Chamber and committees

You have not actually asked professionals to do that yet.

The bill suggests the use of virtual trials as a default. From what you have said and from the information that we have been able to gather, it sounds as though, up to now, only a very small number of cases have gone ahead. It is therefore difficult to take a view, given that those cases might be the ones that are most suitable for virtual trials and everybody is in agreement.

We are having to grapple with the issue of why the holding of a virtual trial should be the default even when that is not agreed to by all parties, which is my understanding of how the provisions in the bill would work. I presume that, at the end of the day, it would be the sheriff who would decide whether it was appropriate for a case to be virtual. That is quite a massive shift.

The purpose of the bill as it has been presented to us, and the reason that we have been given for why it is going through in a far more speedy process than would normally be the case in the Parliament, is to continue practices that have been taking place during the Covid pandemic. However, the evidence that we are getting is that, in reality, virtual trials have not been taking place in significant numbers, and they have not been the default. There have been only a small number of them. What evidence do we have that the model that is proposed in the bill has been tested?

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think that you are straying into other issues to do with giving evidence remotely. What we are considering in the bill is a default position that there should be virtual trials for all domestic abuse cases, even where parties do not agree. I appreciate that that is your preference and that there may be reasons for that, but we have not really had that tested in many cases, have we?

Sure. That is why I asked whether you were able to use other systems that you have in place to pick out the types of cases that might be of greatest concern. I wondered whether that has been incorporated into the work that is currently going on, so that the cases that were dealt with first were those involving the most serious offenders or offenders who have committed the types of offences that people would be most likely to be concerned about. Are you able to do that with the systems that are available to you?

I have just a short question. On your comment that this is a decision for the judiciary, can you confirm that if the Government felt that virtual trials at summary level were successful and wished the change to be made permanent you would come back with primary legislation?

For the cases that have been looked at, have you asked for a breakdown of the offences that are involved in that cohort?

You spoke about human rights considerations. I presume that, in particular, you are thinking about article 3 of the European convention on human rights and whether the requirements amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”. Will you outline what you can do in your role to ensure that the Scottish Prison Service and, in particular, governors take proportionate action? How can more resources be put in to deal with the transparency issues that Jamie Greene spoke about, given that the Scottish Prison Service has raised systems issues, and so that there is an awareness in prisons of the importance of human rights considerations?

We have been given information on how the powers have been used since October 2021. As the cabinet secretary knows, the buck stops with him. To what extent is he advised of the steps that have been taken so that he can give political oversight of the situation and, if he has concerns about how the legislation was being implemented, take action or express those concerns?

The debate is about the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state and about whether Governments and public institutions have a duty of transparency and honesty to those who are affected when something goes wrong. It is also about whether the families of those who have died have a right to information and to know the truth, and it is about the equality of arms between the individual and the state in any legal proceedings that look at what has gone wrong. The debate is not about undermining front-line staff who provide public services but about the rights of families when there are state-linked deaths, whether that be in the NHS or any other sector.

I will refer to a few recent deaths in custody that are relevant to the debate. Katie Allan was a third-year student at the University of Glasgow from East Renfrewshire who died in Polmont in 2018, and we still await a fatal accident inquiry. She was sentenced for drink driving and died by suicide after a catalogue of failures. Warnings that she was vulnerable were not heeded.

Allan Marshall also died in custody. The sheriff said that his death was entirely preventable and that guards involved in his death were “mutually and consistently dishonest.”

We hope that the fatal accident inquiry in the case of Sheku Bayoh will go ahead later this year. Again, that involves the state and the actions of the police force.

The Parliament has discussed death in custody in the past, and it has made attempts to improve fatal accident inquiries. I was not involved in those discussions, but I know that the average time between death and a fatal accident inquiry was 509 days on average between 2005 and 2008 whereas, since the 2016 legislation, the length of time has actually increased. It is clear that the issues need to be considered again.

The proposal that is before us calls for a charter for families who have been bereaved through public tragedy, which would be binding on all public bodies. It asks for improved access to legal advice and assistance so that bereaved families can take part in public inquiries. It asks for evidence from public inquiries to be taken into account in criminal trials. It asks for an extension of the duty of candour to bodies such as the police.

The member raises an important point, which I do not have time to come back to in detail in this debate, but I hope that we will be able to explore it on another occasion.

The demands are not just being made in Scotland. Recently, Lord Rosser’s amendment to introduce a duty of candour into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was passed in the House of Lords. Such demands are being campaigned for throughout the UK, partly spearheaded by the Hillsborough campaigners, who have been campaigning for rights because of their treatment. The demands are also being backed by those who have campaigned for nuclear test veterans and victims of the Grenfell fire and of the Manchester arena bombing, and by those involved in many other campaigns.

In 2017, the Angiolini review of serious incidents and deaths in custody called for non-means-tested funding for families immediately after a state-related—