Chamber and committees

That was my next question. It sounds like you are supportive of the principle but, like the Lord Advocate, you perhaps have concerns over how the arrangements might work in practice.

My next question, then, is: how do we make the process work more easily? What is the answer? It may not be so simple, but you are saying that you would be happy to work with the Scottish Government. At this stage of scrutiny of the bill, it would be helpful for us to understand how things could work.

Personally, I think that independent legal representation is a really good idea. I welcome the proposals on that in your report and in the bill.

Going back to what Russell Findlay said, if it is not workable for whatever reason, is there another way to deal with defence lawyers bringing up the issue of character and sexual history as part of their defence? Did the group look at any other way that that could be addressed?

To go back to your submission, my understanding is that you are supportive of the proposal but think that it is not fair to put all the responsibility on the Crown and that how the process would work in practice needs to be thought out.

I was going to ask about independent legal representation, but Russell Findlay got in there before me, so I will ask about another area.

To go back to John Swinney’s point, we have heard concerning evidence about how victims and witnesses—or rather, complainers—have felt during their trial, particularly during cross examination, with regard to the practice of bringing up their character or, perhaps, sexual history. Is the recommendation for legal representation to protect people on that particular aspect?

Is there any way to strengthen the current arrangements to ensure that they do not fail?

It was good to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.

My main question goes back to the report that was produced in 2020 by Dame Elish Angiolini, when she carried out a review of policing. You will be well aware of that review. She said that she was “extraordinarily depressed” to hear accounts of discrimination within Police Scotland. I know that the previous chief constable acknowledged that, prior to leaving the service, and that you have also acknowledged that.

What do you feel should be done about the culture of the organisation? Do you have any plans to drive that work forward?

I welcome the chief constable to her role. Before I move on to my main line of questioning, I would like to follow up on the estate issue. Unless I missed it and will get hit with bad news today, I was glad that no Lanarkshire closures were planned. I think that that is right, given the distance between Lanarkshire police stations and the unique nature of all the individual towns.

I will pose what is perhaps the opposite question to the one that you have been asked today. A lot of those buildings in Lanarkshire—the one in Coatbridge, for example, and the one in nearby Airdrie—are very old, so there is no scope for the amalgamation that has happened in Glasgow, and for the officers and staff to move into good new buildings. The option is just not there—it is not like Coatbridge is good and Airdrie can move down, or vice versa. When you are redeveloping, have you given any thought to the buildings in Lanarkshire? I am not too sure about the Cumbernauld one, but the vast majority are old buildings.

Thank you for that frank and robust response. My follow-up question was going to be about how you will review that to find out when you are at the right place. However, you have answered that.

The Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is interested in looking at that area, too. I am a member of that committee, and I know that its convener and clerks will look at that response to see whether it helps them to direct any future work. I thank you for your frankness. You have not tried to hide anything.

Everybody around the table knows that the issue is not necessarily about the majority of individual officers, who are doing a fantastic job throughout the country, but as the report identified, and as the previous chief constable and you have said, it is more of an institutional culture. I think that Dame Elish Angiolini referred to a cafe culture in her report.

That certainly reflects my experience as an MSP of police officers I meet through my job and people I know personally.

The other issue that I want to ask about is the police’s trauma-informed practice, if that is all right, convener—I hope that I am not standing on any toes in doing that. We hear a lot more about that as we take bills through the Parliament. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has a specific section on trauma-informed practice for the various justice organisations. We have already heard evidence that there is good trauma-informed practice in the police. The joint investigative interviews, for example, are key. However, there are other things that could perhaps be done better in dealing with victims and witnesses as they interact with the justice system. What are your early thoughts on that? What needs to improve, or what is already good and can be built on?

Thank you for that.

I have a second question on this issue. I think that I hear what you are saying about the acquittals: you are worried that they will come not only from the current pool of not proven but, because of the higher threshold, from the current pool of convicted. I think that you have already answered this question, so you can be brief—as I am sure that the convener will be glad to hear. What if we, as a Parliament, decided—for want of a better phrase—to get rid of not proven, but left the jury numbers as they were? Do you think it possible that that might result in the reverse of your concerns occurring and, as many in the legal profession have similarly raised concerns about, lead to wrongful convictions instead? Are you concerned or worried about that? I am just putting that out there.