already said. What we tried to do through the pandemic was to make sure that we engage regularly, particularly with the victims organisations. Along with the Crown, we had a minimum of monthly meetings at every stage through the pandemic, where we were discussing the latest implications of the restrictions, what that meant in terms of court business and some of the changes that we are trying to bring in. We brought in a range of things in terms of increased use of TV links to try to ensure that witnesses could give their evidence without coming to court. At the same time, we have tried to now increase very significantly evidence by commission. We now have about 800 cases a year where evidence is taken by commission, which avoid witnesses coming to court or giving their evidence. That allows them to give their evidence quite significantly in advance of the trial. It is about different steps that we are trying to make as we come out of the pandemic. How do we build on the reforms that are in place? How do we deal with some of those issues around the timescales? It is worse than that, because the timescales are starting to reduce. If we look at evidence-led trials at the moment in the High Court, the average period from when a case is first called in court to when the evidence-led trial takes place is 43 weeks, that is significantly longer than it was pre-pandemic. That is just to give an idea of the sort of timescale. A very similar period in Sheriff & Dury and in the Sheriff summary courts is currently 38 weeks. Sometimes, as a concern when we talk about a backlog and a backlog not being cleared for a number of years, there is an impression that cases are taken two or three, four years to go through the court system. That is not the case at all. We are at the place where we have significantly increased the capacity within the courts and we are starting to manage cases within at least a more reasonable timescale to give them the constraints. Obviously, we expect that, as the recovery programme goes on, that timescale will continue to reduce. I was just trying to put that general point about the backlog. The backlog does not mean that cases are sitting in the court for two years or three years as we work through the period. It is, yes, a longer period, currently 43 weeks in the High Court, but that is a period that will start to reduce as we work further through the recovery programme. We will come a bit later on to your relationship with the victim support organisations because, notwithstanding what you have told us in the first 10 minutes, there are some quite direct criticisms of your failure to engage sufficiently with those victims organisations, but we will come on to that later. On the answer, Mr Rennick, that you gave, can I just get clarity here? You said that there is £48 million. Is that additional money that has been put into the system? Over what time frame is that? We often hear figures, £48 million, but is that over a year? Is that over two years? Is that over three years? Forgive me, but how is that split between direct Government expenditure and grants or support that is given out to those advocacy and support networks? That £48 million all goes to over 20 different organisations, so that is direct grant funding to those organisations. There is separate funding, as Mr McQueen says, that we have provided over time to support access to pre-recorded evidence and so on that clearly supports victims as well. Obviously, all the money that we have provided to the Covid recovery programme, the ultimate intention of that is to try and speed up the process of recovery to benefit victims and witnesses and accused. I am happy to provide the committee with a description. Funding for victims organisations has increased over time. The £48 million is a mix of existing funding and additional funding that is within there. I am happy to reflect that and give the committee a more detailed update on that. You do not know this morning off the top of your head what roughly that is. How much of the £48 million is additional and how much of it is recurring? For example, the money that is being provided, roughly just under £1 million, is around £900,000 through the Victim Surcharge Fund. It is entirely new. That was funding that did not exist before. That is entirely new. Of the £48 million, the vast majority of that is existing money, but it is not all going to the same organisations. For example, we provided extra funding to Victim Support Scotland for families who are bereaved by crime, for example, and that was additional funding. It is a mix of additional and existing funding. Over time, we have prioritised increasing funding for victims organisations. There was specific additional money, around £100 million, that was provided during the pandemic specifically to support victims organisations. Thank you Neil. It was £100,000 that was given to Victim Support Scotland's Victim Fund. That was to help the immediate financial needs of the most vulnerable victims. They were entitled to access support of up to £3,000 to support if they had to leave a residence, for example, particularly focused on domestic abuse victims. For us, as a Public Audit Committee, getting that breakdown is quite important, because you have mentioned a figure of £48 million. To understand how much of that is additional, and what proportion of that £48 million is additional, or is it just transferring from one budget heading into another, you may well, in light of circumstances, want to re-prioritise how you spend your money as a department and through your agencies. Having some transparency over that would be helpful for us. I am happy to cover that. It highlights a wider point in trying to reflect what resources in the justice system benefit victims, because there is direct funding to advocacy organisations. As I said, much wider funding is intended to respond to crime, reduce victimisation overall. One of the positives over the past decade has been the reduction in the number of victims overall within the justice system. We are going to turn with the Deputy convener to another part of the justice system, which has faced increased pressure and I presume increased costs. The Auditor General has previously reported that prisoner numbers are exceeding the operating capacity of Scotland's prisons. To what extent is the courts backlog and the number of people in remand adding to the existing pressures on the prison system? From the very beginning of the pandemic, we always recognised that this was going to be a system challenge. This was not just a challenge within the courts. It was going to be a challenge for community justice. It was going to be a challenge for the prison service, for the legal profession. We have tried throughout to view this as a system challenge. During the recovery process from the beginning of 2022 and throughout 2022, we saw significant reductions in terms of the overall number of the backlog of cases, really positive progress. During that time, the prison population remained relatively stable as the flows in and out were relatively balanced. We have seen during the current year, during 2023, a significant upswing in the prison population since roughly January this year of around 600 extra places. That is still below the highest levels that we had pre-pandemic or the level that we had before the pandemic, but it is the highest levels that we have had since the pandemic hit and is having a significant impact on the prison population. The assessment from our analysis is that that is a mix of factors that are causing that. It is not simply the recovery programme. We were projecting that the recovery programme would see the remand population fall off as the sentence population beginning to go up as those cases were dealt with. What we have seen is both the remand and the sentence population increase during the current year. We think that that is a reflection not just of the recovery programme but of wider pressures within the system in terms of more complex cases, particularly in the solemn courts feeding through into the system, as well as people spending longer on remand overall. It is a mix of different factors that is not purely the recovery programme directly impacting on that. It is both the recovery programme and other pressures within the system. On the backlog, the Scottish Court's tribunal service, the modelling for 2021, initially stated its target for clearing the backlog, would be 390 outstanding high court trials and 500 outstanding share of court solemn trials in order to return to normal. The report that Audit Scotland published earlier this year notes that it is now shifted, so there are 567 high court trials and 1,892 share of court solemn trials, which is quite a change of the goalpost. Why has the backlog target changed so much? I think that this is largely reflected as the point that Neil was making about the increased level that we are seeing in solemn business. So solemn indictments, both in the high court and share of enduring court, have increased by around 38 per cent over the last five years. So, throughout the pandemic, while there was a feeling at the time that crime might drop, actually the level of petitions and indictments that came through continued to be at that very high level. So what we have seen over probably the last five, six, seven years is a continuing trend increase in the more serious cases that's coming into the system. And what we've found throughout the pandemic is that trend has continued, and if anything, we've started to see a slight increase, which might again wait back to the issue about prisoners