The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17003, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request-to-speak buttons.
14:54
I start by thanking the Criminal Justice Committee for its stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill and for its support for the bill’s general principles. I am also grateful to all individuals and organisations that provided written or oral evidence to the committee. They have significantly contributed to scrutiny of the bill, which has two very important aims. The first is to provide resilience to the criminal justice sector through modernisation, and the second is to establish a gold standard domestic homicide and suicide review process, so that individuals and communities are better supported by public services and deaths can be prevented.
The first part of the bill seeks to make permanent some of the temporary provisions that are set out in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022. Today is the fifth anniversary of the passing of the first coronavirus bill in Scotland. That was an unprecedented bill for an unprecedented time that impacted on everyone’s lives and forever changed the way in which we deliver public services. I pay tribute to everyone in the justice sector, as well as members of this Parliament, who worked swiftly to get that emergency legislation developed and passed so that we could continue to provide essential services to the public and keep people safe. The actions that we took then laid the groundwork for the modernisation and transformation of the justice landscape that we will debate today.
During stage 1, stakeholders supported the provisions in the bill, highlighting the essential role that they play in the justice system and how they are vital to the modernising of reforms. A majority of the provisions have now been in place for five years and they have been scrutinised by the Criminal Justice Committee annually since 2022, with stakeholders contributing their views each time. It is important that, where provisions have been shown to work well in practice, they are largely retained in their current form to ensure continuity and minimise disruption. The temporary provisions that are part of the 2022 act will expire on 30 November 2025. It is therefore critical that this Parliament passes the bill to enable the provisions to be in place from 1 December this year.
I acknowledge that, during the stage 1 evidence sessions, some concerns were raised about some of the provisions, and those concerns are captured in the recommendations in the Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report. I am committed to considering those recommendations and working with members to see what improvements can be made at stage 2.
Part 1 of the bill also seeks to introduce two new provisions that will support greater use of digital technologies. I welcome the committee’s support for those provisions—as well as its recommendations—as they will allow us to further maximise the benefits from the digital evidence sharing capability programme.
The temporary justice measures that were put in place in 2020 also extended the time limits that apply in criminal justice proceedings. The bill as introduced does not make any provision on time limits. Of the seven extended time limits that were originally legislated for in 2020, five have been expired and two are continuing for a final year until the end of November 2025. It has always been my commitment that we will revert to pre-pandemic time limits as soon as is feasible.
During the stage 1 evidence sessions, justice agencies and victim support organisations highlighted concerns about whether the court system will have the capacity to meet the required timescales when the provisions expire. In its report, the Criminal Justice Committee indicates its support for retaining the current temporary time limits for those cases that have reached the relevant point in the system prior to 1 December 2025. I thank the committee for that practical support, which will ensure a smooth and orderly transition from the current extended time limits back to the pre-pandemic time limits.
I also welcome the committee’s recommendation and comments on the provisions in part 2 of the bill and the proposals for what will be Scotland’s first domestic homicide and suicide review model. As I outlined to the committee during stage 1, our work in this area has been guided by a multi-agency and multidisciplinary task force. My comments continue to reflect that process and the feedback from task force members, whom I thank for their valuable contribution to the model development and their continued commitment and constructive challenge.
I recognise the point that was highlighted by the committee on ensuring that the provisions in the bill should not undermine the widely understood and recognised definition of “domestic abuse” in Scottish law.
I also accept the views of the committee that, in the bill, we have, and should have, an approach that enables wider deaths and events—for example, so-called “honour” killings—to be encapsulated in the review model, and that doing so is supported by the task force and committee, although it would mean a further departure from the definition of “domestic abuse” in Scotland. I assure members that the review model and its scope do not in any way undermine the definition in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) 2018 Act, as the purposes are different and distinct: the 2018 act created a new and specific criminal offence of domestic abuse, whereas the bill focuses on learning from deaths in which there have been, or appear to have been, domestic abuse behaviours.
I fully recognise that the use of language and definitions are of paramount importance when it comes to the review model. I will, therefore, ensure that the distinction is reaffirmed and made clear in the statutory guidance and the consultative process that will be part of its development.
In addition, I will use the explanatory notes to set out clear definitions and different ways in which the expressions “child of” someone and “young person” are used in the bill. Although we consider that the definitions in the bill are clear and have discussed them with task force members, we will add further detail and examples, to ensure that the distinction is understood.
I have noted the committee’s comments about the relationship between the domestic homicide or suicide reviews and other multi-agency reviews, and the desire to ensure that reviews do not duplicate existing processes. I fully recognise and support that in principle. The bill makes provision for joint reviews to minimise duplication, but it is imperative that, in addressing the gap in the current review landscape, we do not lose or dilute the domestic lens that has been missing from reviews across the sector. Again, the task force approach has allowed that discussion to progress and develop, as I articulated in my written response to the stage 1 report, including highlighting the stakeholder event that will take place in May.
On the question of training and the need for it, I am clear that no one will be appointed to a role in the review process unless they have all the relevant core skills and have completed the necessary training, details of which are being worked up under the auspices of the workforce and training group of the task force.
The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the many delays in fatal accident inquiries, for example. What risk is there that, by creating new statutory review processes, we will simply overload the system with more cases for which there is not enough resource to enable them to be dealt with, thus causing people to wait years for the outcomes of the reviews?
There is no risk of that. Fatal accident inquiries are led by sheriffs and the courts. Obviously, there is a role for prosecutors in that. The statutory review would be on a par with, say, a child protection review or a child death review, so it would involve different mechanisms. However, I accept Jamie Greene’s point about the need for reviews to be well enough resourced to ensure that there are no undue delays, and I have given reassurance to the committee that, as I am taking forward the legislation in my name, I have a responsibility to ensure that it is well resourced.
I outlined that and a number of other issues in my written response, and I will keep the committee updated on that range of issues. The point that I made about ensuring that sufficient resources are available is a key component of the successful delivery of the review model. I have put on record my views and commitment on that.
I also confirm that we will provide further details on how reports would be sufficiently anonymised and what level of detail would be in the public domain following a review, while ensuring the flexibility to take an alternative approach if that is requested or required by family members. I will provide more detail to the committee on that ahead of stage 2.
I will finish by again thanking the committee for its support for the bill, which will allow us to deliver effective and sustainable public services through modernising the justice system and putting in place a robust review process to prevent domestic abuse and deaths.
I look forward to working with the committee and members on the next legislative stage, and I invite members to work with me on this significant bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill.
I call Audrey Nicoll to speak on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee.
15:05
I am pleased to open on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee in the stage 1 debate on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill.
The committee has taken time to consider the proposals in the bill carefully, and we agreed our stage 1 report unanimously. I thank our clerking team, Scottish Parliament information centre colleagues and everyone who supported our consideration of the bill, and everyone who assisted our scrutiny by providing valuable written and oral evidence.
I will highlight some of the main findings set out in our stage 1 report. As we have heard, it is a two-part bill. Part 1 makes permanent a number of the temporary court procedures that were introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic to enable courts to continue functioning safely. It also introduces two new procedures to modernise how courts operate. Many of those provisions were broadly welcomed in evidence, and they attracted our support, too.
There was widespread support for the proposal to make permanent the electronic signing and sending of certain legal documents. However, we highlighted the need to avoid digital exclusion for those who find it difficult to use technology. The Government’s response highlights that the bill does not provide that the electronic signing and sending of documents will be a requirement; rather, it allows for certain documents to be signed and sent electronically.
There was broad support for the proposal to allow digital images to be used in court in place of physical evidence—typically a weapon or an item of stolen property—which will help the efficiency of the wider criminal justice system. However, we think that the right for any party to require the actual physical evidence to be produced in court should be strengthened in the bill. We also recommended that the retention policy for physical evidence should be updated to reflect the new provisions in the bill; we do not want important evidence to be disposed of prematurely.
The bill proposes to make permanent the recent increase in the levels of fiscal fines. In certain circumstances, fiscal fines allow a person to pay a fine, thereby avoiding being prosecuted and obtaining a criminal conviction. We understood the logic behind that approach. If fiscal fines are being used by prosecutors for particular types of offence, the level of the fines will need to keep pace with inflation. However, we heard some concerns about the potential for non-payment to increase, as well as calls for victims to be informed when a fiscal fine is accepted. Those issues will need to be monitored.
A particular area of interest in our evidence sessions was the proposal to make permanent the current rules on virtual attendance at court. In principle, we are not against the concept of virtual attendance at court. It has been seen to deliver efficiencies in the use of court time and improvements for some users of the justice system, particularly professional witnesses.
In principle, we are supportive of making aspects of the current temporary arrangements permanent, but we think that the bill must include clearer rules setting out how the courts should use those powers. For example, we think that there should be additional criteria for the Lord Justice General to take into account before making a general determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular types of cases. We also think that clearer rules are required as to the types of location from which it is appropriate that virtual attendance can take place.
We also think that the practical concerns expressed about the current operation of virtual custody courts need to be addressed. I note the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendation on that aspect, which says that
“the current tests are well understood by the courts. The test of whether something is contrary to ‘the interests of justice’ is used in a wide range of different situations in criminal procedure”.
Another proposal that attracted interest was the proposal to make permanent the provision for a national jurisdiction when courts are dealing with the initial stages of a custody case. We support the idea that the current temporary measures should be made permanent. However, we feel that there must be greater clarity about the point at which national jurisdiction ends. In our view, that should be the point at which full committal takes place. That is in the interests of preserving the important principle of local justice, which benefits users of the justice system. I note that the Government’s response clarifies the circumstances in which national jurisdiction can be used and the point at which it ends, in both solemn and summary proceedings.
