Seòmar agus comataidhean

That answer is very helpful, in a sense, as it adds to the committee’s consideration of what we must think about—and this goes back to my earlier questions—with regard to the relationship between jury size, majority versus supermajority and the potential abolition of the not proven verdict. That answer—and the lack of absolute certainty about why we are where we are—is part of establishing the proper relationship between those three factors.

If we went to a unanimity position, that would strike me as a really significant move in Scottish jury approaches, and it would require a very significant raising of the bar for potential conviction, which must of course be substantiated. Going back to your earlier point, Mr Keane, there must be public confidence in the criminal justice system, and we must be careful that we do not place the bar too high up.

Thank you.

I am interested in hearing your views on an issue that I have raised with you this morning. In trying to strike the appropriate balance, and given the possible implications of the changes, should we also consider revisiting the approach to—or the threshold for—involving the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in possible miscarriages of justice? Should that be considered in our pursuit of the right balance?

That is an incredibly helpful and illuminating answer. I will press you on one last point about the question of magnitude, in order to make sure that I have correctly understood what you said about the data point of 3 to 37 per cent. Is that the scale of magnitude of difference that can prevail, given all the potential permutations that you have set out? It is quite a wide variation.

That is helpful, and it brings me to the other area that I want to discuss. To broaden out the topic, I want to address the interaction and the relationship—which your research in your evidence paper helpfully draws out for the committee—between the size of the jury, the question of majority versus supermajority and the presence or absence of the not proven verdict.

I am interested in the relationship between those three factors. One might take the view—for all the arguments that Mr Keane gave us a moment ago—that the not proven verdict does not help us to have a clear criminal justice system. However, the implications of that need to be carefully considered in relation to the impact on the other two questions: what is the optimum size of a jury and what are the arguments for a simple majority versus a supermajority?

Can you air some of the dynamics of the relationship within that triumvirate of jury size, a simple majority versus a supermajority and the presence of not proven?

What Russell Findlay said helps to tease out what we need to do practically. I am not firm in my view—and I do not think that Gill Imery is—that there is a need for a new system, provided that the FAI system works as we all believe it should.

There is a course of action that we need to take. I certainly could not sign up to a new system, and I am in favour of people doing what they should be doing, so I would rather explore the position on FAIs, including what the Crown’s view is and what improvements can be secured, before we align ourselves with a proposition for a new system. Going to the Crown and establishing the FAI approach is the first base for us in pursuing the issue.

It is important to hear Gill Imery’s view on all this, because she was a compelling witness and has done a huge amount of work on the matter, but we also need to hear from the Government on whether she is being invited to continue in her role. If Gill Imery has been asked to do that, she can tell us, but we need confirmation from the cabinet secretary.

Convener, if you will forgive me, I think that what we discussed as a committee—we might have discussed it in private when we looked at some timescales for FAIs—was that there appeared to be a pattern that prison-related FAIs took longer to be commenced than many other FAIs. That relates to the serious point that Pauline McNeill raised about the Allan Marshall case. Again, that is a reasonable issue to put to the Crown because I do not know the answer. Instinctively, I agree that families should have unfettered access to information, but I do not know how that sits alongside proper investigation about the potential for criminality. Those are legitimate issues that we need to explore.

On Pauline McNeill’s point about information on the fatalities in Scottish prisons, I have a recollection that we saw some of that data from either Gill Imery or the Scottish Prison Service. It is important to understand the circumstances and the context. There will be different circumstances surrounding deaths in custody. Some of those deaths will be because of suicide and some will be because of health issues. However, the management of those health issues is important to ensure that prisoners are being properly supported with the healthcare that they require when they are incarcerated. That is a fundamental commitment in relation to prisoners’ human rights. It is important that we are assured that, in relation to both of those very different situations, individuals’ wellbeing is supported to try to avoid circumstances in which people take their own lives or to ensure that prisoners are getting proper access to the healthcare to which they are entitled.

Those issues lie at the heart of the work that Gill Imery has been looking at. I agree with colleagues that she was a very strong and compelling witness in explaining the work that she has tried to do.

I do not question the fact that more needs to be done. I would encourage some clarity on whether Gill Imery is being invited to stay on in post, because the work is not yet complete. However, I take a different view of the letters from the cabinet secretary, the chief executive of NHS Scotland and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. The letters demonstrate that work is under way here. There might not be as much as the committee would like, or as Gill Imery would like, but work is under way. There is a clear commitment to taking the agenda forward, although it might not be moving as fast as everybody would like. For that reason, it is important that Gill Imery is able to continue her work.

My last point is that an issue that arises here but also crosses over into other areas of responsibility is the approach to fatal accident inquiries. We can ask the Government for information on certain points in that regard, but fundamentally we need to hear from the Crown about those questions. As part of our response to the material, we should put some of the points to the Crown and ask for a response.

How I would interpret your completely fair observation, Mr O’Donnell, is that the private sector is, in essence, insulated from the effect of inflation, and the public sector carries the can. The argument that those contracts represent some degree of risk transfer is complete baloney.

Thank you. I turn to the capital cost issue. Do you have any current experience of the real increase in capital costs in the current environment? I am probably talking about capital costs in this financial year versus what you would have expected them to be, let us say, three years ago. For example, for a particular project two years ago, you might have expected it to cost £20 million, but, in fact, it has cost £20 million plus X—are you able to furnish the committee with any live examples of that, because that would be a helpful piece of data?