Chamber and committees

I apologise, too, convener. When I indicated earlier, I was not sure whether you thought that I wanted to come in or did not want to come in. It was also my fault.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that, before I became an MSP in 2016, this is exactly the sort of work that I did. I am well aware of the LS/CMI system, having used it several times a week or, more likely, several times a day. I did the initial training in 2012, when the system changed. For what it is worth, I think that it is a very good system. Therefore, I might be able to ask some helpful questions on it.

Cabinet secretary, you have spoken a wee bit about this, but do you accept that it is not just the LS/CMI system that is used and that there are a range of risk assessment tools? Perhaps to put members at ease, I point out that you would not just use the LS/CMI system and say, “Computer says yes.” Has that point been made to you when you have been speaking to people?

I agree that the override function is an important part of the LS/CMI. Do the cabinet secretary and his officials accept that the process for using the override is robust? I do not want anybody to think that it is a case of an individual social worker or other worker applying an override and that is it. In most cases, the matter needs to go through several levels of management. The higher-up management will have a higher level of experience. You will have seen from the forms that are completed that a narrative around the justification for the decision in either direction is needed. Will the cabinet secretary join me in offering that reassurance?

I hope that I have been able to use my experience on the matter to ask the cabinet secretary some questions that would be helpful in reassuring the public. I will now ask my most challenging question.

I return to the issue of training. There have been question marks over people’s confidence in using the override and their professional judgment. That is why it has that level of management experience around it that I mentioned. Having spoken to former colleagues, I am aware that it is likely that people’s confidence has been impacted by what has happened. What steps is the Government likely to take to support people in the profession to bounce back from the situation, feel confident and not end up having more work to do as they try to make risk assessment decisions? Are there funding and resource issues to consider, too? There will be a confidence issue now.

My questions follow on quite well from those that Rona Mackay and Katy Clark asked, so I run the risk of repeating what has been said or of asking the witnesses to repeat themselves.

Like other members round the table, I was involved in the bill that became the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019, which has been mentioned. That was before the pandemic, when we had no idea about the existence of Covid. Scotland was very much on a route—rightly or wrongly; I believe that it was right—to ensure that vulnerable witnesses did not need to go into a court set-up, given the trauma that they could experience. The pandemic then came. As Katy Clark articulated, we all felt that there would be more such trials, so the statistics are perhaps a wee bit surprising, given the opportunities that the pandemic allowed for.

All that said, I note that the bill asks us to allow some of the provisions to continue in order to speed up the process of vulnerable witnesses being able to give their evidence out of court. Will the bill as drafted allow you to continue to take steps, which began with the 2019 act and other processes that were already in place, to ensure that vulnerable witnesses in the most difficult of cases do not need to appear in court?

I am hearing good levels of support from both of you, but is the bill required? You have both identified that other processes are in place. Is the bill required to make the transition easier and give you more tools in order to get to the point where we want to be?

Yes—thanks a lot. I have to say that the previous panel, who were from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the courts, indicated quite strong support for the bill. I do not want to step on Katy Clark’s toes here, as I am sure that she will go into this but, when I asked the previous panel about the progress that they had started to make, their answer seemed to be that there had not been as many virtual trials as we had expected throughout the pandemic, but that there was a clear desire to move in that direction. The previous two witnesses felt that the legislation was needed to allow us to do that. I suppose that I am just following up with you the question that I asked them, but I think that you have answered it.

Thank you. It was important to get on the record some practical examples of how the bill might impact.

Have all the cases that you identified and have been working through been subject to the professional override that you talked about in the chamber last week? I will come back to that issue. Was the level of risk lowered from what the LS/CMI said in all of those cases? Do you have that information?

Yes.

That is the point that I hoped to make. I felt that, last week, some of the questions implied that the situation was about the clinical override bringing down the risk to that in the LS/CMI. However, it is as likely, if not more likely, that, if the LS/CMI indicates low risk but professional judgment suggests higher risk, a higher risk is put in. Do you accept that point, cabinet secretary?