Part 2 of the bill establishes a new system of domestic homicide and suicide reviews. The committee welcomes the principle of having such reviews, which will fill a gap in the review landscape in Scotland. Crucially, they will allow lessons to be learned, identify areas for change and improvement, and help to prevent future abuse and deaths.
I will highlight the committee’s main conclusions relating to part 2. We acknowledged that the scope of the review process is broader than the current definition of domestic abuse, which amounts to criminal conduct. We heard conflicting views on whether the definition in the bill was too wide. However, the committee recognised that many people who experience domestic abuse do not report their abusers to the police. As such, we felt that the wider definition in the bill will allow greater opportunities to learn lessons and to prevent future deaths.
The bill also contains provisions to allow future expansion of the scope of such reviews, such as including deaths in the context of honour-based abuse. I note the Government’s commitment to include other types of deaths, including so-called honour killings, within the model.
The committee heard concerns about where domestic homicide and suicide reviews would fit into the already complex review landscape in Scotland. We recommended that the Scottish Government provide detail on how joint and multi-agency reviews will work in practice. It is crucial that, where possible, such reviews intersect with existing processes but do not duplicate them, so as to minimise the impacts on grieving families. Following the conducting of such a review, an anonymised report would be published. Given the relatively small population of Scotland, we have concerns about the ability to truly anonymise such reports. It is clear to us that there is a risk of further traumatising families by making reports publicly available. We ask that the impact on surviving family members be central to consideration of how reports are published, shared or distributed.
The committee welcomed many of the bill’s provisions. In some areas, we commented on specific provisions and, on occasion, we made recommendations to the Scottish Government to strengthen its proposals. Overall, however, we are content to support the general principles of the bill. If the Parliament agrees to the general principles today, we are ready to scrutinise the bill at stage 2.
I call Liam Kerr to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
15:14
This weekend, I enjoyed reading a thought-provoking and well-articulated opinion piece in which Edward Mountain, who has been the convener of two of the Scottish Parliament’s more heavyweight committees, sought to highlight the amount of, let us say, legislation with flaws that comes out of this place. He referred to Holyrood as
“one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world”,
which, rightly, seeks to legislate accordingly. Mr Mountain drew attention to the workload of committee MSPs and staff; the pressure to interrogate, understand and stress test legal principles and to grapple with often unfamiliar concepts; and the need for much reflection on the detailed evidence that is given. He proposed solutions that some members may agree or disagree with. He also focused on committees, which are absolutely essential in a unicameral Parliament that does not have a revising chamber to fix oversights.
For the past three weeks—plus tomorrow and possibly Thursday—the Criminal Justice Committee, the cabinet secretary, the minister, many parliamentary staff, special advisers and MSP staff have worked on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and its several hundred amendments to ensure that it is as good as it can be.
Members across the chamber, including the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, the deputy convener—which is me—and various others whose views and experience merit respect, have made representations to the Minister for Parliamentary Business not to risk the legislative process, not to downgrade the bill that is before us today, which we have all already put a huge amount of work into, and not to prioritise legislating cursorily over legislating competently. They asked him instead to postpone this debate so that both bills can be given their due. Regrettably, the Minister for Parliamentary Business—whose busy diary appears to have kept him from the chamber for this debate—seems to prefer process to prudence.
That being said, the Scottish Conservatives will vote in favour of the principles of this bill at decision time. Although I remain to be convinced that conjoining two fundamentally different principles together like this is the best way of doing things, because that requires committees to be creative in their evidence taking, I agree with what each part of the bill is intended to do.
Part 1 is focused on introducing some of the criminal justice measures that are contained in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 on a permanent basis. Reassuringly, the various stakeholders that the committee heard from largely welcomed that part of the bill.
The committee has advised that, at stage 2, the Parliament will wish to consider provisions on virtual attendance and how those who give evidence are protected and where they might give that evidence from. Concerns were also raised in committee about national jurisdiction and the principle of appearing in one’s local court. Pauline McNeill MSP has been particularly exercised on that point, so I will leave her to elaborate on it later.
I want to flag something that the cabinet secretary raised earlier. I was concerned in committee that the bill does not seek to address the current temporary provisions that extend some time limits in solemn cases. We heard evidence from Malcolm Graham, the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, who said that the court system will still not be ready to return to the pre-pandemic time limits by November. That point was picked up in our committee’s report, which suggested a solution and amendments for stage 2.
The cabinet secretary’s letter on 28 March provided an alternative and seemingly complementary solution, which is welcome. I listened carefully to the remarks that she made earlier. It would be useful if she could say, in her closing speech, whether she has any further details on when she might lay regulations to address that issue.
A key concern that a number of stakeholders expressed about part 1 of the bill was to do with finances. For example, there were concerns about the cost of virtual court appearances, with the Faculty of Advocates noting that remote hearings depend on courts having reliable and properly resourced technology. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the financial memorandum does not provide figures for the costs of expanding virtual attendance.
Those financial concerns continue with regard to part 2 of the bill, which will introduce a mechanism for domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Again, the principle is sound, but the committee heard Police Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities explicitly suggest that the bill’s financial memorandum does not provide enough funds to deliver the intention effectively or provide on-going support to families.
In the context of there now being more than 900 fewer police officers than there were in 2020, ever more demands on police time, 140 police station closures and the police being forced into a situation of not investigating some crimes, it must surely concern us to hear Police Scotland say that the financial memorandum is
“silent on the anticipated financial impact on the police budget.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 27.]
I make Mr Kerr aware of the correspondence that I sent to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which dealt with his issues in full. I also point to a quote from Police Scotland that said:
“It is probably a bit early to apply specific price tags.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 5.]
I remind Mr Kerr that all but two of the measures in part 1 of the bill have been in place for five years.
That is noted. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that clarification. However—and bearing in mind that I am talking about part 2—it was not just Police Scotland that had concerns. COSLA said:
“The financial memorandum does not reflect the costs and capacity needs of local authorities and their strategic community planning partners”
to do all the things that they need to, including providing support to families during the review process. It seems to me that the organisations that take part in the reviews must be provided with the necessary resources to enable them to do so effectively, otherwise I worry that we risk letting down victims and their families.
To pick up on Jamie Greene’s intervention, we must do all that we can to prevent a lack of resources during the review process from allowing key failures to go unexposed. I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees with that. However, the Government’s response to the issue in its letter of 28 March runs to only two sentences, suggesting that it is up to the domestic homicide and suicide review task force to identify the costs. In her closing speech, perhaps the cabinet secretary might commit to properly quantifying those costs by stage 2.
Furthermore—this picks up on a point that was made earlier—Social Work Scotland, COSLA, NHS Tayside, and EmilyTest all raised concerns about the duplication of processes, particularly the strain that its impact could put on children and families. I listened to the cabinet secretary’s comments on that earlier, and I note that the Government seeks to address the point in relation to children by saying that only one review should take place into a child death “unless this is unavoidable”. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could add a definition as to what circumstances would constitute a second review being “unavoidable”.
I do not think that the Government’s letter addressed how overlapping would be avoided in practice for adult deaths. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could address that in her closing speech, too.
The Scottish Conservatives will support the principles of the bill at stage 1 this evening, as both parts are commendable and largely achieve what they are designed to do. There are, of course, areas that can be improved—I associate myself with the convener’s remarks about helping the cabinet secretary to do so—and I am particularly worried about the finances. I hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to address my points in her closing speech.
I call Pauline McNeill to open on behalf of Scottish Labour. Ms McNeill is joining us remotely.
15:22
I agree with Liam Kerr’s remarks about the volume of work that the Criminal Justice Committee has undertaken, and I hope that we have done justice to the bill.
The Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill does two distinct things. First, it sets out extremely important provisions on domestic homicide and suicide reviews, aiming to identify what lessons can be learned and potentially applied following a death where abuse is known or suspected, in order to help to prevent future abuse and deaths. Scottish Labour whole-heartedly supports the Government in that regard.
Secondly, the bill sets out fundamental and permanent changes to the way in which evidence can be given in court and where the court can hear the initial stages of the court case virtually. The use of virtual attendance has its place, and it is being used in courts. However, its use is key to some victims giving evidence, and it can revolutionise the opportunity for victims to give their best evidence.
We must scrutinise the bill to ensure that the new arrangements can work fairly for everyone, especially given that the provisions that were put in place during Covid will become permanent if the bill is passed into law. We have already established giving evidence by commission in our courts—that has worked well for victims, and the courts are getting used to that.
There are two broad strands to the evidence that the committee received on virtual attendance. First, there was evidence about the principle of allowing virtual attendance and whether the framework for permitting virtual attendance in the bill was appropriate. In that respect, we note that the bill sets out the circumstances in which a court can issue a direction as to whether a physical or virtual attendance should take place. I note the convener’s helpful remarks that drew out where the committee thinks there should be more detail on that.
The bill sets out the framework within which the courts can take such a decision, rather than being prescriptive as to how virtual proceedings should be run. Of course, the provisions have been in place on a temporary basis since 2020. The bill seeks to make these provisions permanent, but I am concerned about the lack of detail on how such decisions can be arrived at. I think that there should not be a blanket decision on types of cases, but that each case should be judged on its merits, at least until we see how the approach can be run efficiently.
