Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. As you said, in evidence from survivors, we heard that they sometimes got the impression that juries had not fully understood the legal implications of what was going on—the legal process. We also heard that there was a perception of unconscious prejudice to do with, for example, the way a complainer was dressed or whether they had been drinking. Many victims’ groups support single judge trials, but opinion is split within the legal profession. What is your view on the issue? In what circumstances could single judge trials be used?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask about an aspect of the specialist court, which, as you referred to, was one of Lady Dorrian’s recommendations. Last week, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service told us that it does not envisage any specialist training for jurors in that court. What is your view on that? Given the nature of the court and the need for trauma-informed practice, should there be such training and, if so, how could it be provided, practically?

Just to follow up my colleagues’ questions, I think that the process that you have described sounds very encouraging but, according to the evidence that we have heard, it is certainly not happening in this instance. We have heard that survivors are often asked to make statements while in a traumatised state and that officers did not make them aware of available support. In fact, one said that their statement was taken by a male SOLO; the process took hours during which they were not allowed to take a break or have a drink of water; and then they were immediately given a forensic examination. I found that pretty shocking. You do not need to be specially trained to know that such treatment is not very considerate.

The example that I have highlighted might be an extreme one, but when you hear of situations in which the guidance has not been followed, what action do you take? Moreover, what redress does the complainer have if they have such an experience? How do they make it known to you that the guidance has not been followed?

Perhaps DCC Graham can respond first, and then DCS Faulds.

I thank my colleague Jenni Minto for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for her moving opening speech.

As we have heard in excellent speeches from across the chamber, it is clear that defibrillators save lives. We know that a defibrillator is required within three minutes of a cardiac arrest for it to be effective and that the availability of defibrillators is becoming widespread across the communities of Scotland. However, we also know that people who live in the least affluent areas of the country are 60 per cent less likely to survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest because defibrillators are not as available in those areas. More needs to be done to address that quickly. That is why the importance of the work of the British Heart Foundation in partnership with the Scottish Ambulance Service, the NHS and Microsoft in establishing the Circuit, which, as we have heard, is a map of Scotland’s first network of defibrillators, simply cannot be overstated.

We must raise awareness of and educate people about defibrillator use, and register all defibrillators on the Circuit, to help the Scottish Ambulance Service to know where they are in the event of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We know that early defibrillation can more than double a person’s chances of survival from a cardiac arrest. Many defibrillators are never used because emergency services currently do not know where they are located.

On Christmas day 1982, my dad collapsed with a cardiac arrest while he was out walking the dog near our home. A bus driver stopped to help him, but nothing could be done. Of course, I will never know whether a defibrillator would have saved him, but there is every chance that it could have. That is why I am passionate about defibrillators, expanding their use, and getting them into as many communities as possible. All forms of public transport should carry them—many already do—and they should be available in sports clubs, supermarkets, high streets and any public space in which they could be urgently needed. As I said earlier, it is important that we get more defibrillators in areas of need. That is absolutely vital.

I completely agree with Jenni Minto’s comments on planning regulations for new buildings in relation to defibrillator cabinets and scrapping VAT on defibrillators. Surely that is not too much to ask.

Defibrillators are not expensive, and they are easy to maintain. They are also easy to operate. I witnessed that during a demonstration by the St John Ambulance service in the village of Torrance, in my constituency. The St John Ambulance service and other charitable organisations that help to save lives throughout Scotland provide advice, training and funding to communities that wish to install a public access defibrillator. Such organisations can give vital training in CPR, which, in conjunction with the use of a defibrillator, will give sufferers the absolute best chance of survival. They can work with people to establish the best location for a defibrillator in their local area, give advice on fundraising and help with the costs.

Every minute without cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation reduces the chance of survival by up to 10 per cent, which is why it is so important that the Ambulance Service has quick access to defibrillators. Registration on the Circuit is essential.

As we heard, there are around 135,000 people in Scotland who have survived a heart attack. Although survivor rates are generally high, when it comes to the 3,200 or so out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Scotland each year, the survival rate is only one in 10.

Currently, fewer than 5 per cent of people who experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receive bystander defibrillation. The rate will increase as more defibrillators become available and, crucially, more people have the confidence to use them. I hope that this debate will help in that regard.

We should remember that the locations of tens of thousands of defibrillators are currently not known by the Ambulance Service. Knowledge of a defibrillator’s location can make the difference between life and death for a person who has suffered a cardiac arrest.

I welcome the statistics out this week that show that this Government has delivered nearly 106,000 affordable homes since 2007. Can the cabinet secretary outline how the 2022-23 budget will support the new ambitious target to deliver a further 110,000 affordable homes by 2032?

I will leave the Moorov doctrine for colleagues to ask about, but—I am sorry for this diversion—I would like to ask about support for victims and witnesses. I presume that this does not happen, but do you produce any guidance for victims and witnesses who are going into the judicial system for the first time that sets out what they can expect and so on? Has that ever been produced? Would that not be sensible? Because the victim is the Crown, they do not get any independent legal advice. I am not expecting you to give them legal advice, but is there step-by-step guidance on what they can expect when they come to court, who will say what, and what the process is?

During our evidence sessions, we have heard about a situation in which the Queen’s counsel representing the accused was acting unacceptably. The victim and the witnesses felt intimidated; they claimed that the QC behaved no better than the accused and that the whole thing felt like a boys’ club, and so on. They were very intimidated and demoralised, and no one called the QC out on his behaviour. Is that within your remit?

I want to ask what I think is a really important question about juries. We have heard in evidence that some complainers felt that the jury did not fully understand not just the legal process, but the evidence that was given. There is also a specific question about the Moorov doctrine, which I will park for a minute.

In general, given that juries receive no training and might not have an understanding of the subject at hand, and given that there might well be unconscious bias or prejudice against certain aspects of a case—for example, the complainer might have had too much to drink or whatever—do you see it as part of your role to promote the training of juries? Would that be a good thing? I would have thought that, for the specialist court, it would be essential for juries to have some training. Do you give any instructions to juries at all? Does that fall within the court service’s remit?

Is that happening at the moment? Is that information being given to witnesses and victims?

We will go on to discuss juries, so I will leave the matter there. I simply wanted to ask that question in relation to the specialist court.