Seòmar agus comataidhean

In terms of the existing FAI process, as compared with—

That concludes our business in public. Next week, we will begin phase 2 of our scrutiny of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We will take evidence on part 4, which is the part of the bill that deals with the proposed abolition of the not proven verdict and changes to jury majorities.

Our next agenda item is a review of the correspondence received on the implementation of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Members will recall that the committee undertook a short post-legislative review of the 2018 act and has been following up issues with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.

The clerk’s note in paper 2 sets out the details of that and the cabinet secretary’s most recent reply. Do members have any comments?

Can I clarify that? Are you referring to the first recommendation on the establishment of an independent process?

We can certainly follow that up, because it is a fair point to raise.

I thank members for their comments. Some very relevant and helpful points have been made across two key areas. First, there have been comments on the terms of the review and the report that led to the work that Gill Imery undertook. Secondly, some wider questions and concerns have understandably been raised about issues that are not specific to the report but are nonetheless important. I would include myself in the category of those who have such concerns. For example, what brings someone to the point where they become one of the statistics on deaths in custody? It is helpful that such questions have been asked.

I probably land with John Swinney and Rona Mackay in that I have taken some reassurance from the submissions that we received. In relation to Sharon Dowey’s point about pinning down the timescales, I acknowledge that that is missing from some of the correspondence.

I suggest to members—I will seek your agreement on this—that we follow up on the points that have been made and the requests for further information. It is obviously appropriate for us to keep the matter under review. I propose that we engage again with Gill Imery and seek an update on her current situation. In the correspondence from the cabinet secretary, we are made aware that she has engaged with Gill Imery. There is quite a bit for us to take away. The final thing is John Swinney’s point about some further correspondence with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Are members in agreement on that?

If my memory is right, some of those queries related to the number of trials that were undertaken in a virtual format.

I am encouraged by a lot of what is going on. Different tasks in different areas of work take different lengths of time, obviously. I was particularly interested in the update that we asked for on the single court/judge model. There is a lot in that, but it was helpful to have it set out.

We will take away the points that have been raised, and I ask for members’ agreement that we continue to monitor the issue. It is highly appropriate that we do that.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, members, for those additional points. Katy and Pauline, you mentioned queries about the number of deaths, and clerks have, helpfully, had a wee look at that during our discussion. As Gill Imery also pointed out in committee, between 2012 and 2022, there were 350 deaths in Scottish prisons. About half of those were either drug related or as a result of suicide; the other half were a result of natural causes. That reflects the extent of the issue.

We will do some follow-up work on the points that were made today. Members are agreed that we will very much keep the issue under review, and we will communicate with the Crown Office and with Gill Imery in relation to her status, as has been suggested.

We will take that away.