The second strand of evidence was about the practicalities of implementing virtual attendance. There are currently many flaws in the system. In fact, some organisations noted that the success of virtual attendance would depend on the availability of reliable, effective video connections. Written submissions from the sheriffs principal stated that they observed
“that virtual hearings are heavily dependent on the adequate resourcing of technology and infrastructure.”
In its written submission, the Faculty of Advocates was supportive of the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance and noted that
“the use of Webex to conduct preliminary hearings in the High Court of Justiciary works extremely well”.
However, it also noted that
“These undoubted and important benefits do come at a cost to the justice system”,
because
“Valuable court time is regularly lost due to delays in establishing remote links and re-establishing failed remote links.”
That is not good enough, and that is why the committee has asked for more certainty on that issue.
There were also concerns about the practical difficulties associated with virtual custody courts. Simon Brown of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association told the committee that he had participated in a pilot scheme for a virtual custody court in Kilmarnock sheriff court that was “a singular failure”. He noted that those
“Courts took four or five times as long, regularly running until 8 o’clock in the evening,”
and that
“the communication with clients was very poor.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 5.]
According to him, the difficulties included insufficient rooms being available in police stations, limited time with clients and the inability of solicitors to obtain follow-up meetings with clients because of a lack of space.
Paul Smith from the Edinburgh Bar Association pointed out that the lack of facilities in Edinburgh for virtual custodies caused delays, and that for
“clients who have not been through the system before and do not know a solicitor, and for whom this is their first point of contact, virtual custody makes it ... more difficult for the solicitor to form an impression and, in effect, a personal bond with the client.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 6.]
As I noted, there were also concerns about Kilmarnock sheriff court, where it had not gone so well.
Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland commented:
“the trouble is that the virtual systems that we have had so far have tended to be pretty inflexible.”
He noted that
“that is not really something for the bill,”
but that it should
“inform the decisions that are made around the bill.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 12.]
However, as far as I am concerned, in many ways, it is for the bill, because, before we permit the further use of those provisions, those matters must be resolved.
Malcolm Graham from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service acknowledged the concerns that arose from the pilots and gave a commitment to the committee that the service is focusing on such feedback to ensure that those provisions can be used effectively.
We also heard from representatives of the users of the justice system that any arrangements for virtual attendance should take account of particular needs. Adam Stachura from Age Scotland highlighted the importance of avoiding digital exclusion in relation to the bill’s proposals, pointing out that the fact that someone can go online does not mean that they
“are very good at using the internet.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 38.]
There is a lot to consider when it comes to ensuring that everyone feels that attending virtually is accessible.
Surprisingly, although the provisions on virtual attendance are welcomed by Police Scotland as streamlining processes and because, it says, they can reduce impact on the front line, it also stated that
“there are real questions about the feasibility of implementation”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 3.]
A running theme can be seen in the feedback from many organisations that are already using virtual attendance in our court system. It is fundamental that we ensure that there is the technology to support that model.
The proposal of a national jurisdiction for custody cases is another aspect of the bill. I want to ensure that the concept of local jurisdiction remains and that we are quite clear where national jurisdiction starts and where it ends.
Finally, on digital productions, it makes sense that the bill suggests that a digital copy could be used and stored instead of being presented to the court, but we must not lose the right of the jury to see, for example, the actual weapon that is used in a murder case. We need to make sure that it does not become a default position that there will be digital productions and that the prosecution or the defence can argue unencumbered if they want the court to see an actual item on display.
There is a lot to unpack in stage 2 of the bill; however, I will support the general principles of the bill.
I call Maggie Chapman to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
15:29
On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the bill and thank all those who have worked to bring it this far, including the many who responded so thoughtfully and carefully to the consultation.
The bill has two important aims. In its first part, it aims to make the criminal justice system work more efficiently and accessibly, and, in its second part, it aims to address and reduce the tragic deaths that far too often result from domestic abuse. Both are valuable objectives, and we support the principles of both parts. However, as other members have stated, the measures will need more work, both during the bill’s progress and in implementation, to ensure that those outcomes are really achieved.
I will speak first about part 1. During the Covid pandemic, reforms were carried out that made court processes more straightforward and efficient. Those included the use of appropriate technology to share documents and allowing people to attend courts virtually. It is important that, where those reforms have been successful, they are put on a permanent basis. Some of that should have been done a long time ago—in the justice system and other systems, we could say. We owe a collective apology to all those, including many disabled people, who were excluded from participation in collective life by being told that in-person attendance was necessary when it really was not.
I hope that the reforms will recognise that, as Kate Wallace of Victim Support Scotland has pointed out, for survivors and witnesses, it is often not only the experience of giving evidence that is traumatic, but the experience of being in the same building as the person who has harmed them and that person’s friends and family.
However, we must be careful that we are not creating new forms of exclusion and risk. Being online is not the same as being able to use the internet safely and confidently, especially in situations where people have good reason not to ask neighbours or family to help. Witnesses need a safe place from which to give evidence, and they need support before, during and, perhaps especially, after their evidence is heard, and home will not necessarily be that safe place. I look forward to hearing more about how appropriate, accessible and supported spaces can be created and maintained.
For defendants, too, virtual attendance might not always work. People who are charged with a crime must have full and secure access to legal advice and assistance, including legal aid, where they need it. That is particularly an issue during somebody’s first encounter with the criminal justice system, when they might not know what to do, what will happen, how things will work, what to listen out for or even who their lawyer is. We need flexibility and choice, but we also need consistency in how the choice is offered, whether that is about giving evidence remotely or being able to use paper documents instead of a screen.
The Scottish Women’s Convention raised an important issue about fiscal fines. The increase to the maximum fine is reasonable in view of inflation since the current maximum was set, and fiscal fines are a sensible way to deal with some offences that do not require a court hearing. However, we need to look at who is being fined and what effect that has on them and their families. The Scottish Women’s Convention written submission included the following quote:
“They’ll ... say that they’re letting them off lightly with a fine, but no, that’s not letting them off lightly if you can’t afford to pay, and if you can’t afford to pay that, then you can receive a custodial sentence.”
The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association made a similar point, saying:
“given that the default position is that non reply equals acceptance then there will inevitably be incidents where people face a custodial sentence of up to 28 days for a fine that they never knew they had.”
I am sure that the committee and the cabinet secretary will want to address that issue.
Does Ms Chapman welcome section 227M of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which says that the court cannot impose imprisonment for fines that do not exceed level 2, which is £500? I hope that that reassures Ms Chapman on the fiscal fines issue.
It gives me some reassurance, but it is worth looking at the issue again, especially considering the inequality of impact that even a £500 fine can have on different families.
On part 2, the Scottish Greens welcome the bill’s recognition that domestic abuse’s fatal effects go far beyond cases of direct homicide—given the figures, we perhaps ought to say “femicide”. The bill’s provisions are important and overdue, although we have some concerns about how they will operate in practice.
One concern is about the duplication of enquiries and the stress, retraumatisation and emotional and practical burden of having to repeatedly tell a painful story without knowing what information has already been shared. The second concern is about privacy and confidentiality, especially in relation to children. Is it right or safe that details can be made public, even if the identities are anonymised, given that social media users might find the identities all too easily?
My final concern is about who will be on the panels and committee. If the people who ask the questions are drawn from the same type of agencies as the people who have made the decisions, they are unlikely to ask the awkward, unexpected questions that lead to the most valuable insights. It is hard to see the wood when you are one of the trees.
That is why it is essential that the committee and panels have meaningful and mandatory representation from other sectors, such as those who have expertise in domestic abuse and children’s rights. I hope that we will hear more about that at stage 2.
The Scottish Greens welcome the bill and look forward to working with colleagues from across the chamber in order to make it as fair, inclusive and effective as it can possibly be.
15:36
Like others, I thank the Criminal Justice Committee for the stage 1 report. To pick up the point made by Liam Kerr and Pauline McNeill, the report rather suggests that the committee is as legislatively inundated as its predecessor was in the previous session, and therefore, as well as offering my thanks, I offer my condolences. I also thank all those who have informed the report through written and oral evidence.
As colleagues have observed, the bill’s two parts are quite different. As Liam Kerr alluded to, ideally, they merit being treated separately, although I appreciate the constraints on parliamentary time and Government resources.
Let me take each part in turn. As we have heard, part 1 deals with the looming deadline for temporary pandemic provisions coming to an end. I note and welcome the general consensus that there seems to be around the need to maintain the provisions, which have clearly and demonstrably assisted our justice system, while finding a sensible pathway back to the previous time limits.
The move towards the electronic signing and sending of documents, and changes relating to copy documents, are positive outcomes, which were spurred on by Covid but are perhaps long overdue in any event. Maggie Chapman strongly made that point, and, indeed, we have seen evidence of that in the Parliament’s workings. The increase in fiscal fines also seems reasonable as it reflects the inflationary pressures since the last levels were set—although I note the concerns that were raised by colleagues who are on the committee.
More problematic, however, is the move to make the current court powers around virtual attendance permanent. In principle that could increase flexibility, speed up our justice system and allow for better access. However, virtual attendance was an emergency stop-gap during the pandemic, and the committee has heard that serious practical concerns would need to be addressed properly before such changes are made permanent. That point formed a large part of Pauline McNeill’s speech, which I found to be very helpful.
