Chamber and committees

We have come to the end of our public session as members have asked the questions that they wanted to ask. I thank our witnesses. We have had a powerful evidence session, and I assure them that the strength of their message and the urgency of their advocacy has come across.

We move into private session to consider the remaining items on our agenda.

Cathy Asante might want to come in on this.

Our second agenda item is to take evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission on its report “‘Tick Tock…’ A human rights assessment of progress from institutionalisation to independent living in Scotland”, which examines Scotland’s progress on moving from institutional models of care towards independent living and how the current practices and policies uphold the rights of disabled people. Members might also wish to explore further questions on another recent SHRC report, “Economic, social and cultural rights in the Highlands and Islands” as part of their on-going interest in rurality issues. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

From the SHRC, I welcome Jan Savage, executive director; Oonagh Brown, participation and policy officer; and, joining us online, Cathy Asante, legal officer, human rights-based approach. You are all very welcome. I invite Jan to make a short opening statement.

We will move on to questions from Pam Gosal.

We have another question from Tess White.

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, in session 6.

Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Christina McKelvie MSP, who sadly passed away last week. As a previous convener of this committee and as an equalities minister, she was a fierce advocate for social justice and for human rights. She will be very sadly missed, but her legacy will go on, and we will always remember her, particularly through her work.

We have received no apologies today. Marie McNair will join us online.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take items 3 to 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Given that the coming home implementation plan has now ended, what mechanisms exist to hold decision makers accountable for the lack of progress?

Cathy would like to come in.

We move on to questions from Paul O’Kane.

Amendment 233 aims to remove the barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from serving on criminal juries.

The goal of amendment 233 is to ensure that jurors with communication differences who are deaf and require a British Sign Language interpreter can fully participate in jury deliberations. That would foster more inclusive and accessible justice systems for all.

The current challenge is that only jurors are allowed to be present during jury deliberations, which excludes people who need communication support such as BSL interpreters from fully participating.

For a bit of background, in 2018, a group chaired by Lord Matthews recommended considering the issue; the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service echoed that call in December 2023, recommending that legislation be amended to allow approved persons, such as BSL interpreters, to support jurors during deliberations.

The amendment seeks to insert the proposed section 88A into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, enabling the court to appoint a communications supporter for jurors who need assistance due to a physical disability. The supporter would be present during deliberations, ensuring that the juror can participate effectively. The amendment also seeks to ensure that multiple supporters can be appointed if needed, and that they can take an oath to preserve the integrity of the trial.

Before appointing a supporter, the court would have the opportunity to hear from the prosecution and defence on whether the case was appropriate for the juror—for example, if the case involved audio recordings where hearing the tone was important, a deaf juror might not be suitable.

Amendment 233 seeks to empower judges to decide on a case-by-case basis, which ensures flexibility and judicial discretion. It does not mandate the appointment of a supporter in every case but provides the option for judges to consider communications support where appropriate. That ensures fairness and accessibility when needed.

The SCTS’s letter to the committee raised concerns about space constraints in courtrooms. If operational difficulties arise, such as the size of the courtroom, and the court cannot accommodate supporters, the court will not appoint a communication supporter, and the juror could be excused. Although operational concerns are valid, the vast majority of courtrooms cannot accommodate multiple communications supporters during deliberations. The flexibility in the amendment ensures that, if a court faces any difficulties, the judge can decide to excuse the juror, or the juror can be informed in advance of any issues with that accommodation.