Chamber and committees

I agree with Pauline McNeill on violence against women and girls. I would like more cross-cutting work on that between committees, because it is a huge subject that we need to keep pursuing and tackling head-on. I will not repeat all of Pauline McNeill’s comments, but I agree with all of them.

On fatal accident inquiries, clearly there have been and are serious issues, and families have concerns. However, the cabinet secretary’s response was that the Government is taking note of the recent report of the deaths in custody review and that he has made an extensive statement in the chamber about the issue. Obviously, this is up to you, convener, but, to acknowledge the seriousness, perhaps we could send a letter to drill down a wee bit further on that issue. The fact that the excellent and all-encompassing report on deaths in custody is being considered is a good thing, but we probably need a bit more reassurance on that.

Russell Findlay talked about the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce. I completely disagree with him that there is any point in our going over again the issue of the two members who left the task force. That has all been made public, so I see no merit in our drilling back into it. Certainly, it is fine to acknowledge the work that they have been involved in, but I do not see that going over the issue again would move us forward in any way, and I am not sure that there is a great deal of public interest in that. I think that what the public want now is for us to move on and get things done.

My question is for Ms Medhurst and is about the resource implications of the initiative. How much additional time have prison staff spent on dealing with the initiative since it started? What impact has it had on their other work?

I want to ask a bit more about the response of prisoners to the initiative. The cabinet secretary said in his opening statement that prisoners had initially been hostile but that things have sort of calmed down. I ask Ms Medhurst for her view on why things have calmed down. Is that because the process is running smoothly?

Are there plans to carry out a mental health assessment of the impact on prisoners and their families? If so, can you give us an approximate timescale for that?

That is fine—thank you.

I completely understand what you are saying, but, when the pandemic has settled down, will some kind of assessment be done of how much time staff are spending on the initiative?

Thank you. That is fine, thank you convener.

Thank you—I appreciate that.

Apologies, convener—I lost connectivity there.

I will come back on the second part of the question, and ask the Lord Advocate to expand on her comment that we need to be “properly informed” about judges. I would like to know what that means. In that context, would you support a register of judicial interests?

Lord Advocate, you said in a recent interview that

“Judge-led trials don’t impact on the right to a fair trial [but] we need to look at the suitability of a jury to prosecute a case.”

You added that

“We should be properly informed ... properly informed about judges.”

You will be aware that Professor Fiona Leverick’s research found “overwhelming evidence” that jurors hold “prejudicial and false beliefs”. In our private evidence sessions with victims, we heard that they felt that there was an element of that. They felt that juries might be prejudiced if the complainer had been drinking.

What is your opinion on that? What do you mean by the “suitability” of a jury? Does that suggest a need for media training—I am referring to specialist courts?

Would you support a register of judicial interests?