Virtual attendance can create difficulties for those who are attending court for the first time and can make it harder for solicitors to speak to their clients and develop relationships with them. That is already an issue in my constituency, and we are seeing problems around access to legal aid support in many rural and island areas. Lawyer-client relationships are clearly integral to ensuring that our justice system is accessible to all and functioning as we would hope.
Those of us who represent rural and island communities are also well aware that not everyone has access to reliable or affordable internet. More generally, the Law Society of Scotland has raised concerns that witnesses might be prompted off-camera and that testimony could otherwise be insecure, and Police Scotland is worried that it does not have the resources to keep up with a significant expansion in virtual attendance. As such, there could be more delays to justice, rather than more flexibility and efficiency. That is perhaps reinforced by the evidence that the committee heard about the virtual custody court pilot in Kilmarnock, which, as Pauline McNeill reminded us, took four or five times longer than normal to hear cases and was called “a singular failure” by the SSBA.
All that said, virtual attendance clearly has benefits for the accused and for victims. Therefore, like the committee, I find myself supporting the principle, subject to the bill including more detail on the framework for virtual attendance. Broad guidelines do not seem to be sufficient in this instance. The cabinet secretary argued in her letter to the committee that courts are familiar with the existing test of whether virtual attendance would be contrary to the interests of justice. Even so, given the significance of such a change, ministers and the Parliament need to be as clear as possible about our collective expectations.
Turning briefly to part 2 of the bill, I understand that the proposal for domestic homicide and suicide reviews is aimed at closing a gap in Scotland’s current review landscape. The move appears to have been broadly welcomed by many of the people who gave evidence to the committee, but COSLA and Social Work Scotland have raised concerns about how the proposals will interact with the already complex review landscape in Scotland. At national and local levels, Scotland has multiple systems for mandatory and discretionary reviews, some of which already partly overlap.
Reforms and modernisation are certainly needed. Indeed, Scottish Liberal Democrats have consistently highlighted the failures of Scotland’s FAI system, with delays dragging on for years in some instances. Jamie Greene made that point very well in his earlier intervention.
I know that ministers are aware of those challenges, and the proposals for joint and multi-agency reviews are not unhelpful in that regard. However, the lack of detail about how such reviews would be implemented in practice means that there is a risk that existing problems of complexity and co-ordination could be exacerbated. As Social Work Scotland warns,
“Layering on additional Review processes onto a cluttered and unaligned landscape adds to complexity within the system.”
The cabinet secretary seemed to acknowledge that in her opening remarks. There is a need for wider and more fundamental reform of Scotland’s system of inquiries into deaths. However, in the absence of that reform, I do not think that it is right to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
As with any bill, more detail, more clarity and some changes are required, but Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time. I very much look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber and with the Government to improve the bill ahead of stage 3.
We move to the open debate.
15:42
Speaking as a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I put on the record my thanks to all those who gave evidence at stage 1 and, of course, to our excellent clerking team. Liam Kerr mentioned the issue of timing with the various bills that we are considering, and it is important that we remember the clerks in that regard, because the Criminal Justice Committee is an extremely busy committee.
As the cabinet secretary acknowledged in opening the debate, the committee agrees with the general principles of the bill. The bill will support the Scottish Government’s ambition to deliver effective and sustainable public services by ensuring that our justice system keeps up to date with technological advances and by creating a robust review system that will identify areas in which improvements are needed with regard to homicides and suicides.
As we have heard, the bill is divided into two parts. The first part includes the modernisation aspects of the bill, and the second part focuses on a new review process, which the committee believes will ensure that improvements will be delivered, thereby preventing deaths in the future.
All of us know that legislative processes are often slower than digital advances. Although that might be frustrating to some, it is important that, in the democratic system in which we live, the development and the scrutiny of legislation take place at the proper pace. The bill will allow the criminal justice system to utilise digital technology to a greater degree. Many of the measures were introduced through necessity during the pandemic, but it is now time for us to legislate to make some of them permanent features of our justice system. Those provisions include providing for the electronic signing and sending of documents in criminal cases; allowing virtual attendance at a criminal court; removing geographical limitations that courts have to deal with in the initial stages of a case; and introducing higher fiscal fines.
I reiterate that those measures have been in place since 2020—as Maggie Chapman said, they should possibly have been in place for longer—but the bill will move them from being temporary reactive measures during Covid to procedures that will be underpinned in our legal system. The measures have already delivered better outcomes and experiences for those who engage with our justice service in Scotland, and they had general support among stakeholders during stage 1. I therefore believe that now is the proper time to make them permanent, before they are due to expire, in November.
Two new provisions in the bill focus on digital innovation: any use of digital productions instead of physical evidence, and allowing digital copies to be treated as equivalent to items that have been copied without the need for additional authentication. There are some obvious concerns about those new provisions. The committee agreed that there will always be occasions when it is necessary for a physical object to be produced in court. Therefore, the cabinet secretary’s response to our stage 1 report was reassuring, as she highlighted that a safeguard was built into the bill whereby a court would have the power to direct that an image of physical evidence may not be used in place of the physical evidence. I welcome the fact that, in the same letter, the Government has also committed to exploring further safeguards and clarity around how those provisions might operate in practice.
The second part of the bill lays out the statutory framework to create Scotland’s first national multi-agency domestic homicide and suicide review model. Before I go into detail about that part of the bill, I reiterate that one death involving domestic abuse is one too many. Sadly, a significant number of victims are killed by a partner or ex-partner every year, with the vast majority of victims being women. Although we are now legislating with the intention of preventing deaths, the change that we all want to see will happen only when those who perpetrate domestic abuse, the majority of whom are men, change their actions and behaviour. That responsibility is on all men, including all men who are in the chamber today.
Speaking about the bill also gives me the opportunity to highlight the short film, “Bruised”, which was directed by my constituent Carla Basu and won a Royal Television Society Scotland student award. The film was recently shown here in the Parliament, and the minister was in attendance. It is a very powerful documentary, and I encourage all members who have not already seen it to view it.
Coming back to the bill, it allows for reviews to identify what lessons can be learned and applied following a death when abuse is known or suspected, in order to prevent future abuse and deaths. Those reviews would not be conducted to attribute liability, but to work with relevant agencies to learn any wider systemic lessons. Reviews could be carried out not only when there was or appeared to have been abusive behaviour in a relationship, but when abusive behaviour has or might have resulted in the death by suicide of an abused person.
Reviews would be carried out by a review oversight committee at its discretion. That committee would decide when to review a death based on the likelihood of identifying lessons and whether public authorities or voluntary organisations were or could have become involved in circumstances leading up to the death.
I understand that the fact that the committee has discretion over which deaths to review might cause unease, certainly in circumstances as emotive as losing a loved one. The bill allows the Scottish Government to direct a review to be held even if the committee decides not to, as it is important for families to be able to escalate a case if they consider that a review should be undertaken.
The committee noted that creating a committee with a panel of members from diverse bodies and backgrounds might result in committee members having differing levels of training and competency, which is why I was reassured by the letter from the cabinet secretary last week that confirmed that a robust and comprehensive training programme will be completed by those who participate in reviews.
In summing up, the bill has been shaped through extensive engagement with key justice partners and third sector groups, whose views have been invaluable in forming the policy positions in the bill. The provisions that have been outlined will help to deliver effective and sustainable public services in Scotland by modernising our existing systems and creating a review process that will help us to learn from and improve current procedures. I therefore urge all members to support the general principles of the bill at decision time this evening.
15:49
As many members already know, I take the issue of domestic abuse extremely seriously. From a young age, I remember my mother helping women in distress who would come to our shop on Argyle Street in Glasgow. I was young and did not understand what was happening, but, I later realised that they were survivors of domestic abuse.
Unfortunately, to this day, domestic abuse has not been eliminated. The latest Scottish Government statistics show that more than 64,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded by Police Scotland in the year 2023-24. That is one incident every 10 minutes. Those figures also represent a 3 per cent increase on the previous year. In the year ending December 2024, 2,409 crimes relating to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 were recorded, compared with 1,963 in the year ending December 2023, which is an increase of almost a quarter. As for homicide figures from the past 10 years, 60 women were killed by a partner or ex-partner in that time.
As has been outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill includes two parts. Part 1 modernises procedures in criminal courts, which is very much needed, as victims have now been waiting years for justice due to delays in the court system.
Today, however, I will focus on part 2 of the bill, which will put in place a new robust review process following the death of a partner, ex-partner or child where abuse is known or suspected. A panel will be responsible for reviewing those deaths, whether they are homicide or suicide.
Presiding Officer, I am sure you are aware of the case of Emily Drouet. Emily was an 18-year-old student at the University of Aberdeen when, in 2016, she took her own life because she experienced physical assault and threatening messages from her on-and-off boyfriend, who was also a student and lived in the same university halls as Emily.
Emily tried to get help, but nobody was listening. As the cause of her death was classified as suicide, her abuser received only 180 hours of community service. There were no domestic homicide and suicide reviews in place in Scotland. Emily’s mother, Fiona, launched EmilyTest, a charity aiming to remove the scourge of gender-based violence at institutions of higher education.
I have been in touch with Fiona, who has welcomed the publication of the bill. She has said:
“These reviews have the power to change that for others and as a family, we greatly welcome their implementation. They will ensure bereaved families are not left to navigate systems that are alien to them completely on their own. The reviews will ensure vital lessons are learned and that lives are protected in the future.”
However, while the bill is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done, especially when it comes to preventing abusive behaviour from happening in the first place. That is why I have lodged my proposed domestic abuse (prevention) (Scotland) bill, which would introduce a domestic abuse register.
