Chamber and committees

It is quite hard, reading through our papers, to get a sense of what we are addressing here. I am trying to focus my mind on the deaths in custody that I know about, where there has been a suicide or a death. It would be helpful to get a profile of what the causes of the 86 deaths were. Otherwise, I do not know whether we can make an assessment of whether the response is adequate.

I will be honest: in reading through the papers, I found so much management speak that it was driving me nuts. I was trying to get to what people were actually trying to say to the committee.

On a positive note, I would like to examine what Teresa Medhurst said in her letter a bit more, particularly about contact with families. The proposal on that is a critical step. The families of Katie Allan and William Brown were concerned about them. They knew that their family members were at risk and they phoned the prison, but they did not get answers. That was one of the issues, from my recollection. It would be worth following that up with Teresa Medhurst, asking how the proposed installation of phone lines is going to work and asking for her assessment of whether it will make a difference. I think that it could make a difference.

I agree with Russell Findlay in that Gill Imery is one of the best witnesses that we have ever had. She does not pull her punches at all. We have a horrendous record on deaths in custody. It is a problem for Scotland’s prisons in detaining people, and I imagine that things must now be even more difficult for the Prison Service, given the numbers. I feel quite concerned about that and the implications for the running of the service. That is a really important aspect of the work that the committee does.

In summary, I would like to see a profile of the 86 deaths with information about the causes, and further information about the installation of phone lines and family contact. I agree that Gill Imery should be able to continue her work until we are satisfied that we have made significant progress on preventing further deaths in Scottish prisons.

I have a point about FAIs. It goes back to the profile of the 86 deaths, and it applies only to a few cases. In the case of Allan Marshall, the family was distraught because they felt that there was a cover-up and they could not get any information about how he had died. We know that there was immunity from prosecution, and the Lord Advocate is taking that forward.

One of the recommendations was that families get unfettered access to prison to get information about how their loved ones died because, previously, they have not had that. They have had to wait for the FAI and, if the FAI takes years, the family gets no real answers or contact. I have asked the same question at every opportunity: will families get unfettered access? I do appreciate the situation—can you make that commitment and, at the same time, not compromise the case where there might be an allegation of criminality, such as in the case of Allan Marshall? Can you make such a commitment without that interfering with the Crown doing its job? I have never had an answer to that. On John Swinney’s point about establishing the approach to FAIs, I would say yes, if the system worked, but let us see whether we can make FAIs shorter.

However, there is this other scenario, such as in the case of the death of Allan Marshall. Families should get unfettered access to go and speak to prison governors and see where their family member died. Families should get all that. Why should they not? When the state has detained that person, why should the family be blocked from finding out as much as they would like to know about their loved one’s death? I have not had any answers to those questions but I feel strongly about that in such cases. I realise that those are a tiny percentage of the cases.

Surely there is a big difference between a victims and witnesses commissioner and the children’s commissioner, which does not deal with the court system or the Crown Office. Surely the distinction is that you want to create a commission that cannot interfere with statutory functions. I take your point about the children’s commissioner being able to influence policy—on the definition of “child”, for example—but I do not think that there is a straightforward comparison. We hear from victims about their experiences of long delays, of the failure of the Crown Office and the police to communicate properly and of the court system—the physicality of the court and issues with giving evidence. The bill is trying to deal with all that anyway, through trauma-informed practice and evidence on commission.

I struggle to see what the commissioner will do, other than saying, “Report to me on this,” as you mentioned. The commissioner cannot go beyond that in any way.

Yes, I understand that.

Dr Chopra, in answer to another member’s question, you talked about aligning psychiatric emergency plans. Will you elaborate on that? That seems to me to be part of the answer. Do you mean aligning staffing as well, or just the plans?

Does that not call into question the existence of a commissioner—and, I have to say, the excellent work that Victim Support Scotland has done? That organisation is Government funded and has been a champion for victims. It has appeared before the committee on many occasions. Does what you have said not compromise the funding of a third sector organisation that is already effective?

However, do you not see any compromise having to be made between the roles of a commissioner and of a very effective victims’ organisation?

You have partially covered the question that I was going to ask, but just for the record, you said that there will be a certain element of risk and that the important thing is that we have a system that lets victims tell their stories and that, when they are in court, they can fully voice what happened to them. However, there is a fine line between that and cross-examination. Whatever you think of the system that we have, it is the system that we have and you are not proposing to change its adversarial nature. Have you had any discussions with the profession? Have any concerns been raised with the Government during the passage of the bill about the balance between trauma-informed practice and the process of cross-examination in court?

Thank you.

Good morning. I will begin by stating what I have already said on record: I have never been keen on having a lot of commissioners. I struggle to see how the proposal would actually make any difference to victims. However, I am trying to keep an open mind.

My first question follows on from Russell Findlay’s. The rule of law dictates separation between Parliament and the courts. As you have said, the Lord Advocate has a statutory legal function and is independent. Therefore, it is not possible to create a commission that has powers to challenge those statutory bodies. If it did that, it would be interfering with the rule of law and the independence of the Crown. Is not that the first problem?

Thank you for the quality of your evidence and for how loudly you are voicing what I think is probably the most serious operational issue for Police Scotland. The work that you have done is critical. I suppose that the way forward is not that easy.

Craig Naylor, I was really struck by what you said about individual officers being terrified to make these decisions. At that moment, they are trying to save a life and carry out their duties, but then there is an investigation of whether they did the right thing. That seems grossly unfair to me.

What will prevent that from happening? Does it lie in what you say on page 11 of your thematic review that

“Demand is passed to Police Scotland from partner agencies towards the end of the working day and working week.”?

I think that Sharon Dowey asked you that question. I cannot see any way around this other than other agencies changing the way in which they work. Am I getting it right?