Chamber and committees

Convener, it is difficult to hear the witness when there are conversations going on to my left. I want to concentrate on what Ms Medhurst has to say to us.

Thank you for that. Would you accept that the instrument on the prison rules that the committee is looking at this afternoon places an obligation on the governor to ensure that, in their institution, there is an appropriate opportunity for a member of staff to raise their concerns and have them properly and fully addressed? Would you accept that that is required of the governor as a consequence of them being allocated the discretionary power in question?

I will move on to the ground that the convener started on, which is the risk assessment that is undertaken. Can you explain to the committee the degree of rigour, and the scope, of the risk assessment that is carried out in those circumstances and whether that rigour and scope are applied to any other scenarios in the Scottish Prison Service?

I would like to follow up on the point that Russell Findlay has been raising with Teresa Medhurst in relation to the discretion that is provided for governors to opt for a search to be undertaken by an officer of the individual’s original gender. I wonder whether Teresa Medhurst could put on the record the approach that she envisages that a governor would take in fulfilling the statutory obligation in the instruments that the committee is considering this afternoon, particularly in the scenario that Mr Findlay put, where an officer has concerns about what they are being asked to do.

Are there any limitations on the sources of information for that process that the Scottish Prison Service pursues to ensure that it has the broadest possible perspective on the history of an individual and the risk that they might pose to any other prisoner or member of staff in the Scottish Prison Service?

Would you say that what is in front of the committee today is a strengthening of the obligation on governors to ensure that the perspectives and concerns of members of staff are addressed to a greater extent, with greater obligation, than was the case before?

Thank you for that. That strikes me as an acknowledgement that there are cultural questions that need to be addressed. The words of the Lord Justice General on the Macdonald case illustrate some serious failings in the protection that all of us would expect to be in place for a witness—that a member of the judiciary can step in to make sure that things are done properly. The Lord Justice General’s conclusions in the appeal obviously demonstrate that that was not the case.

There is the cultural element about ensuring that leadership and practitioners are operating effectively, but are there also procedural questions that need to be addressed about the operation of the courts in relation to the handling of such cases?

You understand exactly where I am coming from. I would be keen to see that further information.

The only other thing that I would like to explore is the question of delays, which I discussed with the Lord Advocate. I do not know whether you were here for the question that I raised with the Lord Advocate, but it strikes me that the solution to delays will not rest in the hands of one organisation. There should be a joint effort involving Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown, practitioners and the judiciary, for example. I am interested in hearing from you what steps you feel that you can take as part of that collaborative effort to address the issues that are contributing to some of the very poor experiences that complainers have because processes are taking so long.

It would be good if you could provide that information to us with as much detail as possible, Mr Fraser, because it is material to some of the questions that I will come on to about improving the throughput of the court system and addressing some of the issues about delays that I aired with the Lord Advocate, which you might have heard, earlier on. It also gets to the nub of whether we need to build a new infrastructure for this. I am profoundly sceptical about that, given that I imagine that there is spare capacity, albeit that it might be in the wrong place to suit particular schedules, if you see what I am getting at.

Great—thank you for that.

My last question is about the issue, which we have long debated, of whether part of the reason for the successful or unsuccessful prosecution of sexual crimes has been about quality of evidence. I am interested to know your thoughts. Do you consider that there is any danger that your suggestions could lead to a reduction in the quality of evidence that is available? Is there a sense that evidence by commission is not as sturdy as evidence that is gathered in some other fashion?