numbers. So the whole thing about the modelling is that it has to change and evolve as the position changes, so as we've started to see more cases coming into the system, the modelling needs to reflect that. And I say that's why we're quite clear now that we, within the high court and share of enduring court, returning to the pre-pandemic level is just not now a realistic proposition. The level of cases coming through is significantly higher and therefore the modelling now reflects what we think will be the realistic level of cases that will be in the system. Is there analysis being done on why there's more serious cases coming through? Is there been what's on it? Any kind of analysis done, you know what the reason is for all these solemn cases coming through? The vast majority of the cases coming through are related to sexual offence cases, so that's the one area where there's a big increase. And I think a part of that is about the much more proactive role that's taken by the police now in terms of investigations. The more detailed investigations looking past in terms of past partners, past histories, past behaviours and what we're finding is that there are different type of cases that are now coming in. That have got a much greater degree of complexity than they would have had previously. So on one hand I think it's great credit in terms of what's happened in investigation that more of these cases are getting reported, more of these cases are coming forward. Quite clearly it creates an impact on the courts, but in terms of the societal benefit then I would imagine that's exactly what we'd want to see. How much more funding would be required in order for the court service to return to the backlog targets that are originally set in 2021? It's not really a question of funding, but this is about capacity across the whole justice system, and by that I include the legal profession and I include the third sector within that. We think now that we are pretty much working at a flat-out capacity. Already there were signs creaking particularly within the legal profession about real concerns that they had about the level of court business that's currently going through the courts. We just don't feel it is at all viable to increase the capacity any further. The actual capacity increases are quite sizable. The high court is operating at 40 per cent above its pre-Covid capacity and sheriff's injuries operating at 45 per cent above its pre-Covid capacity. That obviously puts an enormous stretch on the legal profession that puts an enormous stretch on resources across all of the organisations. We really think in terms of our modelling analysis that the level of capacity at the moment is the most the system could manage. If we put more capacity in, the system would start to fold to the edges. We would see cases being adjourned and it would start to be counterproductive. I think that all of these things are balanced out trying to find the optimum level and our feeling is that we are pretty much there at the moment. Paragraph 44 states that the Scottish Government is committed to providing over £40 million of on-going Covid-19 funding to continue addressing the criminal court backlog. Is that funding still committed for that purpose? Is it still available? That funding is in place in the current year and we have always acknowledged that this is a multi-year process that will have to continue over a number of years to work its way through the backlog. What impact has the switching of resources from summary to solemn courts through the court recovery programme had both on the backlog for solemn cases and on the summary backlog? What we have seen is a significant throughput increase in terms of cases both in the High Court and in the Sheriff's Injury. We publish monthly reports that break down quite clearly what the throughput of the business is, how many evidence-led trials, how many cases being concluded. What we are seeing is that in both of those, the increased capacity of the High Court and the Sheriff's Injury Court is pretty much now being matched with the throughput coming through. That gives us real confidence that the modelling that we are suggesting of the High Court being back to its revised baseline by March 2025 and Sheriff's Injury by March 2026 is a very realistic proposition. At the moment, that is tracking pretty much on the model. On the summary side, we've got reason to be a bit cautious at the moment. We were of the view in terms of the earlier modelling that the backlog would be largely cleared by March 2024. We think that that will take us further into 2024. During the course of the last probably five or six months now, the level of complaints on a monthly basis getting registered in court has increased by about 400 every month. We were running on a pretty steady forecast of round about 5,000 a month. That's now averaging about 5,400. That's largely because the Crown has cleared the backlog of cases that were awaiting marking. They had about 18,000 cases awaiting marking. Their normal figures are at 9,000. They've now been through those cases and those cases have now come into the court. That's created additional trial demand within the court, which we didn't expect to come in at that period. That's now looking like the summary will probably take a while longer as we get into 2024 to get that backlog cleared. How does the CTS get to the baseline figures? How does it reach that? We do it based on forecasts from particularly the Crown Office in terms of what their estimations are going to be in terms of the likelihood of cases coming through. From then, we then calculate what that means to the baseline. We calculate the proportion of cases that are likely to be set down for trial. We calculate the proportion of traces that will actually go to evidence-led trial. We feed that in the modelling to try to work out what the best baselines are going to be. Those are all based on forecasts. So far, they've been pretty accurate as we've worked through the modelling. We have a good degree of confidence that they are keeping us in the right direction. Modelling is never exact, and it will change on a month-to-month basis as forecasts change or as different variances change within the system. Paragraph 73 says that the CTS measures the average time in some cases between a plea being entered and the scheduled trial date. It measures the point that the plea has been entered. It says that it does not include the time that those involved in the case have been waiting prior to this. Is that time increased? Is that the same time as it was before Covid? It's pretty much the same time. There's no real difference. Essentially, trials can't be set until someone's plea is not guilty. The plea of not guilty kicks off the system where trials are then set and witnesses are then cited. That can happen at different stages. It will kick off a fairly normie in the first few weeks of a case being registered within court. It's not a significant time difference. How does the Scottish Government plan to support the continued deduction of the criminal courts backlog beyond 23-24? We're absolutely committed. We've recognised that this is a multi-year process, particularly for the solemn court that's stretching on over at least the next three years. That is understood and reflected and will be reflected in our budget discussions and the budget process. Thank you. Some of the other committee members have got some questions following up some of those themes and developing them. I'm going to first of all bring in Colin Beattie. Thank you, convener. I'd like to go back to Raman prisoners. The other general's report indicates that in 21-22 one in four people in prison were actually on Raman, which Bill Lehmann seems a very high figure. Is that in fact a high figure? Is it as a result of the Covid epidemic? Does it represent a longer-term upward trend? It is a high figure. Scotland had a high level of Raman by international standards coming into the pandemic of between 20 and 25 per cent of the prison population. That increased significantly during the pandemic and has remained high throughout the period of the pandemic and beyond. There are significant factors that underlie that. The Scottish Government has taken a range of actions to try and respond to Scotland's relatively high use of Raman by international standards. That included introducing the opportunity for electronic monitoring for people being held on bail. A significant number of people are now being monitored through that process. The bail and release from custody bill that was approved by Parliament just before the summer includes proposals to adjust how bail law operates with part of the aim to ensure that Raman is only used where it is absolutely necessary to protect public safety or to protect the operation of the justice system. We have also put extra resources into alternatives to Raman such as supervised bail, but it is still the case that the Raman population is high. The decisions around Raman are taken by the judiciary looking at the facts of each case. We have more complex cases feeding through, but we also have people on Raman for longer when they are in there. That is part of the impact of the court backlogs and will be hopefully dealt with through the recovery process. However, there is a significant issue in terms of the level of Raman within Scotland. It is high compared to England and Wales and other equivalent European countries. When you say high, can you quantify that? We are at 25 per cent, let's say, or other countries at 10 or 15. What is the norm elsewhere? It is variable because it