Seòmar agus comataidhean

I very much welcome that provision. Was any consideration given to the possibility of extending anonymity to accused persons? That is a much more difficult area, but during the debate on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee in the chamber last Thursday, I was struck by the discussion of the impact on the family members of the accused, which was a point that was put quite powerfully by members. The person is an accused person, but more often than not, their family members are innocent parties, yet they are also impacted by such serious accusations. Has the Government given any consideration to extending the right to anonymity?

I have a brief question because we have covered a lot already. It follows on from Katy Clark’s line of questioning. Priority may be the wrong word, but I am interested in understanding whether the Government has a priority within the reforms and where any lines in the sand might be. If this committee, or the Parliament as a whole, decided to amend the bill—for example to retain the not proven verdict or to require only a simple majority for a guilty verdict—where would the Government stand on that? Does part 4 of the bill have to come as a whole package?

That brings me on to my follow-up question. You have predicted where I am going today, Heather.

I think that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are, a lot of the time, quite keen on high-level stuff. Even the engagement here is about national scales. You gave a good example, but how can the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government get more into the decisions that actually affect people? For example, in North Lanarkshire, which is my area, there is a lot of talk about shutting down libraries, swimming pools and so on. There will be big debates about that in the next few weeks, as the subject is aired more. How do we get to the people we have spoken about to hear their views on those things and their impact? What more can the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament do? Today’s discussion, apart from the Fa’side example, has been quite high-level—at Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government level. What about the stuff that is impacting people on the ground? Does anybody have ideas about what more we can do to allow people’s voices be heard?

My line of questioning follows on particularly from Heather Williams’s remarks. The committee has heard many times that particular groups who rely on public services are most impacted by budgeting decisions—for example, disabled people; black, Asian and minority ethnic people; and women. What more can the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament do to make sure that their voices are heard? We have talked a wee bit about this and you have heard from the convener about something that the committee is trialling, which so far looks to be doing well.

You have certainly given us a lot of food for thought when we come to discuss what we have heard today.

There are two wee points that I want to ask about—well, they are wee in terms of the evidence session, but they are not small by any means. During the pandemic, there was an increase in the number of deaths in prison. John Swinney asked about that. Did you ever get any information, or was information ever released as part of the work that you did, about what caused those deaths? Did they relate to the pandemic—either the virus or the restrictions? Did you ever get a feel for that?

Thank you very much for your evidence.

On a similar point, you mentioned that there had been an increase in the number of deaths over the summer, since May. Is there any analysis of why that has happened?

Good morning. I will follow on from where Sharon Dowey left off. I think that we can all hear today the passion in your voice for this piece of work, which is probably prompted by your time coming to an end, with the process not being as complete as you would like—that is probably an understatement.

In many ways—I am putting words in your mouth here; this might be a bit extreme—it almost feels as though your contacting the committee and coming back to committee today is a wee bit of a cry for help in relation to this piece of work. What do you think that the committee can do to help to progress the recommendations that you have made? You have made your case very powerfully today.

Thanks very much. As I said, the police officers that were interacting with us last night were absolutely brilliant.

I have one further question on the police, which is again for DCC Connors, and follows on from Russell Findlay’s questions about the pilot. Your comments in relation to the assessment of risk of harm and vulnerability are sensible, particularly given the cuts that we are all facing across the United Kingdom as a whole just now. What would you ask of us as politicians? Would you ask us to be responsible when talking about it? When I first heard about it last week, it was certainly portrayed differently to the way that you have done today. What would you ask of us as politicians, across parties, and as a committee, in relation to that pilot and how we relay information about it to the public?

Thank you for that—it sounds really positive, because the issues with police officers’ time have been on-going for a number of years.