Chamber and committees

I have just said that I believe that more has to be done. I also mentioned that additional resources were made available, and we have seen reductions in the length of inquiries. There has also been an increase in the number of inquiries over recent years. As that happens, pressures can build up, and it is up to the Scottish Government to ensure that we look at the matter afresh. However, it is not only down to the Scottish Government—we have to listen to what parliamentary committees such as the Justice Committee, which examined the issues in depth, have to say.

We will continue to seriously consider the issue, because we know the heartbreak that it can cause—Liam McArthur mentioned some of the people concerned—when a system is delayed, albeit that the delays might be for legitimate purposes.

As I understand it, members of Jamie Greene’s party did not support that position back in 2016, when the matter was previously discussed. Maybe there is a reason why they have changed their view, and I am happy to listen to any representations on the issue. However, Jamie Greene will also know—[Interruption.] If I could just finish before Mr Kerr starts shouting from a sedentary position, as he does on a regular basis.

Of course, it is the case that the—[Interruption.] It is the case that fatal accident inquiries are conducted by the Lord Advocate, independently of the Scottish Government. I am not aware that other parties, including the Conservative Party, want to change that. If they wish to do so, they can make such a proposal.

Where the system is not working as effectively as it could be, we and the law officers want to do all that we can to ensure that things are done as timeously as possible. We have seen improvements in recent years, partly due to the resources that have been allocated to the system.

If there are other suggestions, we should keep an open mind.

Any death in custody is a tragedy. As I set out in Parliament during portfolio questions last week, the Scottish Government takes very seriously the issue of deaths in custody.

We have commissioned an independent review of how deaths in custody are handled. As I indicated in response to a question from Pauline McNeill last week, we will consider carefully any recommendations that the independent review makes when it reports this year, whether those relate to improving the safety of prisoners or how deaths in custody are responded to.

As Liam McArthur knows, deaths in custody are subject to a mandatory fatal accident inquiry unless the circumstances of the death have been explained through a criminal trial or other inquiry. The presiding sheriff will consider the evidence led by all parties and determine whether any reasonable precautions were identified that might have resulted in the death being avoided, or whether there were any defects in any system of working that contributed to the death. If no matters are identified at the inquiry that might realistically prevent other deaths in similar circumstances, there will be no basis for the sheriff to make any recommendations.

In 2020-21, 61 fatal accident inquiries were held, including FAIs relating to a death in custody. Eighteen recommendations were made in eight of the inquiries that were held. Where recommendations are made, the priority is to ensure that they are acted on.

As Liam McArthur knows, the fatal accident inquiry system that we now have was debated and agreed in 2016. It was subsequently considered by the Justice Committee, which looked at the issues in depth and did not recommend, for example, the introduction of mandatory time limits for fatal accident inquiries.

However, we can always look to improve the situation. We have allocated new funding to the law officers to ensure that, when they are held, FAIs can be conducted more quickly. Liam McArthur will also know that, often, other inquiries must take place prior to an FAI taking place.

We will look to make any further improvements that we can. For my part, I am more than willing to listen to any representations that are made by the Criminal Justice Committee. In the meantime, we believe that the FAI system is one that works, albeit that we should always seek to improve it.

My previous answer acknowledged the urgent need with regard to both the situation before Covid-19 and how it has been exacerbated since. It is true that we have to consider matters such as the people who are held on remand because the court is not certain that they will be available or that they will come to a subsequent hearing.

Colin Smyth is right that we have to increase the pace of cases going through the courts. We have done that through remote jury courts and through the substantial expansion of sheriff courts this month. The fact that we are taking legislation through in the first year of the session shows the urgency with which the Government is treating that issue.

Again, I point out that there are different views on the issue. People in the legal profession in particular, but not uniquely, favour the solution that John Mason has mentioned. Those verdicts are considered ones that juries would understand, as is the case with guilty and not guilty.

We also recognise that a distinction between proven and not proven might be too lawyerly and not quite as obvious to the general public, and that it could perpetuate the stigma and confusion that some people believe the system currently produces. It is right that we consider that as part of the consultation.

We believe that every eligible child victim or witness has the right to consistent and holistic support that enables them to have their voice heard, to access specialist services and to recover from their experiences. We have an unashamedly bold aspiration to create our own bairns’ hooses in Scotland. That commitment is obvious in our programme for government, which says that

“all children in Scotland who have been victims or witnesses of abuse or violence, as well as children under the ... age of criminal responsibility whose behaviour has caused ... harm, will have access to a ‘Bairns’ Hoose’ by 2025”.

Yesterday, we published “Bairns’ Hoose—Scottish Barnahaus: vision, values and approach”, which sets out in broad terms our vision of how the barnahus model should be implemented in Scotland, the values that should underpin the model and our approach to its practical implementation.

Our next steps are to establish a national governance group to oversee delivery of the bairns’ hoose model in Scotland, to bring forward standards for the bairns’ hoose and to develop an approach that will build on the momentum of the new Scottish child interview model for joint investigative interviews, which will be introduced nationally over the next three years. Further plans on that will be published at the end of this year.

I agree with the thrust of what Pauline McNeill says. I cannot answer that in advance of knowing the recommendations, but it is a serious issue and we will look at it seriously. Of course, Parliament and the member will have the chance to question us on that. We take very seriously anything that might improve the situation for prisoners in that area.

That is a very good question. I have already had discussions with ministers in other portfolios who have responsibility in the area to see how we will address that issue. The idea is that we should not retraumatise victims by asking them to move between locations to have the same interview and give the same evidence. That is an important consideration that comes towards the end of the programme, although early thought is being given to how we can make the system as accessible as possible.

We agree on the overarching principles, and we should give local delivery partners the flexibility to adapt the model to their local contexts. We recognise the challenges of delivery in rural settings such as Alasdair Allan’s constituency; he is quite right to raise that issue.

Our approach will be based on the European “Barnahus Quality Standards” and should be flexible enough to allow local authorities to tailor barnahus to suit local circumstances while also ensuring a degree of national consistency for all children who are eligible for services.

We believe that a very strong argument in favour of that has been presented by the people to whom Oliver Mundell refers, but other people have a different point of view, including many members of the legal profession.

There are two reasons why we are not abolishing the verdict straight away. The first is that there is no point in holding a consultation if we are not going to listen to what people have to say; we want to hear what people have to say on the issue.

The second reason is that the not proven verdict has a relationship with other parts of the justice system, so we should take that into account. There are interdependences in relation to the two-verdict or three-verdict system, the jury system and so on. It is only right that we take a sustainable approach, so that we can get to the right solution.