partly relates to the overall levels of the prison population. Countries with very small prison populations tend to have very high Raman populations. Other countries do not. England and Wales, prior to the pandemic, had something like 15 per cent relative to our higher levels. We were high compared to equivalent, but international statistics published in Scotland tends to come out very near the top. Both in terms of our overall use of imprisonment per capita and our Raman population as a proportion of the prison population. I was interested in the Auditor General's report where it is noted that Raman prisoners do not have the same rights as prisoners who have been convicted. They can spend up to 22 hours a day in their cell. That must have a huge impact on their mental health, probably on their physical health as well. Has there been any review carried out to the extent to which Raman is impacting on those aspects? Mental health is a big issue there, but also employment, housing and all the things that go with that? Absolutely. We have done significant work on the impact of short periods of custody on those issues. That applies in terms of people's sentence to short sentences, but it applies to people on Raman in terms of disruption to employment, housing and their family lives. The vast majority of people who go in on Raman go in for relatively short periods of time and then will come out, but there are increasing numbers of people who are on Raman for over three months and beyond. Clearly, that has a significant impact on someone's life. Raman includes both people who have a waiting sentence after a trial, but also the largest part of it is people who are awaiting trial. Is that review available? We have published evidence prior to the pandemic on the impact of short periods of custody on people's lives and the impact of that. We have acknowledged that the impact of those short periods applies equally to people on Raman as it does to people who are sentenced. There is a difference in terms of within prison because someone who is on Raman has not been convicted. They do not have access to the same programmes that people who have been convicted have, so that is part of what limits their access to purposeful activity. Also within prisons, we have to keep people who are on Raman separate from the sentence population. That is an impact for the prison service in terms of how they manage the population as well. I have not had the benefit of seeing that review, but it came to some conclusions as to how to mitigate those impacts. Maybe you could just briefly give us an overview of that. Not just our review but the review that was undertaken by the previous Justice Committee looking at the levels and impact of Raman recommended that further work should be done to look at the levels of Raman and whether those are too high. That has been reflected in the work that has been taken forward through the bail and release from custody bill through the work on providing the opportunity for electronic monitoring for bail, etc. A lot of our work has drawn out of that in terms of trying to find ways in which we can adjust how Raman is used within the Scottish justice system. The report talks about remote duty centres. In July 2020, the concept was piloted in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and it was successful and it was implemented. The Scottish Government gave the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service an additional £12 million of funding to implement the remote duty centre model. Was the value for money assessment carried out before the additional funding was required? A review was undertaken by the Law Justice Clerk looking at the opportunities for restarting duty trials, which recommended that remote duty centres were the most effective way in allowing courts to restart. Without that, it would not have been possible to allow duty trials to restart. The significant human impact that that would have for accused and victims and witnesses. The normal budget processes within the Government were followed around the allocation of resources for that, but the priority was absolutely allowing duty trials to continue, which at the time they were completely paused and not able to proceed at all. I will allow Eric to talk about that and about the evaluation that was done of the remote duty centres. We carried out an options appraisal on the different possibilities for the restart of juries. Our initial proposal was to look to see whether we could use a number of jury courts to hold with a jury trial. So the trial would take place in one court and other participants would spread either over two or three courts. That obviously would have limited the capacity by enormously, by up to two thirds. Our projections were that this would simply mean that trial delays were going to carry on out until 2030, so that wasn't a viable proposition. We looked at a range of alternatives. We looked at school establishments. We looked at university establishments. We looked at hiring retail space or space in the sports centres or through hotels. We also looked at the cinema option. The cinema option came out as the most cost-effective option, because essentially it was an ideal purpose-built facility that fitted jury trials. It had the high quality digital technology already in place, it had an auditorium, it had screening viewings, it had catering on-site, it had toilet facilities, it had secure access so we could protect the jury. So actually cinema was as close to a perfect model as you could have devised for remote jury centres. The other major advantage with cinema is that we knew there would be pressures on other areas as the world started to reopen. University halls would start coming back into use, hotels would need their use. Cinemas are not busy places during the day, their main areas are Thursday, Friday nights and weekends. So we knew there was a continuity of service that we could pretty much guarantee with the cinemas in terms of putting a long-term contract in place. We were able to negotiate good terms and conditions with the cinema, which gave us the option to have a continued occupation beyond the move out of lockdown. The cinemas gave us security in terms of planning for the long-term and we still do use a remote jury centre at the moment, though the in-road still serves Parliament House as a remote jury centre and it will do for the next few years. So it gave us continuity of service and we knew that if the pandemic at any stage took a step back then it's something we could quickly move back to. In terms of actually being able to provide a service, being able to get up and running in an incredibly short space of time and being comparable value to money for the other private sector options, it came out as quite a clear choice. Obviously the pandemic drove a lot of innovative change and it would appear that the court service and so on has responded well to that. The report from the auditor general says that remote balloting of jurors, which was part of the innovation of course that came in, has now been made permanent, which seems to make absolute sense. Are there any other changes that were introduced in response to the pandemic that you've either made permanent or are considering making permanent? Virtually every change has either been made permanent or is being made permanent. Remote jury centres is the only one we think will have a limited life span, will come a time where we can actually move away from the final remote jury centre we have. But again it's opened our eyes up to how we might be able to deal with certain types of jury cases in the future, particularly in relation to serious organised crime cases where there are real concerns about jury intimidation. So we might not use a cinema but actually it might be sensible to have a jury located in a different area where they're not in direct contact with the court and nobody knows of the location that they're viewing the trial for. So that's something that we see as being a future development. The world has moved on enormously in terms of virtual hearings, so virtual hearings are now standard place, not just in criminal but across the entire range of services. So civil business, all procedural business, when the civil courts now takes place virtually. So new court rules were produced by the Scottish Justice Civil Council. It is now mandating the way that the court will operate in the future. There's a big part of that as virtual. Across tribunials again, the whole of the tribunials operations move very quickly into the virtual world. They're issued by telephones but then brought in full virtual WebEx facilities. And again, that has remained in place across the vast majority of hearings within tribunials. The only area we're moving more back to in-person is in relation to mental health, where we've got patients that are being held against their liberty in hospitals and clearly sometimes actually having an in-person hearing is a better way of dealing with the individuals. Within the criminal world, the electronic exchange information is now staying. So the vast majority of information now that moves around the system is done digitally rather than through paper. The digital evidence capability that was funded by Scottish Governments being led by Crown and Police is looking about a new way of bringing evidence into court, rather than bringing in physical productions or DVDs or laptops. It's now stored in one safe digital environment, it's now shared between the Crown and the Police and it's now digitally brought into the court environment. That's currently being