Seòmar agus comataidhean

Happy new year to everybody, including our panel members.

I am the MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston, which has a very rich mining tradition. One of our witnesses has mentioned Cardowan colliery, which is in Stepps, in my constituency. The Auchengeich memorial site is in my constituency, as well. I put on record my thanks to Willie Doolan and his team for the absolutely fantastic work that they do for the memorial every single year. There is an absolutely fantastic commemorative event, and I encourage all members, witnesses and anybody who is watching to go along to that event to see a mining community very much in action. I know that Richard Leonard attends it regularly.

I have quite a few questions. I am really glad to see the bill making its way through Parliament. It is long overdue, and it is about time that that happened. It will come as no surprise that I stand in complete solidarity with the mining communities that have been affected by the strikes.

Our business today is to scrutinise the bill to see how we can make it better. I will start by asking the panel about the lasting impact of the strikes and the subsequent charges and prosecutions on mining communities such as those in Moodiesburn, at Auchengeich, Cardowan or anywhere in the country. I am happy to take responses from witnesses in any order, convener.

I, too, thank both witnesses for their in-depth and, at times, moving testimonies. Given the constituency that I come from, I am very aware of the impact on mining communities and miners, but it was really useful to hear reflections on how police officers, in the main, were impacted. From the early evidence that we have heard, it is clear that the vast majority of police officers, including both witnesses, did not want to be doing that job. You did not go into the police to do that. We are talking about something that happened 35 years ago, but we could all hear the emotion in your voices. You were recollecting events that were clearly uncomfortable for you, so thank you very much for doing that.

You touched on the main questions that I was going to ask—that is the benefit of making a good, long statement, so do not apologise for that. My questions are about the impact on mining communities after the strikes. Are you able to talk a bit more about how the communities were impacted? What were the relationships with the police like in mining communities in the years and decades that followed? I know that you have already alluded to those issues.

If the individual who took time out to speak to the committee privately is watching this, or watches it at some point in future, I hope that she will be pleased with that pretty strong response from you, Lord Advocate. Thank you.

Convener, I think that there is something in the chat about David Harvie wanting in.

Sorry—that might have been my fault. I might have misread the chat.

I have a second question, if that is okay. I know that we are tight for time. It is on the taking of statements. The issue has already been discussed and the Lord Advocate gave a good overview of it. However, on the introduction of pre-recorded complainers’ evidence in serious sexual assault cases, are there any barriers to introducing that service quickly? Could prerecorded evidence be extended to domestic abuse cases? I ask the Lord Advocate to reiterate her plans in that area.

That is a good summary. It is a difficult time for victims when they have to present at court, but that was this person’s experience, and they were quite definite about it. Was that a one-off, or is it something that you recognise as being an issue? There is no getting away from the fact that those people will have professional relationships, but it can look like something else to somebody who is going through such a traumatic experience.

I have a question for the Lord Advocate on something that we heard in our private sessions where we had testimony from survivors; it is around the culture in the Crown Office. We heard an example of the advocate deputes acting like they were part of an old boys’ club and being friendly with the defence counsel. I think that we can all understand how that might come across, because people will know each other—defence lawyers will know advocate deputes and suchlike. I wonder, though, whether the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate recognise that as a cultural issue and, if so, whether it could be addressed.

As you said, convener, trauma-informed training and practice have been quite well covered in response to questions from Jamie Greene and Rona Mackay, and throughout the session. I am in no way bothered about that, nor precious about my questions. It is good that both officers have proactively talked about the trauma-informed training that they are doing.

Both will be aware that Lady Dorrian recommended that there should be

“one consistent trauma-informed source of contact, from the outset”.

We have heard a wee bit about liaison officers, who could perhaps fit into that model. I will find a new question because, as I have said, the issue has been covered.

How do we get those specialist officers to the individual as quickly as possible? We have heard that, although there is a general level of training throughout the force and in the various criminal justice agencies, it might not always be to the standard of training that those specialist officers have received. In addition, for how long can they stay with the victim or the complainer—whichever word you want to use—during the process?

In the interests of time, and given that the responses have been extensive, I will leave it at that and thank both witnesses for their contributions.

I welcome these negative instruments on the age of criminal responsibility. Last session, I was on the committee that took the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament. It is a really good piece of legislation.

To pick up on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point, at the time, there was a lot of discussion about whether the age of criminal responsibility should be higher, so the issue was looked at. The Scottish Government is committed to continuing to look at it, but it took the step at that point. Members should be aware that a lot of members who took that legislation through, including me, looked at making the age of criminal responsibility higher, in line with other European countries. We have an outstanding commitment from the Government to continue to look at that as the legislation comes into force and then develops.

Good morning. I thank our witnesses for all the evidence that they have given us so far; it has been thorough and interesting to hear as we take this work forward.

I have three broad questions that I will work through. They are all related, but they might not flow brilliantly together, so I ask witnesses to bear with me. My first question is on the impact of restrictions on women in particular, which Karen Adam was speaking about earlier.

Everybody is aware that there will be a big announcement from the First Minister today. We do not yet know what that announcement will be, but the likelihood is that there will be an imposition of further restrictions in order to contain the omicron variant. After what I have heard today and last week and what we already know, my concern is that previous restrictions, as well as the virus itself, have impacted women unequally. How should we frame that today?

Although they might not need to close, some sectors might need to be restricted in some way, and there might be restrictions on the number of households that can meet up. What advice would you give to MSPs who will ask questions on the statement this afternoon? What can we ask to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes that were made in the first and second lockdowns? Those were not mistakes of the Scottish Government alone, because restrictions that had the same impact were imposed by Governments all over the world. There was something deeply rooted about the gender inequality in the restrictions.

I am sorry for the long question and I am happy for the convener to pick the order of answers.