Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can cover page 26—[Interruption.] Excuse me. Everyone has a frog in their throat this morning—it is because we are all sitting close together.

Looking at pages 26 and 27, the first box is about information on the Government’s plans. We have identified that more clarity is still needed on the short-term measures that will be taken. Obviously, the issue is playing out in the wider domain, but there is still substantial disagreement between the sector and the Government. It is an area that we need to keep a close eye on, and we could invite representation from all parties to update us on their views on the matter. It is all very well reading about it in The Times, but it would be nice to hear from those concerned in a formal committee setting.

The other issue relates to the role of the PDSO. I was not going to butt in on the point that Pauline McNeill made about the Moorov doctrine but, in its response, the Crown Office made it very clear that it does not believe that it is the procurator fiscal’s role to inform complainers of potential outcomes and scenarios and why or how a certain outcome might arise. That shows the importance of the PDSO and its potential role in improving that. If the Crown Office is going to say that that is not its job and that it would be inappropriate for that to be part of the prosecutor’s role, that begs the question of whose role it is.

The fact that the relevant recommendation has not been agreed to leaves a gap. I think that the committee should consider pushing the Government on that. If the Crown Office is not the right body to better inform complainers, what is? How are we going to address the issues raised by the Moorov doctrine question?

Are we still on page 8?

For the benefit of people who are watching and are not sure what we are staring at on our desks, the table is publicly available.

The table says:

“No information from the SPS currently provided”.

That is the answer to the question whether the Scottish Government agreed to the recommendation. That is the first point. Are we waiting for the Scottish Government to respond or for the Scottish Government to ask the SPS to respond to it or to us, or is the SPS responding to us directly?

I would prefer quite a detailed plan from the SPS. I think that the SPS should provide a Covid recovery plan to the committee that addresses each of the points, because there are more than half a dozen specific asks of the SPS. I am not fussed whether that comes through the Government or directly from the SPS. However, as an organisation, the SPS has a direct and quite important responsibility to come to the committee directly and say, “We hear what you’re saying.” We published the document months ago, and the SPS has had plenty time to look at it. We are now in the coming-out-of-Covid phase—we can see that from the arrangements in the room today—and I am really surprised that we have not had even a relatively short document from the SPS that responds to each of the points.

I think that we should press the SPS through the means that are available to us, and even perhaps set out a timetable for when we would expect such a document. That we should be sitting here with a table that says, “To be decided”, or saying that we do not know or have not heard is not a good place to be at this stage, and it will not provide any comfort to anyone who reads the paper.

Once you start us, we do not stop, convener. I apologise. However, there is a lot in the paper and it is our first day back. I appreciate your forbearance.

The letter from the Crown Agent goes through our recommendations in great detail. It would probably merit a little bit of written analysis in due course. Some of the points that the committee made are broadly accepted and some very comprehensive responses are given; for others, that is perhaps less the case.

Two issues stuck out for me. One was our question about the role of the Crown Office in the victim notification scheme and its relative success. The response seems to imply that that is not really its responsibility but that it will keep an eye on what the Government says in terms of its proposals. That is fine, but the committee thought that the Crown Office had an important or substantive role in the VNS and it seems to think otherwise. We would not have asked the question in the first place if we did not think that the Crown Office had a role to play, so the next question that I would ask is, if it is not responsible, who is?

At paragraph 307 of our report, the committee asked the Crown Office for

“details of how outcomes, such as reducing re-offending rates, are to be captured.”

Again, there is a very short and polite response, which is that

“The application of sentencing guidelines ... is for the judiciary only.”

I would therefore ask which bit of the judiciary is responsible, as sentencing guidelines are a relatively new feature of the justice system in that respect.

Finally, to pick up on Pauline McNeill’s point, we would not really be doing justice to the evidence that we received from the survivor if we did not refer to it in today’s meeting. I read it last night. There may be elements of it that individual members or the Government would disagree with in terms of some of the policy proposals, but it was quite sharp and pointed and I do not think that it can go ignored.

I will just quote briefly from it. The survivor says:

“I truly believe that everyone here thinks that they want to help end violence against women—but your inaction is violence against us.”

If that is how someone feels, it is true to them and perhaps to others, too.

On the third page of the submission, there is a long bullet list of recommendations that the survivor, who has broad experience of the justice sector, would like us and the Government to consider. I know that many of those have already been looked at in Lady Dorrian’s review and that the Government will respond in due course, but I think that the committee needs to put those recommendations, along with other comments that are made in the submission, front and centre in our work.

It is fair to say that, for many years, we and others have been going around in circles on this, and that is a point that was made, quite valiantly, in the submission. The survivor states:

“This is an emergency and urgent and drastic reform is required.”

That sums up where we are at, and I hope that the committee will make swift progress.

I will not oppose the SSI—who am I to stand in the way of someone’s retirement? However, we could request that the Government and Police Scotland outline their strategy on recruitment and provide some data, including on the time lags involved. We could ask about increases in intake at the Scottish Police College and when those people could become operational, so that we can look ahead to ensure that there will not be a lag in resource at Police Scotland. We need to keep our eye on any potential for that.

I am not sure whether this relates to paper 1; it is hard to keep track sometimes. My question relates to the Lord Advocate’s response to our letter on naloxone use. Is that an appropriate issue to raise?

You go first, Russell.

On the victim notification scheme, the comment is that our recommendation was agreed to “In part”. The column on “Notes and additional information”, refers to the work of the victims task force, a review of the victims commissioner for Scotland and so on. When do we expect the Government to come back to us? What format will that be in? Will it be a report, a parliamentary debate or legislation?

Given that there are a lot of wide and varied issues—although I do not want to go into all of them in detail today—around the VNS and other aspects related to supporting victims, I would like to know whether the Government will come back with a specific victims strategy, and what the format and timescale of that will be. That might take the pressure off us to chase up on individual points.

I am pleased to say that my point is not the same as Russell’s. I want to ask about diversion funding in general but also as a matter of principle. The table notes budget increases in that area. Two things are missing from the information. There is clear divergence in the range, volume and quality of diversionary activity that takes place across local councils. That is a piece of work in itself.

I would also be keen to hear a response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others as to whether they believe that that level of funding will enable them to meet what is being asked of them. Clearly, the number of people who come through the system is outside their control, and although any budget increase is welcome, the amount seems relatively small.

On whether diversion will be successful, the proof is in the pudding. The issue is not just about diversion funding; it is about whether diversion meets its objective as an alternative to prosecution. The delivery of that is largely through local authorities. Whatever your views are on that, it is clear that, when you unearth what is happening on the ground, the picture is diverse. In some places, the policy seems to have been done very well; in others, it has been done less well, to be honest. The committee needs to look not just at the Government’s promise of money, but at how the policy is being delivered and whether we are content that it is meeting its objectives.

This might be more of a structural point. We have marked that issue as completed in the table: we asked for information and it was given, so it is completed. However, the question is whether we are content with the information and whether the objective of our recommendation has been achieved. Therefore, I would refrain from turning to green the “Progress against delivery” box in the table until the committee has discussed whether it agrees that the information is sufficient or whether the matter is still a work in progress.