Last week, I spoke to a woman who was a survivor of domestic abuse. She said that the abuse that she had faced from her partner forced her to move homes and to leave everything behind, just to escape from him. Eventually, her abuser was arrested and convicted, but it turns out that he had abused women before and after dating the woman I spoke to. A domestic abuse register could easily prevent more victims falling into the hands of domestic abusers. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider supporting my proposed bill in order to stop this horrible crime at its source and to protect victims.
I once again emphasise that there is no easy solution to eliminating domestic abuse. However, it is our duty to work across party lines to do everything that we can to protect survivors and to seek justice for those who have lost their lives. That is why I support the general principles of the bill before us.
15:54
The Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill will be a huge step forward in bringing Scotland’s justice system up to date, which I believe is badly needed. As we have heard, part 1 of the bill makes changes in relation to criminal cases, mainly to internal processes, many of which were introduced during the Covid pandemic and are now felt to be beneficial enough to make permanent. Those include using electronic signatures for court documents, sending court documents electronically and attending criminal court hearings virtually. However, the committee heard concerns during evidence taking about the practicalities of virtual trials, such as location, solicitor-client engagement, technical reliability and resources.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary’s response to our stage 1 report makes it clear that the default position is for in-person attendance, mirroring the approach of the temporary measures, and that the bill
“retains the Lord Justice General’s power to issue determinations to change the default mode of attendance to virtual attendance for certain types of hearings or in certain circumstances.”
Further, she confirms that
“the court must issue a direction which sets out how the person is to appear by electronic means before the court.”
I expect that more detail on that will be forthcoming. The cabinet secretary also states that each case will be considered on an individual basis, rather than there being
“a prescribed list of suitable locations from which evidence may be given”,
and that,
“Importantly, parties have the opportunity to be heard and may raise objections to the location proposed.”
Both the SCTS and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provide guidance to witnesses giving evidence remotely, which seeks to ensure that the rules of evidence are complied with and that, when a witness gives evidence remotely, they do so untainted by outside influence.
It is important to remember that these provisions are separate from those that are already in place to support vulnerable witnesses, many of whom can give evidence remotely and have done so for some time through the legislative framework that provides for special measures.
I am fully supportive of virtual courts for a variety of reasons, but mainly because they give victims and witnesses a choice in where they can give their best evidence without fear and intimidation. That is particularly important for victims of sexual and domestic abuse, because it can minimise stress and greatly reduce trauma. The committee has heard heartbreaking testimony from rape and sexual violence victims about the trauma of having to appear in the same room as the accused. Virtual appearances would also free up professional witnesses, such as police officers, from having long waits to give evidence in person.
A national jurisdiction for first callings from custody, allowing the initial stage of some criminal cases to be taken in any sheriff court in Scotland, is being proposed. The committee debated the pros and cons of introducing such a system. The cabinet secretary notes:
“the national jurisdiction will never be able to be used for a trial: in a case where an individual pleads not guilty and the case goes to trial, it can apply only for initial appearances from custody and for subsequent procedural hearings.”
Part 2 of the bill is incredibly important, and the provisions in it are long overdue. It aims to create a process for reviewing deaths and suicides that relate to abusive behaviour in relationships. The committee heard moving and passionate evidence from Fiona Drouet, who was alluded to by our colleague Pam Gosal. Fiona is the mother of Emily Drouet, who tragically took her own life as a result of gender-based violence. Fiona’s tireless campaign has inspired the EmilyTest charity, and I applaud her determination to protect young women in the name of her beloved daughter.
The reviews under part 2 would look at what lessons can be learned in relation to a death to try to prevent similar things from happening again. An independent oversight committee and case review panels would manage the reviews. The provision, which exists in England and Wales but not in Scotland at the moment, is absolutely crucial.
However, the committee heard the view that the definition of domestic abuse in the bill diluted its meaning according to the definition in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. To that end, the committee sought assurances that the bill would not do that, because domestic abuse is clearly defined in the 2018 act.
As the cabinet secretary articulates, the bill
“focuses on learning from deaths where there has, or appears to have been, domestically abusive behaviour by person A ... towards person B”,
and it
“takes a broader position in relation to children to ensure that more deaths are covered by the review model. We know that the impact of domestic abuse or the ‘ripple effect’, particularly where there is a death, is far reaching.”
She continues:
“We have committed to including other types of deaths within the model, including ‘so-called honour killings’ which are not captured under the 2018 Act”.
One death involving domestic abuse is one too many, and we must capture its terrible, far-reaching effects. However, ultimately, as my colleague Fulton MacGregor said, the change that we need to see will happen only when those who perpetrate domestic abuse—the majority of whom are men—change their actions and behaviour, and there is a culture change in society.
There is broad stakeholder support for the bill, and the Scottish Government has engaged extensively with key justice partners and third sector groups. Now is the time to modernise the justice sector and make it fit for the future. I urge the Parliament to agree to the general principles of the bill.
15:59
As others have said, the bill has two distinct parts. The first deals with the modernisation of courts and the justice system, which is welcome, and the second deals with reviewing deaths that relate to abusive behaviour within relationships. Both aspects of the bill are important, but they are quite separate and distinct.
Part 2 looks at reviewing deaths that relate to abusive behaviours within relationships. Too often, we hear about abusers killing their partners, which is murder and leads to a criminal investigation. Learning from those brutal murders should help us to better protect those who are subject to domestic abuse.
One all-too-common issue is the murder of children within a family. Despite that risk being well understood, family courts and social workers appear to ignore it when looking at contact with and access to children. I hope that the reviews of deaths will shine a light on that issue and will change practices to protect victims and their children from abusers.
What is much less recognised and understood is the suicide of those who have experienced domestic abuse. The person facing the abuse is unable to escape, even when they have left their abuser. They see no end to the abuse, which often continues to be perpetrated through access to children or via family, friends and every other means at the abuser’s disposal. The victim sees no way out and takes their own life. When a death is accepted as being a suicide, evidence is not gathered as if it were a crime, so I hope that the reviews will ensure that detailed evidence is gathered, because that lack of evidence often leaves a lasting doubt as to whether the person actually took their own life or was killed by their abuser. The reviews should also ensure that there is more knowledge of on-going abuse, how it is perpetrated and the impact that it has on victims. I hope that that will lead to a deeper understanding of, and therefore more protection against, continuing abuse long before the victim feels so hopeless as to consider suicide.
The bill itself will not do any of those things, but reviewing those deaths should lead to more intervention that will prevent murders and suicides from happening in the future. I hope that it will also mean that evidence of those crimes is gathered, giving families some confidence in the process. Knowledge of what has happened also helps families to process their loss and, although it does not make the loss any easier to bear, gives a degree of closure.
I will turn to part 1 of the bill. There is a need to modernise the court service. A huge amount of time is wasted in the justice system, with people sitting around, waiting for documents and the like. A more streamlined approach must be formalised and put in place, but it must have the confidence of the public.
One aspect of that really resonates with rural and island communities. Solemn procedures were taken away from island courts during the Covid pandemic, meaning that victims needed to travel further. Attending court is worrying enough, but being away from family and friends adds to the stress.
It is not unheard of in rural or island communities for a victim, when travelling to attend court, to take the same ferry, flight or bus as the perpetrator or, if not the perpetrator, almost certainly their family, friends or other witnesses. That risks putting the victim under further stress and can lead to them withdrawing their co-operation. The opportunity to give evidence virtually would provide greater protection for victims and witnesses, especially in domestic abuse cases and other cases of violence against women.
I cannot mention that without raising the issue of the gathering of forensic evidence in sexual abuse cases, which was highlighted again by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in its recent report on the Highlands and Islands. The commission highlighted a sexual abuse case in which the victim had to travel a long distance in the clothes that she was assaulted in so that forensic evidence could be recovered. Such cases happened on our islands until very recently. Victims of sexual abuse had to travel to have evidence recovered, and that often involved taking a flight, alongside their friends and neighbours, in the clothes that they were wearing when they were assaulted. That is unimaginable, but I understand that it is still the case for children who report sexual abuse crimes on the islands and the rural mainland.
The bill is a step in the right direction, but there is still much to do to address crimes that disproportionately impact women. We need to change the societal issues that are increasing violence against women, and we need to ensure that the justice system does not add to the harm that has already been caused. Those who provide public services—social workers, teachers and others—must understand domestic abuse and violence against women so that they can act with compassion and not cause further distress to those who have already suffered at the hand of their abuser.
16:05
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on an important piece of legislation: the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill. As colleagues have done, I thank the clerks to the Criminal Justice Committee, who have done an excellent job, and all those who gave evidence. I also thank the Scottish Government ministers and officials for their attendance and engagement during stage 1. I fully understand the importance of the proposals, the work that went into preparing the bill and the positive impact that it will have.
This afternoon’s excellent and constructive debate shows that there is a consensus on the importance of what needs to be achieved by the bill and the positive benefits that it will have if it is enacted and the provisions are implemented. There are also some shared positions on how we can, collectively, improve the bill ahead of stage 2.
Given that a lot has already been said in the debate about different aspects of the bill, I will focus on some aspects of part 1. I remind Parliament of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am on the roll of Scottish solicitors.
Part 1 supports greater use of digital technology, which will modernise the justice system even further with positive benefit for all. The measures seek to modernise the sector through greater use of digital technology, including for evidence sharing and making processes more efficient. Part 1 will also allow the electronic signing and sending of documents in criminal cases and more virtual attendance at criminal courts, which other members have touched on.
