Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

Thank you for your powerful evidence so far, including what you have just said.

I will ask about the same subject that I asked about in the previous evidence session—I do not know whether you saw it. What are your views on independent legal representation? What I am getting from your submission is that the Crown Office is generally supportive of the idea and the provisions for it, but that it envisages some problems. You have outlined some ways in which those problems might be resolved. Could you expand on that?

Good afternoon. I will stick to the line of questioning that I followed with the previous two panels of witnesses, which is on the issue of independent legal representation. Your submission is different to those of Lady Dorrian and the Lord Advocate, in that you raise concerns about the resource implications and the possibility of delays to cases. Can you expand on those concerns? Is there any merit to the suggestion and, if so, how could it be achieved, if not through the bill?

My questioning so far, and in the earlier evidence session, has focused on independent legal representation in relation to the rape shield provisions—as Lady Dorrian said, she recommended ILR for that purpose only. What are your thoughts on independent legal representation being provided for complainers in a wider context, perhaps when they first make a complaint?

We have heard a lot of evidence—I am sure that you have heard it as well—that when somebody makes a complaint to the police in these situations, that is it for them until they are next contacted by the criminal justice system. Is there a role for the provision of independent legal advice at an earlier stage, so that somebody could go through with people making a complaint how things might pan out?

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.

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?

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.