Seòmar agus comataidhean

Over to Louise.

No, I do not believe that that is a risk. That is partly because of the breadth and depth of the work undertaken by the task force, the members of which have included the Crown Office, Social Work Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, victim support organisations, Scottish Women’s Aid and academics. The issues have been well debated—notwithstanding the fact that it is also for this committee to debate and test them. I will not repeat what I said to the convener, to avoid the risk of incurring her wrath, but the purpose of the review is very different from the purpose of the previous legislation, which is to secure convictions.

I listened carefully to the comments that were made by, for example, Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid, and I have also seen the written representations that have been made to the committee. The point that we have to capture is that, although the term “child” is normally defined in statutes to mean a person below a certain age, that approach has not been adopted in the bill, because it is about relationship and connection, and the child could be an adult who is living independently.

We are all familiar with cases where children are harmed or murdered as part of a coercive control and domestic violence relationship but, for example, someone’s child can be an adult and can be living independently. Given the cases that have occurred in the past, across jurisdictions, if we get into defining children by age, we will have to define all sorts of other categories of people. Therefore, as things stand, my view is that we are trying to capture those who have been impacted, where there is a relationship between two people, and regardless of age. The phrase that we have used in the explanatory notes on the bill is:

“The nature of the relationship is what matters”.

Okay. I understand that your question has more specificity and that you are not advocating going back years. My first point is that, if the bill passes this year, it will be implemented next year, so I do not envisage a significant window, but I will look at the gap—even if it is six months or 12 months—and have a think about whether there is anything that could or should be done. I will not make a commitment either way just now, but I will go away and look at it.

Are you talking about just part 2 of the bill or about part 1 as well when you mention concerns about resources?

With regard to representatives of voluntary organisations, we should remember that individuals who have been impacted or who are deceased may well have been in receipt of services from voluntary organisations. Those will not necessarily have been domestic abuse organisations, but they could be organisations that, like families, friends and communities of interest, will be able to give voice to the suffering and experience of victims. They could be organisations that specialise in domestic abuse, but they could also be voluntary organisations that have been involved with a victim in some other capacity.

I refute the point that there is a specific discouragement of people who have been involved in victims organisations from applying for the role of chair. There is a long list of people who would not be able to apply within a year of occupying a particular role, and that includes parliamentarians. People who have been involved in victims organisations are also mentioned in that list.

It is about ensuring independence. A core part of the learning from elsewhere is that the independence of the chair is crucial. We want people to come from various relevant backgrounds, but that gap of a year is based on learning from elsewhere. It is imperative to ensure the independence of the person chairing not just the oversight committee but the individual case review panels.

I am conscious that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provides the committee with regular updates on the use of fiscal fines. Such fines have existed for a very long time. By making it possible for cases to be resolved outwith the court, where that is proportionate and appropriate, they free up court time and enable the courts to deal with more serious offences. I do not have any evidence to suggest that fiscal fines are being used inappropriately. I note that, in its most recent update to the committee, COPFS said that higher fines—that is, those in the £300 to £500 bracket—had not been used with 16 to 18-year-olds, because of concern about younger people having less income.

Throughout our justice system, we need to get better at giving the right information to victims at the right time. The issue that you raise is part of a much bigger discussion and, indeed, a much bigger body of work. The question pivots around the need to respect personal agency when it comes what information victims want to receive. I am sympathetic to the calls for the system to be more proactive, while respecting personal agency.

The issue with fiscal fines is that, given that they tend to be used in less serious cases—and I make it clear that there is no excuse for any offending—it might be difficult to identify the victim. From an operational point of view, I am not sure how that would be done. Those who operate the system might have more fruitful and practical ideas about that. As a point of principle, however, the justice system needs to find better ways to proactively inform victims.

I very much remember the powerful debate that was led by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. The petition had come about as a result of a tragedy experienced by the petitioner, a lady called Nicola Murray, who had miscarried after experiencing domestic violence. It was the final debate that our current First Minister participated in as a back bencher. He had a particular interest in it because Ms Murray is one of his constituents.

During the debate, there was a lengthy exploration of what the current law facilitated. We explored a range of the potential unintended consequences of having such an aggravator, but there was a coalescing of minds around the principle. The debate certainly played into the sense that much more needs to be done to address violence against women, particularly when the victim is pregnant and the violence leads to a tragic loss.

The short answer is that I am very much open to having such a conversation. The Government has continued to give thought to introducing such an aggravator, and I am happy to have a full discussion about the idea. I am a bit cautious in that the bill has a dual purpose and is time sensitive, but I would be happy to have discussions on that and, equally, with other members on other issues.

The budget bids that different justice partners make annually are based partly on their headcounts and staffing costs, which tend to be the largest part of justice agencies’ financial commitments. Within that, they will also make bids for or asks around their ambitions for transformation, reform and investment.

For example, Police Scotland has had an increase of £10 million in capital investment, and there will be an increase in the capital budget for the coming financial year—provided that the budget is passed—of £2 million for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Moreover, Police Scotland has a three-year business plan; it has clearly identified reform work on the better use of digital expertise, equipment and provision and is working through its estates master plan.

Although I cannot make commitments without seeing an operational model or a business case that all partners have signed up to, that is not to say that nothing can happen right now because of a budget settlement.