Seòmar agus comataidhean

I fully understand that your role is to implement the proposal, so I am not asking you to justify anything. We are just trying to understand what you think is happening.

I will ask about domestic abuse, which is different from sexual offences. I understand that it has been possible to pilot certain practices in domestic abuse cases without the need for legislative change and that there have been specialist domestic abuse courts. Will you outline what difference that has made to the way in which cases were dealt with before or, indeed, are dealt with now in many situations?

I apologise. I appreciate that the proposals do not necessarily come from you. Perhaps I phrased my question wrongly. I was just trying to gather your understanding of what is proposed. Are you saying that, if the sentencing judge in a specialist court felt that the disposals that they had available to them were not sufficient, they could refer the case to another court for sentencing?

Did those courts take place in the court buildings where such cases are normally dealt with? I presume that you did not have anywhere else and, therefore, that those cases took place in a very traditional court setting.

I am thinking not so much about the virtual trials as about pilot specialist domestic abuse courts. We were told that those were piloted before Covid. Will you share your understanding of that approach, any information that you have about how it worked and any evaluation that you are able to provide?

That would be very helpful.

I think that it would be helpful to ask them. Perhaps I can deal with sexual offences before I move on to the slightly different issue of domestic abuse cases.

Are you suggesting that cases in which a sentence of 10 years or more would be suitable—there are many appalling sexual crimes, such as historic child abuse, rape and so on, for which the sentence would be greater than that—would still be dealt with by the High Court?

I do not particularly expect you to comment on this, but there is a concern that that might create a hierarchy. If there is a limit on sentencing, the message that is sent by conviction in a specialist court is different from that sent by conviction in the High Court.

It is the same at the other end. At the moment, the courts deal with many sexual offences, such as underage sex, that might involve a boy who is over 16 and a girl who is younger than 16. The suggestion is that some of those cases, which are difficult and sensitive for the people involved—often they are very difficult cases that involve very young people—might not go to the specialist court but might continue to be dealt with as they are at the moment. Is that your understanding?

On another issue, what discussions has the cabinet secretary had with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority about the use and financial cost implications of non-disclosure agreements? Obviously, he will be aware of the concern that such agreements are sometimes used to hide unacceptable practices.

As you have said, the financial position is not yet clear, but, once the conference is over, is the cabinet secretary willing to give a statement in the chamber on the full budgetary implications of COP26 and, in particular, whether the UK Government has fully reimbursed the Scottish Government? Moreover, although the overall view is that the policing of the event has gone well, there has, as the cabinet secretary has said, been concern over particular actions such as the use of kettling at the demonstration in Glasgow. Is he willing to come to the chamber and give a full statement once all the facts are clear?

Cabinet secretary, have you made an assessment of the percentage of the prison population that actually needs to be there, and of whether we are adequately funding alternatives to custody? You mentioned that a new strategy will be announced next year. Is it practical to shift resources from prisons into alternatives? What percentage of the prison population should perhaps have been dealt with in another way?