As has been stated, provisions in that regard have been in force since they were introduced, in 2020, in the emergency coronavirus legislation, and they have been firmly embedded in Scotland’s justice system, making many justice processes more efficient and reducing costs. The intention behind the bill is to enable all partners across the criminal justice system to maximise their resources and deliver services in an effective, efficient and sustainable way. The legislative underpinning that is provided in the bill will, importantly, allow pilots to be undertaken and a sustainable model to be explored further.
In paragraph 112 of our report, the committee notes:
“At present, the framework in the Bill is enabling rather than prescriptive, and sets the parameters within which courts can take decisions on virtual attendance. However, we consider that the Bill must include clearer rules setting out how the courts should use their powers.”
It was interesting to hear views on that from the variety of people who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. The concerns that were expressed to us were mostly about practicalities and implementation. It is important to recognise that the commencement power in section 28 will mean that, although there will be an expectation of greater use of the powers once the bill has been enacted, it will be at the court’s discretion to determine whether attendance may be virtual or must be in person.
I note the Scottish Government’s response that
“the Bill as drafted ... adequately allows individual courts to address the issue of location of remote attendance. By providing that this is to be considered on an individual basis, rather than having a prescribed list of suitable locations from which evidence may be given, the Bill allows the court to fully consider the facts and circumstances in each individual case and the individual locations proposed, recognising that there will be a range of suitable locations.”
I absolutely empathise with the Government’s position not to have a prescribed list, because that could be a substantial listing of different circumstances and locations in which people could give evidence. However, I wonder whether, ahead of stage 2, we can collaborate to take on board what others have raised about, for example, the consistency of the digital link, the need to avoid digital exclusion, the need to have an inclusive, safe and supportive environment for people who give evidence, and our expectations for how evidence will be given by different types of witness.
The proposal to increase virtual attendance in the right circumstances is absolutely the right thing to do. Virtual attendance can ensure that witnesses and others who are involved in giving evidence do not feel intimidated, feel supported and are able to give their best evidence, or that the time of police officers and expert witnesses is not unnecessarily wasted—which can sometimes be, and has been, the case.
Perhaps some work can be done collectively ahead of and through stage 2, and into stage 3, to get a more definitive position on carrying out in the right way the practical implementation of the bill, the aspirations of which we all want to achieve and which will make a meaningful difference.
I thank the Government in advance for that engagement.
I call Sharon Dowey, who joins us remotely.
16:12
I, too, thank the clerks for the work that they put into producing the committee’s report, and I thank everyone who gave evidence.
The importance of the measures that are set out in the bill cannot be ignored. As with all legislation, it is important that MSPs of all parties do our best to reach a consensus, in order to create good law and secure policy. There are plenty of examples, down the years, of that having been achieved. However, we must also note the dangers of rushing through one piece of legislation despite not having got close to completion on a number of others.
In the Scottish Parliament, it often feels as though the Scottish National Party likes to put proposed legislation on the table but is not so effective at ensuring its safe passage through the Parliament and into law. Before we try to get the bill that is in front of us to its end stages, maybe we should ask what happened to not-dissimilar legislation that was debated in the same way that has not reached an end point.
First, the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Act 2020 was initiated back in 2018 by the Scottish Government, on the basis that the practice of FGM is one of the most evil and deep-rooted manifestations imaginable of gender inequality. Although it might be more synonymous with other countries, it was recognised that we would be foolish to close our minds to the possibility that it was happening in Scotland. However, seven years on, we ask ourselves why that legislation has not been fully implemented.
Similarly, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 sought to make significant upgrades to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. That included helping children to participate in the court process in cases that concerned them, encouraging courts to hear their views and imposing a duty on the courts to investigate cases in which a parent had failed to follow a court order. The act also placed a duty on courts to consider the impact of delays—an issue that I will come to later—on a child’s welfare. For the most part, that act is still unimplemented.
We also have the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, which was supposed to introduce a range of new and improved protections for victims. As with the two other pieces of legislation that I have mentioned, it is also the subject of work by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee in relation to non-implementation.
The last thing that the people of Scotland need from their Parliament is another piece of legislation that promises the world but ends up never seeing the light of day. That said, we are here to debate what is in front of us in the form of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill. The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill in the early stages, and we will work to ensure that it genuinely improves the justice system and the experience that victims and witnesses have of it.
It is clear that many of the measures that were imposed in the court system during the Covid pandemic have turned out to be useful advances when it comes to delivering justice. Although many traditional elements have, thankfully, returned, it is right that we look at ways of modernising the system and making it more efficient. It is also important that that is always of benefit to those who use the justice system, those who depend on it and those who work in it, and that it is of benefit to the taxpayer. Such improvements must not become de facto cuts, either in jobs or to the court structure. It cannot be a coincidence that court waiting times are so desperately long in the years following the closure of many courts across Scotland.
Separately, the bill also seeks to improve matters for people who have died as a result of domestic abuse, either by homicide or murder. Anything that can move us forward in those regards is welcome, and we look forward to working on the detail of that policy. However, to make it work, we must also ensure that those who will be responsible for carrying out that work are sufficiently resourced and trusted to do so. A failure on that front would only make matters worse for the families, who have already been through so much.
Various organisations, such as Police Scotland, wrote to the committee and expressed their wish for further discussion to be had with the Scottish Government on what the financial impact of the bill would be. It is all very unclear in the financial memorandum. For example, in its written submission, Police Scotland stated that it could not support any increase in the current use of virtual attendance for police custodies or witnesses
“without compromising service delivery elsewhere.”
Superintendent Richard Thomas noted that the recruitment that would be required to facilitate virtual courts would cost anything between £1.7 million and £4.5 million, and that capital investment to improve virtual courtroom infrastructure would vary from £12,000 to £44,000, depending on how many rooms were needed across the estate.
There is no question but that the principles before us today are worthy and welcome. If properly implemented, they will likely be of benefit to the people of Scotland. However, given the Government’s failure to implement so much of what has gone before, the public will also be sceptical about whether all of this debate will be for nothing, and they will be watching closely.
I call Michelle Thomson, who will be the final speaker in the open debate.
16:18
Members will know that, if I can profess any experience or expertise in the chamber, it tends towards economic, business and financial matters. They will therefore be relieved to know that I intend to keep my remarks short. My interest in the bill is in part 2—that is, the domestic abuse and suicide prevention sections. My remarks will be limited to that part.
Domestic abuse is a crime that is almost exclusively perpetrated by men. While it is sometimes perpetrated by men on men, it is most frequently perpetrated by men on women. There is no change there.
Members will know of my interest, which is shared by members across the parties in the Parliament, in non-fatal strangulation. It is for that reason that I have started to consider a potential amendment for stage 2, whereby the bill would explicitly enable reviews to access data on earlier instances of non-fatal strangulation. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me to discuss the issue, and I look forward—I hope—to working with her in due course as we approach stage 2.
I believe that non-fatal strangulation is becoming a pervasive and pernicious problem. We can make progress against it in multiple ways, including by building awareness through social policy and a range of criminal legislation considerations. I hope that members across the chamber who are as concerned as I am will look at any and all legislation to start to effect change. Consideration of the provisions of the bill that is before us will allow for a step forward, but, of course, the bill is in no way the be-all and end-all.
I note, too, the efforts of Fiona Drouet on behalf of her daughter, Emily, and I acknowledge the comments in that regard that have been made thus far by my colleagues Rona Mackay and Pam Gosal, neither of whom is currently in her place in the chamber.
Why do I think that there could be a fit? Strangulation can occur as part and parcel of coercive control in a domestic situation and can result in death, either as a direct cause or as an indirect cause, when it leads to suicide, as happened in Emily’s case.
Non-fatal strangulation often indicates early-days coercive control and could act as an early warning trigger. It is therefore essential that any reviews are able to access information on its occurrence. Underpinning all of that is the importance of data. Multiple data collection points could occur across agencies, so having a multi-agency statutory framework for the domestic homicide and suicide review model that could start to collect the data would be helpful. The collection of data across justice, health, social care, local government and third sector agencies will not only help reviews but start to provide the data sets on prevalence and, therefore, to drive change.
Any death that is caused by domestic violence is completely unacceptable, but we need to be able to respond to new threats if we are to prevent further deaths. It has been observed that, because Scotland has not had such reviews thus far, it can learn from other countries that have, such as England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other jurisdictions. I agree, but I make the distinction that it is about not only the what but the how. Great care will need to be taken in devising processes that allow for data to be collected in the right format, given the complexity of such situations. That will be an important part of the review oversight committee’s role.
I am grateful to Acting Chief Constable Steve Johnson for meeting me to discuss the subject. He helped me to understand, with reference to Police Scotland, how data on non-fatal strangulation is often not currently collected. Often, no hard or quantitative data is collected. If it is, it appears in long form. Apart from through an officer’s curiosity, data cannot easily be probed, especially by using big-data tools or artificial intelligence. Without such data, we cannot assess prevalence. Beira’s Place assesses that the incidence of such strangulation is 20 per cent higher than is currently reported. I make that point because I believe that legislation will drive behavioural change among various bodies in collecting data. If they cannot report on the practice, they cannot effectively change it.
