Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask about how we apply knowledge and the test that SEIAC would apply. There has been mention of reasonable certainty and the double-risk test. How should the test that the council would apply be developed? Would the council itself do that? Does the Parliament need to set it in legislation? Considering other European models, how do you suggest that Scotland approaches developing that test? You might recommend a test or the process by which one might be developed.

The bill suggests a council of 12 members. Is that the right size? Has anyone given that any thought? That might be something that the STUC has considered, given that it made a submission about the number of trade union representatives who should be involved.

I will follow up on why a different composition might lead to different outcomes. Presumably, the science would be the same; the council would draw from the same scientific community. From what the witnesses have said, I get the impression that the questions that are put to the scientific community might be different and might be asked decades earlier, but that that might drive research. Is that a fair reflection, or are there additional factors that might mean that there would be a different outcome from the current position?

I am asking how we can avoid duplication with the work that is going on at a UK level and how we ensure that there is added value. You have covered a lot of that already, but the committee is concerned, in particular, about how we avoid duplication.

I have a slightly different question about some evidence that we heard earlier. There was a suggestion that there might be fewer personal injury cases if the new body was recommending awards. That might not matter so much in the public sector, where all the money comes out of the same pot, but have you given any thought to how that might affect the private sector? I do not need detailed responses now, but can you point to anything that would help us to ensure that employers take responsibility?

Perhaps Norman Provan would like to contribute. He has spoken about Covid a couple of times. Norman, do you think that a different composition of the council and a different way of doing things could lead to quicker outcomes or different outcomes?

Okay, so that would inform decisions that were taken thereafter.

It seems to me that there are two issues. The first is how we reduce the number of deaths in custody and the second is the systems that are in place when there is a death in custody. From my experience elsewhere, it seems that greater political oversight can have an impact on the number of deaths in custody. I have been quite surprised by the numbers. The scrutiny by ministers and the committee is really important in that area. I agree with the points in relation to the issues around what happens after a death.

The recommendations need to be implemented, but it is not necessarily the case that we need a completely different system. That would be quite a significant decision and one that we would need to scrutinise very carefully.

I just wanted to pick up on the issue of duplication. The bill that we, as a committee, are scrutinising seeks to set up a Scotland-wide body. We want to do that, because the status quo is not good enough; we want to do something that is better than what is there already.

The witnesses have outlined quite clearly the scale of the problem in Scotland. Do you have any thoughts or pointers to give on recommendations that the committee might make on protecting the expertise in the current system that is drawn on across the UK to ensure that there is collaboration and to enable us to build on that? Do you have any thoughts on what the committee might want to consider in that respect? I will go to Professor Macdonald first.

Perhaps we, as a committee, can look at whether the bill is framed in a way that maximises collaboration and avoids duplication.