Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next item of business is post-legislative scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. I refer members to papers 3 and 4.

I intend to allow around an hour for each panel. I welcome our first panel of witnesses: Dr Marsha Scott, from Scottish Women’s Aid, who is joining us remotely; Dr Claire Houghton, from the University of Edinburgh; Professor Michele Burman, from the University of Glasgow; and Amanda Masson, partner at Harper Macleod. I warmly welcome them all.

We move straight to questions. As usual, I have a general opening question. The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 aims to improve the ability of the criminal justice system to tackle domestic abuse effectively and to increase the capacity of the courts to protect victims. The act created a new offence of domestic abuse against a partner or ex-partner. The aim was to enable effective prosecution of either physical or psychological abuse that took place over a period of time. The Scottish Government’s recent report on the act says that 420 people were prosecuted for that new offence in 2021-22, which may reflect what we might call a slow burn.

I would like each witness to give their individual perspective on the first year of the act being in force and to make a broad opening comment about the success or otherwise of the new legislation. I will begin with Dr Houghton and then bring in Michele Burman.

I have one final follow-up question on that topic. I know that it is probably difficult for you to speak on behalf of other organisations within the court environment, but are you aware of any other training that is being delivered to defence solicitors, VIA staff and so on?

I warmly welcome to the meeting our second panel of witnesses: Craig Naylor, chief inspector, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland; Detective Chief Superintendent Sam Faulds, head of public protection, specialist crime division, Police Scotland; and Moira Price, national procurator fiscal for domestic abuse and head of victims and witnesses policy team, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

We will move straight to questions, and I will begin with a question for Sam Faulds and Craig Naylor. We heard in the previous session fairly extensive commentary from witnesses on the key role of police officers in using the new legislation. I appreciate just how big a change it will have been for police officers to use such a different and quite novel piece of legislation.

We know from the written submissions that the training process for officers has been disrupted because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and we have heard about the potential impact of that on what has been described as the “confidence” of police officers in using the legislation. I therefore want to ask Sam Faulds what work is on-going to address that training requirement, particularly with regard to divisional or tier 1 officers, who are at the front end of the policing response.

Thank you very much for what, as always, was a comprehensive response. I will bring in Amanda Masson and then open it up to questions from other members.

Amanda, would you like to come in on that?

That brings us nicely to the end of our evidence session. We are grateful for your answers to our questions. Before you leave, would any of you like to make a final comment on what, specifically, we need to think about that has perhaps not already been articulated or reflected this morning, as we continue our post-legislative scrutiny of the 2018 act? Do you have any final points to raise?

I am sure that there will be more questions on training from members.

Moira, I will ask you much the same question. Have there been challenges with the way in which understanding and knowledge of the new legislation are being developed in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, in particular across the procurator fiscal body? Will you comment specifically on training that has been delivered?

Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. There are no apologies.

Our first item of business is a decision whether to take in private item 6, which is our review of the evidence that we will hear today. Do members agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their time this morning. We will have a brief suspension to allow them to leave.

Before we move on, Amanda Masson and Dr Scott want to come in. I bring in Amanda first. Please be as brief as you can.