Chamber and committees

There might be concerns about the financial cost of providing interpreters, as well as that space, for jurors. However, although providing interpreters comes with some costs, those costs were found to be manageable in England and Wales. The number of cases that require such support is expected to be small and the costs can be calculated to ensure sustainability. More important, investing in accessibility and inclusion absolutely brings long-term benefits by ensuring that our system is fair for all, regardless of disability.

Amendment 233 matters because everyone, regardless of disability, should have the right to serve on a jury. The amendment seeks to ensure that deaf jurors and others with communication impairments are not excluded from fulfilling that vital civic responsibility, and reflects our commitments to an equal justice system, where everyone can participate fully in legal processes without discrimination. The amendment is a step forward in ensuring that Scotland’s justice system is inclusive and accessible to all, by empowering jurors with disabilities to serve effectively and reaffirming our commitment to equality and fairness.

On a personal note, I am a child of a deaf adult—I am a CODA. For almost 50 years, my father has often relied on me or others to interpret for him, as he is a BSL user. Throughout my life, I have seen him and other members of the deaf community being excluded from various aspects of society, the access to which we, as hearing people, take for granted—we do not note it in our everyday lives.

That exclusion is regardless of their intellect or their good character. It is a shame that that happens. My amendment is not just about deaf people being included in society. Our justice system will benefit by including deaf people, and it will give us more access to a broader demographic within our society. I urge members of the committee to support this important amendment, because it will make our legal system more just and inclusive for all.

I move amendment 233.

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.

I call Tess White.

We move on to questions from Marie McNair, who joins us remotely.

Thank you. We move to questions from members.

Welcome back, and I welcome to the meeting our second panel. Kaukab Stewart, the Minister for Equalities, is accompanied by the following Scottish Government officials: Nick Bland, deputy director, mainstreaming and inclusion; Catherine McMeeken, deputy director, equality; and Jennifer Singerman, solicitor, equalities and criminal justice division. Thank you for attending this morning.

For the benefit of those who were not here at the beginning of the meeting, I remind members that rule 7.5.1 of the Parliament’s standing orders prevents members from referring to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active, except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer. I advise members that Sandie Peggie’s employment tribunal case against NHS Fife is active for the purposes of the sub judice rule and contempt of court. I have sought and received permission from the Presiding Officer about the extent to which we can explore matters related to the case today and throughout the course of our PSED inquiry. On the basis of that permission, questions about issues connected to the case will be admissible today, but questions about the specifics of the case will not.

Before we move to questions from committee members, I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

We move to questions from Paul O’Kane.

Are members content that they have asked all the questions that they wish to ask?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2025 in session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have no apologies today. Marie McNair will be joining us online.

Our first agenda item is our final evidence sessions on the operation of the public sector equality duty in Scotland. The PSED is a legal requirement for public authorities in Scotland, which, under the duty, must consider equality when carrying out their functions. The Scottish Government is making reforms to the duty and this inquiry will be an opportunity to explore those reforms and consider how they might improve the delivery of the duty.

We will hear from two panels this morning, and I welcome our first panel. Representing the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland, we have John Wilkes, head of Scotland; Jennifer Laughland, head of Scotland legal; and Bill Stevenson, Scotland compliance manager. You are all very welcome; thank you for attending this morning.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. Before beginning the session, I remind all members that rule 7.5.1 of the Parliament’s standing orders prevents members from referring to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active, except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer. I advise members that Sandie Peggie’s employment tribunal case against NHS Fife is considered active for the purposes of the sub judice rule and contempt of court. I have sought and received permission from the Presiding Officer about the extent to which we can explore matters related to the case today and throughout the course of our PSED inquiry. On the basis of that permission, questions about issues connected to the case will be admissible today, but questions about the specifics of the case will not.

Before we move to questions, I invite John Wilkes to make a short opening statement.

Thank you very much. We will now move to questions, and I will start us off.

Over the period of our inquiry, we have noted that public authorities generally think that they have a good understanding of the terms and aims of the PSED in Scotland. However, equality organisations have suggested that, although public authorities might understand the aims, they focus too much on the process and do not make positive changes to people’s lives. What you—that is, the EHRC—have said is that there are issues with

“the quality and consistency of compliance”,

which were reflected in the Scottish Government’s consultation in 2021. Why do you think there is such inconsistency in complying with the PSED in Scotland?