trialled in the D and that will stay with us for the long term. Because of the challenges that we're having currently with GUAME, which I'm sure members will be very well aware of, we are now looking to resurrect the thinking round about virtual custody courts. So we used virtual casteries during the course of the pandemic. Almost 20,000 people appeared from police custody units through video links and we're now looking to see that actually is this a move that would be sensible to make in the future. So rather than moving thousands of people around the country and quite vans on a daily basis, can we have high quality video links between PCUs and virtual courts and have them taken within a virtual environment. It would reduce costs enormously, it would be great for emissions and it would vastly improve the experience for the vast majority of accused. So rather than being bundled about in a van driven across Scotland and sitting in court cells for seven or eight hours before their two minute hearing takes place in the court, it could be done directly from a video link from a PCU. So I think the pandemic has really opened our eyes up to the way that we can use technology. I think we've got to be quite clear that during the pandemic a lot of things were put in very, very quickly and at pace. A lot of them were sticking past us, but the thinking behind them and the essence behind them was absolutely the right one. What we're trying to do now is to make sure we develop those into long term solutions that have got the right technology in place, it's robust, it's safe, it's secure and we can enhance the systems in future. Are there any areas where you would like to see innovation but there might be barriers to actually achieving that? I think there's less than there were. I think the pandemic has changed a lot of the thinking that where there were barriers previously, then actually were the modern people's imaginations and minds of real barriers. So I don't get any sense at all from either justice organisations or from the legal profession that where we're doing things with the right reason, with the right solutions, then people were up for that change. So I think there's a real recognition that digital plays a real part at the heart of justice in future. Quite clearly it's about getting the standards right, so things need to be gold standard. We need to make sure that the technology operates, it works, we need to make sure that the audio and the video is as high as possible standard. But I think there's quite a mindset change by everyone, including my own organisation, about what might have been possible before as opposed to what's possible now. Willie Coffey's got some questions or a question to come up in the back of that, so Willie. Thanks, convener. It's on this area of innovations or changes. I was speaking to the fiscal service and commander who told me that the earlier presentation of evidence to defence in the effort to accuse was bearing fruit and it was yielding success and getting earlier guilty, please. I wanted to ask you about the impact on that, how successful they think that's been. In many ways that could have been done anytime, probably due to Covid for us to think about doing that, it's not really related to Covid but it could have been done. So it's not really an innovative change, it's just a change that we thought of doing that's bearing positive results. Could you tell us a wee bit more about that and your experience? Desk, which is the digital evidence sharing capability, was something that actually started before Covid. So this was actually getting quite well developed before we got to Covid. Covid initially put a pause on it but it's now starting to get back resurrected. It's work that's being led by the Scottish Government and policing crown of the main organisations at the moment. I think like all of these things it's quite a challenge to implement it. So at the moment the pilot is operating and indeed we understand it's operating very successfully. Certainly the feedback from the court is at the presentation of evidence and the quality of evidence that is vastly different from what it was before. But it is an enormous change for the police and the crown in terms of the way they operate. There's big investment in terms of the infrastructure. It's like all of these things where we can just add on video screens to make things easier or we can exchange things electronically but actually having the underlying technology, the underlying infrastructure is absolutely critical to make it work. So I think that's part of the reason it's taken time to get this in place and get it delivered. Certainly the evaluation will take place shortly in Dundee and we would expect that quite quickly after that we will start to see a rollout plan. I think initially that will be across the summary courts but quite clearly moving that into the solemn courts would have significant advantage. Ultimately does it lead to just shorter time between the case arriving in your desk and a plea being offered? What's the ultimate benefit? That's the whole principle behind it and it fits in with other work that's being done at the moment called the summary case management pilot and the two of them are linked very close together. Because we are in this position at the moment and we have been for a long time where in the share of court summary on average there's about 33, 35,000 trials a year that are set down for trial. The likelihood is that only 5,000 or 6,000 of those will ever go ahead. So we've got 28,000 trials where a lot of preparation is being done, 300 odd thousand witnesses are being cited to come to the trial for 5,000 trials that will be preceded. So the vast majority of witnesses cited will never appear at a trial and only about 1 in 10 police officers will appear to give evidence at a trial. So what the summary case management pilot is trying to do is to make sure that cases are resolved at the very earliest age. So to make sure that evidence is shared before the case first calls in court that that discussion takes place between the crowd and defence in terms of the evidence basis of the court. So that when a plea of not guilty is made, then the likelihood is that that case will actually go to trial and it won't just settle at a later stage. Again, that pilot's in its quite early stage. It run properly from about January this year. I say it is a judiciary-led pilot and it involves really strong judicial case management being applied by the sheriffs and that's one of the really important tangible parts of it. The evaluation of that is due in October time and I would anticipate what we will see after that as a further role of that pilot to the court. So I think bringing together that case management, that increased judicial case management with the early share of evidence are going to be things that will be quite significant game chambers and game changers in the way that the summary criminal business operates. OK, that's really good. Thanks very much for that, convener. Thank you, thank you. Can I just go back to a fairly fundamental question which is, do you accept the findings of the Auditor General's report? Absolutely. Yes. Mr Rennie, yes, good. Do you accept the recommendations and the timescales set out in the Auditor General's report? I accept the recommendations. We saw the timescales in draft and did not raise any concerns about those. Obviously decisions in terms of actions that are taken are going to reflect approval from ministers, engage with stakeholders. So we'll obviously be aware of those timescales. We'd interject to them when they were set out, but the actual timescales that we follow will obviously flow from dialogue that we have with the various justice stakeholders and make sure that's reflected. As Mr McQueen says, we are operating within a dynamic system, so there are factors that can impact on that as well, and we've seen some of that over the past year. I have no objection to the timescales that were set out there, and we're trying to work at those, but I want to make sure that the actions that we take are helping to progress both the recovery programme and the longer-term direction in terms of the justice system. I'm not entirely clear from that whether you're going to meet the timescales set out in the recommendations. For those people who are following this, in the Auditor General's report he sets out a series of recommendations, some of which the Scottish Government should carry out in the next three to six months, some of which the realistic timescale is in the next 12 months, and then there are others in the next two years, and finally a section of recommendations that the Auditor General thinks should be carried out in the next 12 to 18 months. Do you agree that they are realistic timescales and is your intent to meet those timescales? Yes, we think that they are realistic, and our aim is to meet those timescales. Obviously, as I say, it's not purely our decision that it's partly through engagement with various stakeholders as well, so I want to make sure that we are reflecting that and being clear that these are system-wide issues under a lot of the recommendations, and we will work with our partners to take those forward. Equally, the document was shared with the partners, and I'm not aware of them raising any issues around the timescales that were in the report. But just to be clear about it, you are the accountable officer for the Scottish Government, and those recommendations are once made to the Scottish Government. Yes, and we will work to respond to those timescales. We're obviously dealing with