Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for the evidence that you have given so far. I know that we are tight for time—and it might well be hard to answer this question in the time that we have—but I have asked the convener for permission to ask about part 4 of the bill. Only Sandy Brindley has had the opportunity to come in and speak to us in person about it, although everyone has had the opportunity to contribute a submission. I therefore want to ask about this part of the bill—Sandy, you can come back on this, if you wish—but I must ask the panel to be as brief as possible, even though I know that that might be difficult.

We have been asked about the not proven verdict, and I am pretty sure that I speak for most people when I say that we accept the reasons why it should not be there and that it seems a bit of an anomaly in the system. However, it feels that, with this bill, we are being asked to remove not proven at the same time as we are being asked to change the size of juries with regard to the delivery of verdicts. I think that I and others are struggling with that balance, because none of us wants to take away not proven only to make the situation worse. I do not know whether that will happen—I do not know what the research says about that—but I want to ask for the panel’s views on the issue.

Given that you have already contributed on this matter, Sandy, I will start with the others on the panel, but I will give you an opportunity to come in, too. Emma, do you want to speak to this issue? I should have said that panel members can respond only if they want to.

Thank you very much for your evidence so far, which has been powerful. I cannot overstate how helpful it will be to the committee.

Our conversation has moved on a wee bit since then, but my question goes back to what Hannah Stakes said about there being a screen that you did not want. I found that very interesting. As Pauline McNeill and Rona Mackay will remember from the previous parliamentary session, when the Justice Committee pushed for stuff such as the introduction of screens, we heard that even when the justice system gets things “right”, it is still not being flexible. It is almost as if, when the authorities are doing the right thing, they are forcing that on to you, because that is what Parliament and other people want. I told the convener that I would keep my questions brief, so I will ask them now. Is there an issue about flexibility in the justice system, even when it is perceived to be taking the better approach? How could we change that through the bill?

Thanks very much for that. That was very powerful.

Thank you. That point was very powerfully made.

Do you think that that could be brought out through the trauma-informed practice that is embedded in the legislation?

Good morning to the panel members. Thank you for your evidence so far. I have a couple of questions that broadly follow on from Paul O’Kane’s line of questioning. You are funded by the SPCB, and we know that the 2022-23 budget cut about 22 per cent from your budget of the previous year. Have you had any discussions or received any indications about why that cut was made? In addition to what you have already said, what has been the impact on your operational planning?

Sorry—I think I made the mistake of muting myself between questions. I did not realise that you now cannot unmute yourself—the system has totally changed.

Thank you for that answer, Jan. Let us move on to talk about your ambitions. I note that the second Scottish national action plan for human rights, which was published last year and runs to 2030, sets out 54 actions across eight priority areas. I will not go into what those are, but a couple of examples are in our papers, including the criminal justice system and the school education system. Based on what you said in response to the previous question and what you have said throughout the meeting, how realistic are the actions and how do you plan to measure them?

My question is for Teresa Medhurst and relates to the briefing that Scottish Trans sent to committee members and, I am sure, other members. Scottish Trans is generally supportive of the policy, but it feels that, in one area, the policy will not achieve its aims, and that is in relation to non-binary people. The briefing says:

“This will result in some non-binary people being held in either the male or female estate when this is clearly inappropriate to their particular personal circumstances. We are concerned that SPS have not properly understood the range of ways in which non-binary people may transition.”

What are your views on what Scottish Trans has said? That is the only area that it has highlighted.

Thank you for your powerful evidence so far, including what you have just said.

I will ask about the same subject that I asked about in the previous evidence session—I do not know whether you saw it. What are your views on independent legal representation? What I am getting from your submission is that the Crown Office is generally supportive of the idea and the provisions for it, but that it envisages some problems. You have outlined some ways in which those problems might be resolved. Could you expand on that?

Good afternoon. I will stick to the line of questioning that I followed with the previous two panels of witnesses, which is on the issue of independent legal representation. Your submission is different to those of Lady Dorrian and the Lord Advocate, in that you raise concerns about the resource implications and the possibility of delays to cases. Can you expand on those concerns? Is there any merit to the suggestion and, if so, how could it be achieved, if not through the bill?