Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

I have a question about part 2 of the bill, if that is acceptable, convener.

Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of a concern that the concept of trauma-informed practice might be seen as simply a slogan and words that are used, rather than practice that is embedded in the system. I am sure that you are concerned about that. Can you outline the work that is being done—or that you are thinking would be done if the legislation were passed—to ensure that trauma-informed practice is embedded in the procedures and rules of court? How do you envisage that work being taken forward?

Miscarriage of justice is a different concept to conviction rates. I am particularly focused on conviction rates in rape cases. Clearly, you have spent a huge amount of time considering those issues, so have you concluded that you do not believe that there will be a risk of lower conviction rates in rape cases if part 4 proceeds as you are proposing?

Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that you said that you are not trying to engineer higher conviction rates; instead, you are trying to modernise the system. However, what is the risk of our having lower conviction rates in rape cases as a result of these changes and the move to two verdicts and a two-thirds majority?

Yes, that is correct. That meeting took place before Christmas. I attended it, along with the petitioners.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a contribution. I have met some of the petitioners on a number of occasions, including this week. The lead petitioners are both constituents. One of them has suffered quite severe complications as a result of the hernia mesh procedure; the other is the daughter of a deceased person who was also a constituent and who underwent the hernia mesh procedure. They are working with a range of campaigners across Scotland—and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—who are collating information about the complications.

The submission that I made to the committee very much focuses on data. As the convener said, we had the opportunity to meet the minister and, as a result of that, we had a subsequent meeting with medical advisers and officials. It is clear to the petitioners that there is a lack of data in relation to the extent of the problem.

I have previously advised the committee of freedom of information requests that were submitted to health boards. We did not get information from many health boards, but the information that we got was concerning. The petitioners are concerned about the basis on which work is proceeding. Frankly, the data that we have does not truly reflect the scale of the number of people who have complications. That was the focus of the written representation that I made to the committee.

I wonder whether the committee would be willing to engage further with the Scottish Government on the issue, as it is clearly not an issue that will go away. The petitioners and many others continue to suffer the consequences of the hernia mesh procedure, and the campaign will continue. It would be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to be engaged with that in order to ensure that an evidence-based approach is taken and that work is undertaken to gather such evidence.

You are saying that, in relation to the proposed legislation, you believe that there is a gap in domestic homicide and suicide reviews, but there might be some cases in which that work has already been done so a review will not be needed, and that will be taken into account in deciding whether a referral is made. I understand the resource points that you are making. I fully understand those and I am more than sympathetic to them. I have listened carefully and I am extremely concerned, as I am sure we all are. However, if there is a gap, the Parliament needs to decide whether to legislate. Emma, will you comment on that?

That suggests that you are asking us to look at the circumstances in which a referral is made. You are saying that there might be situations in which there is no need for a full review process because there have been many multilayered reviews that have already captured much of that information. Are you saying that we need to be aware of that and look at whether the bill delivers on it? Is that fair?

I will come to Fiona first, if that is okay, to ask about the role of families in the process, because the way that I have become involved in individual cases has almost always been through families. Those who are left behind often have a huge amount of knowledge of what has happened. How do you envisage that families would be involved in the process?

Given that the proposal is for anonymity—I understand that that is how it operates in Wales—to what extent do you think there should be full disclosure with families? Dr Scott made a point about the situation in which the perpetrator is or may be a family member, which is a slightly different situation. In a situation in which there is no suggestion that the family are in any way involved, how do you see the role of families in the process? What would you recommend?

Beyond that, you think that the process should be anonymous and that those who have access to the report should be highly restricted. Is that the conclusion that you have come to?