I will make a few further short points on part 2 of the bill. Professor Devaney’s paper notes:
“Whilst the deaths of individuals through illness and accidents have been closely monitored, those resulting from domestic homicide are more difficult to ascertain because the perpetrators, usually intimate partners, and occasionally other family members, are less likely to be forthcoming about the circumstances due to the inevitable legal consequences”
and public condemnation.
I feel that we also need to reflect on the role of shame in this context, because that is a blocker for both the perpetrator and the victim in a case of non-fatal strangulation. As the Criminal Justice Committee’s convener noted earlier, the review processes will work in practice to minimise such impacts. I noted the Scottish Government’s responses to the committee’s recommendations, which contain a lot of good detail and consideration. I applaud that, because it is a very complex matter.
My final comment is on report anonymisation, which is very difficult to achieve in practice. For example, a death might be highly publicised and picked up on by the media. It would take only one lawyer of the type depicted in “Better Call Saul” who operate in that space to publicise it even further and make the job of anonymisation that much harder.
16:24
I thank members for this constructive and broadly consensual debate. It has been consensual not just on the principles of the bill but also, importantly, on some of the areas that require further detailed work. That includes the balance between accessibility and safety with regard to virtual court attendance, as discussed by Liam McArthur, Ben Macpherson and others, and the importance of ensuring consistency across the country, which will require stable internet connections, clear understandings of trauma and its various manifestations and suitable safe and secure spaces, as pretty much everyone has discussed this afternoon.
There is not only the question of whether the definition of domestic abuse captures everything that it needs to, as Rona Mackay and Fulton MacGregor discussed, but also—as Mr MacGregor highlighted—the fact that domestic abuse will not be prevented by legislation but by behavioural and cultural change. Misogyny and the patriarchal structures that enable it must be dismantled.
I have no doubt that the members of the Criminal Justice Committee will undertake work on those areas with relish and will meticulously pick through the detail. I wish them well in their endeavours.
This bill is largely about processes and procedures. However, it also raises fundamental questions about what we want and expect the criminal justice system to do. There are three key objectives that are relevant to what we are discussing today.
The first objective is to protect people from violence. That means physical violence, but it also means the slow violence of trauma and oppression; it means protecting the general public and especially those who are most at risk. We know that the effects of domestic abuse, including the fatal effects, extend beyond individual incidents and partners. Part 2 of the bill will give us, as a society, a new mechanism to recognise and address that fact by learning from what has gone wrong in the past. It is essential that we can also learn from lived experience and expertise.
The second objective is to ensure that everyone’s right to a fair trial is protected and fulfilled. That means more than just the trial itself; it means having access to justice in the right place and at the right time throughout the process, without the barriers of cost, unavailability of support and lack of information.
The third objective is to uphold the rule of law. That means not just the individual laws that are in force at any one time but also the principles that ought to underpin them. It means law that is accessible, clear, applies equally to all and protects fundamental human rights. This objective insists that power be exercised reasonably and in good faith and that states comply with their obligations under international law. It is about what the International Bar Association called
“principles that both liberate and protect.”
Those imperatives—to protect and to liberate—matter now more than ever. They matter in a week when, in Westminster, police armed with tasers broke into a Quaker meeting house, without even ringing the bell, to arrest six young women who are concerned about Palestine and the climate crisis. That was a shocking image but it is not so far from what is happening to peaceful protesters here in Scotland, including in Aberdeen. Who or what is being protected? Where is the liberation?
When we consider our criminal justice system, we need to ask the big questions as well as the detailed ones. When we consider individual pieces of legislation, we need to ask how they will fit into the bigger picture.
Efficiency is important—not for its own sake but because it helps to fulfil those foundational aims. Delays in process make it harder to protect people, harder to make sure that people have a fair trial and harder to uphold the rule of law. Justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied—for survivors and witnesses, who have to hold on to painful memories and anxious expectations, and for defendants, who may, as Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland pointed out, be
“held in custody for years on the basis of unproven allegations.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 29.]
We need to make sure that what sounds as though it will be more efficient will really be so. Sometimes flexibilities are possible in person that are not—or, at least, not yet—available virtually. Can we find ways to replicate those flexibilities? Fiscal fines can quickly dispose of a single incident but do they address patterns of behaviour that point to deeper-rooted problems? Could restorative justice that focuses on real needs and responsibilities represent a more enduring solution?
We also need to keep learning. In his working paper on what became part 2 of the bill, Professor John Devaney emphasised that the review process must not be seen as the end result. The recommendations that such a review produces must be swiftly acted on.
Finally, I, too, pay tribute to Fiona Drouet and honour the memory of her daughter Emily. For all of us with connections to the University of Aberdeen, Emily’s story is especially vivid and painful, and I reiterate my sorrow and condolence to her family. It is largely thanks to their work through the charity EmilyTest that we are here today. I hope that the bill, the act that it becomes and the change that it mandates will be a fitting response to their work, and that it will, indeed, protect and liberate all those oppressed and endangered by domestic abuse.
16:30
I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We welcome the general principles of the bill, but we have concerns about aspects of the detail, which we hope can be addressed at stage 2.
As the cabinet secretary said, many of the provisions seek to make permanent some of the practices that were brought into effect by the emergency Covid legislation. Some of those practices have been accepted by all as good practice and are uncontroversial, such as the electronic signing and sending of documents. Other practices, such as aspects of virtual attendance, have either not really operated or operated with difficulty—the custody courts are an example of that.
The drafting of some sections has given rise to concerns about overreach. The reliability of technology is another consideration that has been a real concern over recent years, although it is one that I hope will be addressed over time.
As Pauline McNeill outlined, the evidence that the committee was given pointed to substantial additional court time being required due to failures with internet connections. We also know that defence agents, in particular, expressed concern about the difficulty in taking instructions or getting an impression of the client in virtual hearings. That is also a concern for the Crown and for the court.
As members before me have outlined, there are two parts to the bill. Part 1 seeks to allow digital paperwork, witness testimonies and evidence in order to make permanent provisions that were introduced during the Covid pandemic. I appreciate that those proposals represent an effort to streamline and renew the efficiency of the court system in a modern technological landscape.
However, the bill does not outline in detail the criteria on which a determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular categories should be made. I noted the cabinet secretary’s comment on that issue earlier in the debate. We are concerned that the provisions relating to whether there should be virtual attendance or physical attendance need to be clarified. We also believe that the provisions relating to evidential objects being produced in court by the Crown need to be strengthened. We would be looking for more safeguards on some of those aspects at stage 2.
As stakeholders have highlighted to the Criminal Justice Committee, it might often be in the best interests of the court to request witnesses and, indeed, the accused, to attend in person in order to obtain the best evidence. That is particularly the case when, for example, evidence is in dispute. It is also an issue in relation to physical evidence. In such instances, if the court is to request that evidence be given in person, the bill outlines in detail how that test would be applied.
Furthermore, I note that, during pilots for virtual court attendance, there were frequent difficulties with internet access. We welcome the intention behind the bill to make virtual hearings more of a reality, but we do not believe that we have fully heard the detail of what happened with pilots previously, and we believe that there needs to be a great deal more scrutiny of that before we have permanent provisions in law.
We very much welcome the proposed domestic homicide and suicide reviews in part 2 of the bill. Such reviews already exist in England and are being brought into effect in Wales. I was pleased that the convener of the committee spoke about why the reviews should be anonymous and about the risks of retraumatisation, particularly for the family if details of what has happened in a domestic homicide or a suicide become public. We understand that that approach is being taken in Wales, based on lessons learned from what happened in England, where much of the detail is provided to the public.
Liam McArthur spoke about the cluttered landscape of reviews in Scotland and how we must ensure that they do not overlap. The committee considered that issue, and we also believe that it needs to be addressed. I appreciate that these review proposals represent an effort to fill a gap in Scotland’s statutory framework and to reflect on areas for reform and improvement in order to prevent future abuse and deaths. We very much support that intention of the Scottish Government. However, we believe that, as well as looking at the issue of anonymisation, we need to look at the process of full disclosure for victims’ families during the development of those reviews. It is our understanding that the Scottish Government intends for families to be kept closely advised of the available facts.
We believe that the bill must reflect an understanding that there is no universal, blanket approach to the publication of sensitive information but that there needs to be a trauma-informed approach and that we need to learn the lessons of what has happened in other jurisdictions to ensure that Scotland has the best possible process.
16:36
I thank all members for their contributions to what I feel has been a very interesting, bread-and-butter debate on legislation and on a very good stage 1 report. As always, the Criminal Justice Committee does itself great credit.
As we have talked a lot about today, this is a bill of two parts, and it is almost a bill of two bills—the criminal justice modernisation element and the abusive domestic behaviour reviews element. I am not entirely sure how the Government came to that position. I understand that the extension of some of the temporary measures in Covid-era legislation was coming to an end, which would need to be dealt with in primary legislation.
Nonetheless, a good piece of work has been done on what the bill does and does not do and how it could be improved as it goes through the process. I must note the interesting point that was made by my colleague Liam Kerr about how we often squash legislation and rush legislation. That is a general feeling and a theme that has come out often. I do not say that as a direct criticism of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but it has been raised as a concern by members across the board. I have grave concerns that, particularly in this last year of the parliamentary session, we will rush through legislation to fit it into the timetable. That does not do legislation any justice whatsoever. We are often asked to dance to the tune of the Government’s legislative timetable, and I do not know why we must always do that, given that this is a minority Government.
