Seòmar agus comataidhean

However, if I understand correctly, you are of the view that that would not be necessary if the fatal accident inquiry system was fixed.

Paragraph 89 of our report mentions that we took evidence about how, with some domestic abuse cases that are being heard in the criminal courts, a civil case is running in tandem. Often, an abuser will use one or the other to continue the abuse, so our recommendation was that the Government consider and come back with a view on using a single-sheriff model when civil and criminal cases operate simultaneously. The response from the cabinet secretary is not satisfactory. It talks generally about “joined-up” thinking and uses the dreaded phrase, “a series of workshops.” It does not say whether the Government agrees or disagrees with the proposal, even in principle, and it does not give any indication as to what will happen next—if anything. The response ends by talking about child contact centres, which is a completely different subject and therefore looks like padding.

I will return to the fundamentals. The fatal accident inquiry system is central to investigating deaths in custody, but you and others involved in the review were told that you could not even look at that system. You, quite rightly, said that that was ridiculous and you did look at it. Uniquely, the Crown Office seems to think that fatal accident inquiries are fine, despite the abundance of evidence of all the misery and pain that they cause, in addition to that caused by the deaths that have occurred.

Given the reluctance or the inability to fix the FAI system, we are left with one key recommendation—one that you would rather not be enacted but that is surely the direction of travel and that, at some point, might be enacted. Has any work been done on, or have there been any discussions about, the cost of setting up a new organisation that would deal specifically with deaths in custody?

It is now almost two years since then. The report contained 19 recommendations and six advisory points. To be clear, of those 25 in total, almost two years later, only five have been implemented.

Five out of 26. How do you feel about that? Do you feel frustration or surprise? What are your thoughts?

If I understood your opening statement correctly, the key recommendation of the report is that there should be an entirely new system of investigating deaths in custody.

Finally, there have been 350 deaths in custody since 2012, and 23 this year alone. You were due to meet the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs in August, but the meeting was cancelled. You were then due to meet them in September, and that meeting was cancelled. A new meeting has been scheduled for 21 November. Do you know why those meetings were cancelled? That does not suggest to me that there is any great urgency to sit down and work out what needs to happen.

To come back to the point about the aggravator, I note that the minister said that the Government will

“publish more detailed statistical information”

at some point “Later this year”. It would be nice to know when that will be. There is quite a lot of evidence in the report from witnesses saying that the aggravator has not been used properly and that it is not clear when and how it is being used. It is hard to assess how well it is being used. The frustration is that the Government could not get the data, so it would be nice to pin it down a bit more on that.

Thank you very much.

Concerns have been raised about that for almost a decade.

Where is the reluctance coming from? Is it the Scottish Government, the Crown Office or both? Is it coming from the blob? What is the problem with fixing the FAI process when it is clear that it is fundamentally flawed?