Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, I have a question as well.

I will let Jamie Greene go first.

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.

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?

Thank you for that, Stuart—

I think that you have called me Fulton Mackay once or twice as well, Rona.

I hope that the witnesses—and the deputy convener—do not mind my going back a wee bit, like Collette Stevenson did. I want to return to an earlier line of questioning by my colleague Rona Mackay to Stuart Murray.

Stuart, I am sure that you will be used to the points that you have made being picked up on—I apologise for doing so, too. I should say that I really like your tenacity in your work for people who are accused—it seems that you would be a really good lawyer to have.

On that note, however, I disagree with your comment that the accused should have the right to see their accuser. I can understand that from a general, theoretical point of view, but we have heard evidence in committee on a number of occasions and in various evidence-gathering sessions indicating that that can be a really traumatic experience for the accuser in some of the most heinous crimes that have been reported. I appreciate that they are only alleged crimes at that stage, and I understand the complexities around that.

However, it has become clear to me that there is also an issue of access to justice. We have talked a wee bit about access to justice for the accused and whether they are not getting a fair hearing or to have a trial in the old-fashioned, pre-Covid way—although that can include virtual elements, too. If a victim—an alleged victim, rather—is so scared or traumatised that he or she cannot give evidence to the best of their ability, that is another aspect to consider. I get that there is a balance to be struck on that. I wanted to come back to you on that point.

Do you not see any merit at all in continuing virtual hearings, for example for domestic abuse offences, sexual offences or serious assault offences? If you do not, do you see any way to bring in some sort of hybrid format? That might be like the one that we use in the Parliament, for example. Could such a format be brought in to capture—almost—both elements: ensuring that the accused gets a fair hearing and ensuring that the witnesses, who have perhaps experienced really traumatic things, get to give their evidence in the best way possible?