a dynamic situation in terms of the pressures that are within the system, and I want to acknowledge that. I don't want to pretend to the committee that that is not the case, but we will work in terms of responding to those recommendations, taking account of the timescales that Audit Scotland has set out. Well, you're not on trial here, Mr Rennick, but I'm not sure what the jury would think of your answer to that question. I'm going to bring in Graham Simpson, who's got some more questions on this theme. Yes, of course, Mr McQueen. The recommendations are specific to SCTS. We have no difficulty with the recommendations or the timescale, and the vast majority of them are already now embedded into our programme. So, the ask that we have in terms of valuation, in terms of carrying EQIAs, are all now embedded within the programme for all our future development. That's very helpful, Mr McQueen. Graham Simpson. Okay, thanks very much. I'm going to have another go at that question. Will you meet the timescales? We will aim to meet the timescales, yes. No, aim to meet and meeting two different things. Yes, well. Will you meet the timescales? We're operating within a dynamic system. I want to be absolutely clear that the experience of the justice system over the last 10 years and particularly over the last few years during the pandemic has been that there are significant pressures and challenges within the system and issues that can arise. We were not predicting the growth in the prison population that we've seen over the last few months and we need to respond to that and take account of that. So, absolutely, I will say yes, we will work towards meeting those timescales. If I can summarise, that is, we'll do our best, but I can't promise you. Our aim is to work within those timescales, but I am realistic about the range of pressures that are within the system. Okay, I think that I was right. If I can ask, just following I was really interested to hear about this summary case management pilot. I guess, well, hey, that's going to save a lot of people, a lot of time, a lot of hassle. I guess it could save money. Will you be evaluating, you know, what the cost, what the savings in time and money are? Yes, absolutely. I mean that there is a very comprehensive evaluation plan set out for that at the moment. So it is going through its interim evaluation at the moment. I said that will be ready by the end of October. And the final evaluation will take place in March next year. And it is going to be one of these things that, you know, primarily this is about speeding up the system. So this is about, you know, apparently changing the impact on individuals that are coming through. In terms of some of the very early results coming through, there has been some of the court areas a 30% decrease in terms of witness citation. And some of the court areas a 50% decrease in terms of police citation. So in terms of the, even the disruption to witnesses, it is significant. And certainly if we can get to a position where we can take out cases at a much earlier stage, then it may avoid significant additional work for the Crown at the moment in the preparation of trials that we now know are unlikely to go ahead. So, yes, it has the potential to create savings and opportunities for the vast majority of organisations involved. It sounds really sensible to me. Can I ask about the remote balloting of jurors? Because anyone who's been at a juror or if you know people who've been jurors, I mean it's enormous. It can be an enormous hassle to turn up at a court and be told you're not actually required. So how is this actually working? How much notice do you get that you will actually be needed on a particular day? So the jurors know the day that the ballot is taking place. So they are notified of that day. The ballot then takes place and the jurors are, at the moment, informed on the day of the ballot to advise them to attend court the next day. So you'll get 24 hours of notice. So you'll know that tomorrow you will be on a jury. Do you also get told roughly how long you'll be needed on that jury? Yes, we give people estimations. I mean there are estimations for all trials roughly in terms of how long it's going to last for. Obviously that will vary depending on a specific trial case to case. There are some of the remote jury trials where we are trying to bring jurors in the afternoon. And again, that has been successful. I must admit that's quite surprised me. I thought there would have been a more difficulty for the health and jurors in the morning to ask them to appear in court in the afternoon. But actually in the ones where that's been taken forwards of it, it's not been an issue at all. I say it seems to be something that's widely accepted because it means that people are not having to take a day of their work. They're not having to raise childcare unnecessarily. And normally we would bring in somewhere between 60 and 80 jurors for every trial that would require 15 jurors for. So the way that we are reducing the inconvenience or the enormous amount of people has got some wider benefits as well. Okay, that's good. So just listening to some of the answers earlier, I could ask you Mr Renwick. I've sort of got this picture of jails that are pretty rammed, pretty full up. Would that be accurate? We have a high prison population around the National Standards and we have a high prison population relative to the capacity that we've got. Are you at capacity or are you over capacity? It is below the level that it was pre-pandemic. It's currently below the design capacity but we recognise the risks and pressures that were there and that were reflected in the chief inspector of prisons report yesterday. So you're below capacity, so you're not quite full up yet? Individual prisons, it's variable across individual prisons so some prisons are above their design capacity, others are below it so it's variable. Which is a concern. Do you think you need more prisons? We already have one of the highest, if not the highest prison population in Western Europe so that has to call into question whether the right response is additional prison capacity. Obviously that is not a quick decision and a quick choice that it takes time to create that capacity but a large part of what we do is trying to balance up the system that we've got with the pressures and as Mr McQueen says we've seen even over the last two years real growth in some of the more serious cases that are more likely to reach trial and more likely to result in people being on remand or on prison and we constantly try and reflect that in our projections and modelling. You can't control the numbers, they are sent to you through the court system so if you know we're actually getting more than we thought then clearly there's a capacity issue. Mr McQueen, when you were speaking earlier I got the impression that you were describing a court system which is over capacity, would that be accurate? I thought you said that when you were talking about high courts and sheriff courts the number of cases were more than you would be expecting. I think what we're doing is we're working to optimum capacity at the moment so we have the capacity in place now to match the level of business that's coming through. I think that when I referred to cases that were unexpected that was just the very recent cases in relation to the summary so that was more I think a short term issue just about the crown queering out some of the back low cases that were still to be marked. In both the high court and sheriff's home we have increased the capacity by 40% and 45% and that we believe is the right level of capacity for the types of cases that are coming through. So you've increased the capacity? Yes. How have you done that? Through the recovery programme and through the funding by the Scottish Government so we have put in place more courts for sovereign business both in the high court and in the sheriff's jury so previously in the high court we would have an average of about 16 courts a day setting. We now have 22 in the sheriff's home. We would normally have about 18 courts a day and we now have 26 so we've increased that capacity across Scotland to provide the right level of accommodation in court capacity for the case levels that are coming through. That's obviously mean that a consumer increase in terms of the judges and the sheriffs that are dealing with these cases, our staff, Crown Office staff and again that's what puts the pressure on legal profession because that same demand is on their time and their capacity. Correct. That was the obvious next question. That needs an increase in staff doesn't it? Yes. Judges, lawyers, court staff. Can you put a figure on that? The total cost, I think, certainly for ourselves in terms of staff and judges is somewhere around £19 million. Extra? Yes. That's part of the overall recovery programme that's funded by the Government. OK. You've been asked about the backlog previously of the Auditor General's report was about the backlog. The backlog for the most serious cases, murders, rapes, sex offences, according to the Auditor General's report won't be cleared until March 26. Now that may have changed since he wrote that. March 2025 for the most serious cases. 