Chamber and committees

I am happy with that suggestion.

I ask members for an indication of their view on going back to Police Scotland to ask some further questions. Rona, I know that you—[Interruption.] Do members agree that we should do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I will bring in Stephen Imrie in case I have missed anything; I do not think that I have.

I thank the witnesses for attending this morning. We will pause momentarily to allow the cabinet secretary to leave.

I am happy for us to incorporate that into correspondence to the cabinet secretary. Obviously, the criminal justice reform bill is coming forward, and I would be very surprised if the new contract and the process around that were not incorporated into the bill.

Are members happy with what we have proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

I will pull things together. Very few such trials have been undertaken despite the support for the notion of virtual trials, and members have highlighted some relevant points. We need a much more substantial evidence base. It is concerning that momentum is waning, if that is the case. The fact is that the reality seems to be at odds with what is happening in our court system.

There are good points to raise about budget implications for virtual trials. Issues such as the quality of connections are practical matters, but they are important nonetheless. It is good to see better use of a virtual option for taking evidence on commission; that was highlighted in some of the correspondence that we received.

For next steps, I propose—I am not sure whether all members will agree with this—that we note the discussion that we have had today and note that the matter will be the subject of further consideration in the forthcoming criminal justice reform bill. However, Jamie Greene’s last comments suggest that he would prefer to go back to the SCTS with some further questions.

Thanks, Jamie. I am happy to look at an opportunity to do that.

On the point about monitoring the remand population, your impression is probably correct. I am certainly happy to consider some work around monitoring remand populations outwith the scope of the work on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, which will conclude shortly. I am happy to consider that point further, because it is clearly a pressing issue that we have been grappling with.

It is one of our coming agenda items.

I see that no one else wants to come in.

I thank members for their comments, which are all perfectly valid. I will try to summarise the points that have been made. Russell Findlay raised some key issues around the commentary on police suicides and some of the previous responses that we have had, including the correspondence from the Crown Office on police suicides.

Jamie Greene proposed that we go back to Police Scotland to ask further questions, including on the Scottish Police Federation’s comments. Please correct me if I have picked that up wrongly—I have been scribbling down notes. Some other issues have been raised, too.

Part of the reason for the actions that have been set out in paper 4 is that I do not want us to simply get into a chain of correspondence. However, in view of the comments and points that have been made, I ask members to indicate whether they are happy for us to go back to Police Scotland on the specific issues that have been highlighted. Are members happy for us to take that away as an action?

Thank you, Pauline. The issue that you raise about police officer abstractions for court is a very important one. For example, in the north-east division recently, I think that 150 officers were cited for court on a Monday morning. That number will reduce with trials going off, but that is a lot of officers and it has huge implications for operational policing.