Moving on, I will talk about the bill’s two parts. I will start with part 2, which has been talked about passionately by a number of members, particularly by Pam Gosal in her moving speech; by Rona Mackay, who has had a long-standing interest in the subject matter; and by Fulton MacGregor, who also mentioned it.
Parliament has grappled with the issue of domestic abuse and violence over the years, and certainly since I joined it. There is a lot of consensus around some of the action that we want to see take place to improve the situation in that regard. The bill deals with what is probably the worst element of that abuse, which is when someone has been killed or murdered as a result of it. There is a warm reception for the announcement of the reviews, although some devil in the detail has to be worked out. I was moved to hear that some of the families of people who have suffered that horrendous outcome were also quite pleased to see this legislation proposed. That is really important because, ultimately, legislation is about the public and how it affects people in the real world.
Several other issues have come up. In her opening statement, the cabinet secretary made a very good point about making some measures permanent that were considered to be temporary when they were first required.
Way back in the dark days of March 2020, when we passed some of the Covid legislation—indeed, I voted for much of it—I recall saying that emergency measures were very much for emergency times and that not all the measures were suitable to be a permanent feature of the status quo. Covid also led to some forced changes. The justice system as a sector had some marked changes forced on it during Covid. The system had to adapt, because it had to keep going—it could not simply stop prosecuting people or sending people to prison just because of Covid. The justice system and its partners reacted remarkably well, and the cabinet secretary paid them due credit in her opening comments.
Innovation and productivity improvements are of course welcome, but concerns have been raised throughout the process. Let us look at some of them. A number of members have mentioned the raising of the maximum fixed penalty from £300 to £500. I understand the context of that. There has not really been any revision of the fine levels since 2008 and, of course, inflation has gone off on a wagon since then. However, as Maggie Chapman rightly referred to, some stakeholders have raised concerns about the affordability of fines.
Some people would argue that, if a person has been fined for breaking the law, that is their problem, and so be it. However, there are genuine issues. It was not just third sector organisations that raised concerns but the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association. The industry has raised the issue, as it does not want to see, as a result of the change, more people being funnelled into the penal system and put into prison, particularly at a time when we are trying to reduce prison numbers. Those are absolutely fair points.
In my time on the Criminal Justice Committee, the issue of pre-pandemic timescales and the statutory time limits was a matter of contention. We saw the extension of the statutory period from appearance on petition to trial from 12 to 18 months. For people being held on remand, the period increased from up to 140 days, which was already a long period, to up to 320 days, which is nearly a year. I remember the debate about that at the time. If someone has been on remand and incarcerated for 320 days, that is probably more time than they would have spent in prison had they been found guilty and given a two-year sentence, because the early release provisions have been revised to 40 per cent of the sentence served. Of course, we should remember that people who are on remand have not yet been found guilty of the crime.
The issue of court delays in general needs to be addressed, but I am not sure that the bill will go some way towards doing that. The average time from the committing of an offence to a verdict in the High Court still stands at more than 1,000 days, which is an incredibly lengthy period. Of course, that has a negative effect on the victims, but it also has an effect on the accused because, during that period, they cannot clear their name, if that is the end result. We all know what society believes, even if the system says that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Michelle Thomson made good comments about part 2 of the bill. She said that the reviews of domestic homicide must, at their heart, drive a prevention agenda. That is a very important point. The way to go about that is twofold, she said. We will require good-quality data as well as the ability to interrogate that data and to produce meaningful information off the back of it, but we will also require a multi-agency approach. That is a whole other topic that we could spend a lot of time on.
To summarise, the general aims and principles of this bill—or these bills—are positive, although I look forward to seeing how the Parliament, through stages 2 and 3, will seek to improve the bill. It is important that we get this right. The justice system needs to be fit for the 21st century, it needs to take the public with it and, of course, it needs to work more efficiently and tackle the backlogs. In doing so, we must ensure that, by speeding up processes, our justice system does not inadvertently cause harm to those who participate in it.
I look forward to seeing how the bill progresses. I urge all members, irrespective of their position, to work constructively with ministers on it, and I will play my part if necessary.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate. You have a very generous eight minutes, cabinet secretary.
16:44
I thank members for their contributions and for their constructive engagement on the bill. I also pay tribute to our very hard-pressed Criminal Justice Committee. I do not have a solution for the members of that committee, but they, of course, have my sympathy.
I think that we are all agreed that the provisions in part 1 of the bill will deliver a great deal of benefit to all justice system users, including victims, witnesses and the accused, and—not to forget them—professional witnesses, such as the police, and the Crown, the defence and the courts.
It is welcome that we are all largely on the same terrain, and I appreciate people’s support. No doubt, when it comes to stage 2, we will all rightly be in the weeds of the detail, but my one appeal to Liam Kerr is that he makes sure that his colleague Jamie Greene does not lodge 50 amendments five minutes before a deadline. Mr Greene likes to keep us all on our toes, as is his democratic right.
In response to Mr Kerr’s direct question on the time limits, I can confirm that the Scottish statutory instrument on savings provisions was laid in the Parliament today. I perhaps should have said in my opening speech that, yesterday, I signed the provisions. The instrument will come to the Criminal Justice Committee’s attention so that it can do due diligence.
I note that Pauline McNeill, Liam McArthur, Ben Macpherson and others spoke in detail about virtual attendance. At stage 1, the committee was very supportive of the bill’s broad principles around virtual attendance, but it sought the inclusion of further details in the bill—we heard more about that, in particular, from Ben Macpherson. As always, I will work with colleagues in good faith. At this stage, my only plea is that we ensure that, in seeking clarity, we do not cause more confusion, which would not be in the interests of anyone who seeks to use our justice system.
Regarding the bill as it stands, it is important to reiterate that the default position is still that people should attend court in person. The one exception to that is in proceedings in which the only party is a public official—a police officer or prosecutor seeking warrants or court orders—which has been one of the beneficial gains of the emergency measures that came in as a result of the pandemic.
Audrey Nicoll raised the issue of digital productions. I appreciate that the committee is supportive of the provision but is looking for safeguards to be strengthened. We will explore that, but it is important to emphasise that the court currently has the power to say that an image cannot be used instead of the physical evidence. Objections around the use of digital images can become a preliminary issue in solemn cases. We are now also seeing the benefits of the digital evidence-sharing capability, which is supporting further improvements in our justice system.
The purpose of Scotland’s domestic homicide and suicide reviews, as set out in part 2, is to learn lessons following deaths in which abusive domestic behaviour is known or suspected, which is very much on the prevention terrain. Rona Mackay said that the measure was long overdue, which I agree with, and Pam Gosal quoted Fiona Drouet, who said that
“these reviews have the power to change”,
which I also agree with. I look forward to engaging with Ms Gosal further when she publishes the detail of her bill.
Ultimately, I want the domestic homicide and suicide review model that we develop in Scotland to be robust, fit for purpose, future proofed and supportive of the effective change that must be delivered in order to prevent deaths that result from abusive domestic behaviour. I also want to aim high and set a standard of review that is no less than what those who have died and their bereaved families deserve. That is something—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Yes, of course.
When reading the stage 1 report and listening to today’s debate, I have not been clear about how that correlation will work in practice. How will the reviews result in meaningful changes and lessons being learned to reduce the number of terrible incidents happening in the future? I am yet to see what the strategy in that regard might be.
That is a fair point. Those issues will be developed further in the guidance, but the core of the matter is the need to provide transparency, notwithstanding the issues relating to anonymity and dealing with confidential information. We need to lift the lid on some of the horrors that exist in our society, and it is by staring them straight in the face that we will learn the lessons and put in place the right mechanisms to prevent such tragedies in the future.
I recognise that the review landscape is complex, but I reiterate my point that the development of domestic homicide and suicide reviews will result in not duplication but the filling of a gap. Work is being progressed with all partners to develop and refine the process for joint reviews, which will prevent duplication.
On Mr Kerr’s point, I cannot see a reason why a joint review could not be undertaken, but I am conscious that every case is different and that there therefore might be a situation in which a joint review could not take place. However, I very much hope that joint reviews, when they are required, will be the norm, and I will endeavour to ensure that that is the case. We should not make individuals and families repeat their trauma and go through the same processes time and again.
On Ms Dowey’s point, it is my expectation that part 2 of the bill could be implemented six to nine months after royal assent.
I have very much appreciated the engagement that I have had with Ms Thomson. I assure her and other members that I remain open minded about what our next steps should be in relation to non-fatal strangulation, because I fully recognise the seriousness of the issue. I am actively pursuing work to progress the Government’s consideration of next steps, but I appreciate that some members might wish to use the bill as an opportunity to propose their own solutions.
I advise members that new questions on the topic of non-fatal strangulation during consensual sexual activity have been included in the 2025-26 Scottish crime and justice survey questionnaire, which will go into the field this month. In part, that is due to Claire Baker’s representations to me some time ago, but it is also due to my horror that published research by an organisation called We Can’t Consent To This, which we consulted, highlights that 38 per cent of women under the age of 40 across the UK have experienced unwanted slapping, spitting, choking, strangulation or gagging during otherwise consensual sexual activity. Michelle Thomson is absolutely right that we need to do more to understand what is certainly a new and emerging threat to women.
I will write to Rhoda Grant on the issues that she raised about the dignity and treatment of women and children in relation to forensic services.
I reiterate my commitment to working constructively across the chamber to identify any improvements that can be made to the bill. I look forward to collaborating with all parts of the justice system and all stakeholders to ensure that the bill delivers significant reform to public services.
Air ais
Fuel Poverty