25. OK. So what's the longest that a case would be on the books before it is actually dealt with? That's a difficult one for me to say. What I can say, what I said earlier, is about the length of time that they are within the court system for. So at the moment, evidence-led trials, if evidence-led trials have taken place this year, then those evidence-led trials take place within 43 weeks. So from the preliminary hearing to the trial is 43 weeks, there will be a much longer place time when that person has potentially been on demand as the Crown go through their decision-making in terms of the market for the case and a longer period when the police are undergone their investigations before they bring that through. So it's really looking at those three separate parts that would give that totality. I can only comment on the part within the court area. So I say within the high court at the moment, it's 43 weeks before a case will reach its trial. Is that the maximum? That's the average. So there will be some cases that are slightly longer, some cases that are slightly shorter. So there could be cases where it's taking over a year? It's possible but there won't be many of them. So the vast majority are pretty close to the average in terms of the period they're going through. I want to ask, I don't know who's going to answer this one, but there was a talk of a three-year delivery plan. The Scottish Government was due to produce this three-year delivery plan last year, actually last August, so it's over a year late. So what's happened to it? There was a one-year delivery plan published following the Justice Vision document in February, and that covered the period from summer 2022 to summer 2023. So that delivery plan was in place, and the intention had been to publish a longer-term delivery plan for the next three years. In the period between the Vision document being published and the timescale that we were looking to work on the longer-term delivery plan, there was a significant impact on the justice system from the rapid rise in inflation and the associated impact on pay settlements and industrial relations. So at the time that we would have been working on that longer-term delivery plan, it was clear that there were significant pressures on the justice system and significant uncertainty around what the budget position would be caused by that rapid rise in inflation that was impacting largely on pay settlements but also on other issues such as food within prisons and contract costs that are index linked etc. It was clear that there were significant uncertainties and that it would not have been responsible for us to publish a three-year delivery plan at the time that justice organisations budgets were under significant uncertainty and significant pressure. So the decision was taken not to publish the delivery plan at that stage and to hold off until after the budget round. As we came through that, we also then obviously had a change of First Minister and a new policy prospectus. We also had engagement with our justice partners drawing on some of the issues that Audit Scotland raises about the governance arrangements that we have around our reform programmes as well and that was reflected in what we have been doing to develop the transformational change programmes that Cacador and Boke can talk more about if that is helpful to the committee. The important thing that I would want to say is that the decision not to progress with the delivery plan has had no impact at all on the court recovery programme or dealing with the backlogs. That programme was in place, was funded and has not impacted at all on that programme. As Audit Scotland noted, it has also not stopped innovations moving forward during that period. So a whole range, including the digital evidence sharing capability that Eric McQueen mentioned, has continued to operate. Work on a range of other issues has continued to operate. The question is how do we set out our longer term direction and aim? What are the high level priorities around that? As I said, Cacador and Boke will be happy to talk some more about the transformational change programmes that are informing and the governance arrangements around those that are informing that longer term plan. Well, I have to say, Mr Rennick, that you have blamed uncertainties for not producing this delivery plan. There are always uncertainties. Yes. If I may say so, that is rather a pathetic excuse. So when are we going to see this delivery plan, which the Auditor General describes as critical for ensuring work continues to modernise the criminal justice system? I agree and we need to ensure that that delivery plan is adding value to the work that we are doing. Sets a clear direction has measurable targets and appropriate governance around it. That has to be the test. It would be easy to meet the target and say that we have delivered a delivery plan, but at a time when organisations were under significant financial and other pressures, it was sensible and it was the right decision not to proceed on that timescale. That has given us the opportunity to do some further work thinking about what the longer term priorities are. I think that we are in a better position to move forward with that. We are in a better position to engage with our stakeholders, particularly victims of witnesses and others. We have not simply published a plan and not done anything that has been a huge amount of work carrying on. It would be irresponsible not to reflect the reality in the same way that, when Covid impacted, it would have been irresponsible not to take account of that. The impact of inflation has been significant on the justice system and the operation of that was right for us. According to the Auditor General, the plan was due in the summer of this year. You still have not told me when we are going to see it. When are we going to see it? Work is progressing on that. As I say, I am keen that we only publish that delivery plan when I am keen. Sorry, what do you mean? I am asking you when we will see it. When will we see it? Our aim is to have that plan published in the timescale that Audit Scotland set out in their report. That was six months from May, so that brings us fairly close to the next couple of months. As I said, I want to ensure that that plan is in an appropriate state and has been engaged appropriately with our stakeholders before that is published. I hope that the committee agrees that we need to ensure that that is the case, that we should not be publishing delivery plans unless we are content that they are adding value. It needs to be a good delivery plan, but you cannot just keep delaying it forever. As I say, it has not delayed us taking forward a range of important and positive work, some of which we have discussed today. I find it quite unusual to hear the preparation and implementation of a three-year delivery plan as being an irresponsible act. I think that most of us would view that as being the responsible thing to do. Given, as Mr Simpson has pointed out, it was initially intended to be produced in August 2022 and then promised for the summer of 2023. I think that the committee's view would be that we want to see a delivery plan because that gives some concrete sense of the direction of travel. I do not know what the rate of inflation will be in two or three years' time, but I still have to make plans based on reasonable assumptions or otherwise. I think that there is a degree of impatience in the committee that that delivery plan has yet to be produced. I think that you mentioned that Katrina Del Rimpol has been working on some of the transformational arrangements, so maybe those questions are for you. First of all, in the report, there is reference to the importance of the transformation of the criminal courts being a fully-costed project whilst the delivery plan is developed. Do you want to tell us a little bit more about the extent to which you have worked out the costings and you understand, notwithstanding the high winds of inflation that are around us, how you have got on with the costing of those plans? It might be helpful if I start with the approach that we are taking to the transformational change programme in itself. I should highlight that that approach had commenced before the Audit Scotland report, but the Audit Scotland report has really validated the approach that the system is taking in terms of putting the governance around that system collaboration in terms of what we are trying to develop is that system-level programme management. We have the justice board, obviously, as the justice vision over owner. We have the criminal justice board as the sponsoring body. What we see in the transformational change programmes of which I am now chairing the two community justice programme board and the criminal justice programme board, which has two of the transformational programmes in it, we are seeing that collective accountability across the system and that collaborative leadership. We are also making sure that it interacts with existing mechanisms in place. The victims task force reflecting lived experience is directing strategic priorities and the transformational change programmes are flexing to make sure that they take all of that into consideration. We have set up a programme management office within justice directorate that is supporting all three transformational change programmes so that we are really clear that within each project, within the transformational change programme, we have got the baseline information and the data across the system that supports the work and the projects that we are doing to make sure that we can measure evidence of success and progress within the system. The key in terms of that system-level programme management that we are seeing are those interdependencies. Eric and Neil talked about a number of different projects this morning, most of which are all within the transformational change programme. Most of the ones that Eric has been talking about sit within TCP3, as we call it, which is the criminal justice system efficiency. We are seeing that there are a number of dependencies. The summary case management pilot has been talked about working alongside the digital evidence sharing capability, looking towards the future of trauma-informed domestic abuse cases. All of those things have interdependence with each other and we are making sure that different parts of the system are not working against each other in any way and they are all working collaboratively together to get the best. We are all working. Each project in itself will have that baseline information. Each project will have the costed approach to that within existing budgets. I think that it is fair to say that all of this work is at this stage being done within existing financial budgets of each organisation and any additional funds would have to come through government and go through that normal budget process that we do every year. That is certainly what we are working within the confines of our existing financial arrangements. Can I take you back to my original question, which is the extent to which that is currently fully costed? All those projects are under way. They are all being developed within the current financial arrangements. It is fair to say that we may get to a stage with some of the projects that additional investment may be required. We will have to come back to the budget process and identify where and if money can be found for those projects. That is part of the process of developing a programme management approach that is looking at all the different costs within each part of the system. Just for my benefit, forgive me. Is this work in progress? Are the streams that are now advanced 50 per cent, 100 per cent? They are all at different stages. If I could use the example that I am most familiar with from my previous role, the community justice programme board. That is a transformational change programme that is about shifting the balance between custody and community. That is slightly behind the other transformational change programmes. That is because what we are doing there is having that oversight around the national community justice delivery plan that was published in June of 2023. That commitment was made to publish it. We have published it. The programme board has oversight and all the relevant partners and stakeholders at that table to make sure that we are developing all those projects and that we are making sure that we are making progress. We are working out at the moment the baseline data so that we can evidence success. I am conscious of the time, so I am going to turn to Willie Coffey, who has a couple of other questions to put to you. As you know, the audit committee were interested in service improvements and how we can provide evidence for that, not only to the committee but to the public at large. As part of that, we are keen to explore with him what the level of stakeholder engagement that he actually has when he is engaging to inform decision making and make these improvements and so on. There is a bit of criticism in the auditor channels report concerning the recovery, renew and transform advisory group, which is supposed to interface with victims, the accused third sector and so on. There is a little bit of criticism in there about its failure to engage at that level. I am keen to understand from you how you have overcome that, how you plan to overcome that, what you are doing now and how you can assure the committee and the public that the experiences that people have had are part of the transformational change programme that you are talking about. The RRT group played an important role during the pandemic and highlighted a lot of impacts on the recovery programme on service users. It is fair to say that the advisory group evolved through the development of the transformational change programme. It is fair to say that the themes that were identified in the lessons learned will be reflected in the transformational change programme approach. The key there is outlined, for example, all the work that the RRT group did in terms of lived experience voices to be heard direct because we are really keen to make sure that in all the transformational change projects lived experience feeds the way through in terms of our development and making sure that we take cognisance of that in every step of the way. There is a transformational change programme, for example, that is looking at person-centred justice and that has now already established feedback loops with the victims and survivors advisory board and that is looking to collect live service level feedback, so not old level service feedback, kind of good time-dated level service feedback and that will make sure that that is fed in to inform the delivery of all the improvements. It is fair to say that we have some really good work on going with all our victims and witnesses organisations to make sure, certainly in relation to that transformational change programme approach, that we can get the best. It says, Katrina, that the RRT advisory group stopped beating in December 2021. Is that correct? Is that accurate? Has it since reconvened? It has not been reconvened because I suppose the transformational change approach has kind of moved on from that because it was quite focused in terms of impacts on the recovery programme on service users, that group. So it was very, very wide and in terms of the transformational change programme we have got using the existing loops and each project in itself within the change programme is engaging at that project level with victims organisations, third sector organisations and all the relevant stakeholders. How would we see evidence to support that and to be able to share and understand that experience that is going on? How can we see that? Is there any reports produced about that? We will be doing high level health checks across the transformational change programme system so I can have a look at what information could be provided to try and support and evidence that for the committee. We have very practical examples of where we are trying to get that engagement. We talked earlier about the remote jury centre and within that from the very start both rape crisis victims support Scotland and other sector organisations were involved in the whole development of the remote jury centre so they were involved from the initial idea, from the genesis to the development through the actual delivery. We have now extended that. I cannot mention the trauma informed domestic abuse pilot that we are trying to create within Grampian Highlands and Islands. Again, Victim Support Scotland are heavily involved in that. The chief executive of Victim Support Scotland sits on the project board. We ran a trauma informed training course three weeks ago and we brought together all of the participants that are involved, including the third sector, to go through trauma informed training. What does this mean for domestic abuse? When we take that to the very local level across Grampian Highlands and Islands, again we will bring in together all the practitioners, whether that's court staff, judiciary, crown staff, third sector, the legal professionals to bring them all into that same group. We are really trying to change the way of things. We've seen it at work well in terms of some of the good examples that came out of Covid such as the remote jury centres and we're now trying to develop that as a very practical method to bring them into the tent at the very, very early stage so we have the collective views at the start of the development. Finally, in closing that circle in a sense, taking user experiences, stakeholder experiences and shaping the transformational programme that you're devising, how does that feed back to those stakeholders to show to them, to demonstrate to them that you did listen, you've incorporated whatever you want to do? How is that done? It's a really important question. One of my reflections from the experience of the Covid pandemic is, as Mr McQueen says, we had lots of different routes that we were engaging in. Just as officials were engaging directly with victims organisations, the Lord Advocate and Cabinet Secretary were engaging with them through the victims task force. There was engagement with individual victims organisations on specific initiatives and involving them in the decisions around that. There were lots of opportunities for that engagement and involvement. One of the reflections was how do we ensure that that is adding up to a process that is reflecting victims' experience and providing the opportunity to feed back on that. That's partly why one of the transformational change programmes is very specifically focused around person-centred services and their experiences so that we are building that feedback loop that you are describing of what does it feel like for people to go through the system into how we're driving that transformational change. Do the stakeholders get a chance to see whether they think that that is the correct direction of travel? Do they get to make that commentary? That's a really important point. For example, through the victims task force, victims organisations get an opportunity to comment. Alongside that, there is a specific group that has victims who have direct experience on it so that the Lord Advocate and Cabinet Secretary are able to hear directly, not just through the organisations but directly from people who have been within the system and are able to describe what that felt like and what that experience was like. We know that as one of the key areas that we still need to work on is improving what the experience is like, despite all the things that we've done over a number of years, improving what that experience is like of going through the system. You would have heard Mr Wrennick, the Auditor General's evidence, to this committee on this report that we're discussing this morning, where he said, in relation to Victim Support Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland, that they were not used to the extent that we might have expected. Have you reflected on that over the summer and are you redoubling your efforts to address that shortfall? I've reflected on that throughout the pandemic. I've spoken directly to the chief executive of Victim Support Scotland and others about it. As I say, I can point to lots of examples where there was engagement both on the generality and specific issues, but I can 100 per cent understand that for victims organisations who are working directly with people and hearing about their experiences that they feel that we should be going further and doing more is their job to challenge us to do that. As Mr McQueen said at the beginning, this was unprecedented. None of us wanted this to happen. The harm that is caused is recognised, so it is quite right for us to be challenged and to work with the victims organisations around that. I fully accept that they would want us to go further and do more to improve the experience of victims. That is their role and they are right. For clarity, what I am saying is not just that those Victim Support organisations are saying that. The Auditor General for Scotland is saying that to you. I am assuming that the Auditor General is saying that based on the feedback that he has had from the organisations. I recognise that as reflected in the discussions that we have had with victims organisations as well, notwithstanding all of that engagement that took place through the pandemic. Let me turn to another related aspect. That was an area in the report that is quite critical of your approach to the consideration of the equality impact of decisions that you have made and the equality impact of the transformational change programmes that you have got. If I look at paragraph 79 in the Auditor General's report, he rightly points out the unequal impact of the cost backlog. For example, he points out to three categories of people. One is children, young children who are going through a formative experience in life. If they are witnesses or indeed victims, those delays are going to have a disproportionately devastating impact on them. The Auditor General's conclusions were that he did not see enough evidence that they were being sufficiently taken into account. Secondly, women disproportionately are caught up in the caught backlog system. Again, as witnesses are often victims in the system. What account has been taken of that in addressing where the resources need to go and where the priorities are? Thirdly, he points out, going back to an earlier part of the questions that we had this morning, about the situation with people on remand in our prisons. You described, Mr Rennick earlier, that we have both the highest prison population almost anywhere and the highest proportion of those people in the prison population who are on remand that are almost anywhere. Even within that, there are great inequalities, are there not? As the Auditor General points out, 25 per cent of all males in prison are on remand, 30 per cent of all women in Scottish prisons are on remand and 48 per cent of young people in Scotland's prisons are on remand. Why haven't you sufficiently built into the work that you have been doing and that you are doing and that you are going to do in the future? Why haven't you sufficiently built in equality impact assessments of those decisions? I will try to cover off that. Equalities are in the absolute heart of the justice system. We know that it is disproportionately people from protected groups who are within the justice system. Women and children are disproportionately affected by certain types of crimes. People who are in custody disproportionately come from our most deprived communities. It is an inherent part of the justice system that equalities are fundamental to the way in which it operates and fundamental to how we respond to the justice system. At the very outset of the pandemic, we recognised that the necessary health measures were going to impact disproportionately on people within the justice system. As long as jury trials were not able to progress, that was disproportionately going to affect women who are particularly the victims of sexual offending. Equalities impact assessment was prepared for the original coronavirus legislation that came to the Parliament. I am hugely grateful for the pace at which Parliament responded to that and took on board the recommendations in terms of changes within the system. The evidence that we have provided over time since the initial legislation came in has confirmed that that has had a positive impact in terms of improving how the system is able to mitigate and respond to that. Equalities impact assessments were prepared for elements of the particular project. We have talked about the work on the remote jury centres and the quality impact assessments were prepared for those, but there were also underlying decisions within the system that Mr McQueen can talk to. For example, in prioritising cases, it has always been the case that priority has been given to those cases involving children through the pandemic. The evidence shows that priority was given to cases involving domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women. Equalities impacts were considered throughout that process, but that does not diminish the fact that the people have been significantly impacted by the unavoidable backlogs that have been caused within the process. That has had impact on people on remand and its impact on victims. It is not the case that equalities were not considered within that, but they are having a disproportionate impact. One issue that Audit Scotland has highlighted for me is thinking about the process of where we are inherently taking those equality decisions and where we are applying equality impact assessments. That is feeding into the work on the transformational change programmes of how we ensure that equality impact assessments are prepared on individual projects at the right time. I accept the challenge from Audit Scotland on how we have evidenced that, but I can confirm that equality issues have been considered throughout the whole of the pandemic. Mr McQueen wanted to say more about the decisions that were taken within the courts and how those have impacted in terms of different types of cases. Certainly in terms of the courts and the various changes that were made in the courts during the pandemic, every time we put court guidance out, we stated quite clearly what the priorities were. In fact, in every one of those guidances that went out, the priorities were cases that were in custody. Children cases, vulnerable witnesses and domestic abuse, and that was quite clear in all the guidance. That remained our priorities throughout the entire period. I say that that was confirmed in all the guidance. Although there may not have been a formal ECOIA done round about that, it was a clear consideration in terms of how we were going to prioritise the cases that we felt were at greatest risk throughout the period of the pandemic. We are clear about that. In paragraph 82 of the Auditor General's report, he concludes that, at the end of that paragraph, we found very limited evidence that equality impact assessments were developed in a timely manner for most of the recovery and new-transform workstreams and initiatives, with only two equality impact assessments prepared. That is a very poor result, isn't it? It partly reflected the different stages that various of the projects were at, but I agree that it is one of the lessons that we have drawn on from the Audit Scotland report about deciding when equality impact assessments are taking forward on individual projects. I do not think that that diminishes the overall approach to equalities that is underlying that, but I think that it is important that we do further work on how we evidence that. One of the things that Audit Scotland has highlighted is that I do not think that we have done a good enough job of evidencing that for them. Is not it the case that equality impact assessments and equality considerations should not be some kind of bolt-on at the end to check how you have done? It should be built into the foundations of the work that you were doing. It was in terms of the initial legislation that was in terms of some of the key projects, but I agree that some of the other projects, as they were being developed, should have had equality impact assessments at an earlier stage. I think that part of the challenge is often that we see projects that are specifically targeted at dealing with issues that are inherently trying to reflect those equality disadvantages that were in the system, but we need to find a way of evidencing that more. I strongly support that and agree with that. We will look on that note of agreement. Can I draw this morning's evidence session to a close? I thank Mr Rennick, Mr Alrymple and Mr McQueen for your time this morning. We have quite a lot to consider in the evidence that we have taken and we will certainly consider what our next steps are. I thank you very much once again for being here with us this morning. I will now move the committee out of public session into private session.