Seòmar agus comataidhean

Notwithstanding the independent functions of the chair and the review oversight committee that I have spoken about, I anticipate that the vast majority of cases would be reviewable. For example, in cases where victims and deceased people have not been involved with services, there might not be lots of records in various public protection agencies, so the question of why people did not come to the attention of services—or why such agencies were not sighted on their suffering—would be worthy of exploration to see what lessons could be learned, given the often invisible nature of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I hope that that helps to give a steer.

That is the aim.

Again, that approach comes from the learning from other countries that having a statutory underpinning is important. I noticed that some of the evidence that the committee received was very supportive of having a review oversight committee.

Another aspect of our learning from elsewhere was the importance of independence. The chair and deputy chair of the review oversight committee will be subject to the public appointments procedure, so there will be real scrutiny of the process in order to support the independence of their roles. The public appointments process will also be deployed for the chairs of individual case reviews. Again, that is about emphasising the importance of the work and the review and, I suppose, the importance having a national system.

In terms of funding for public appointments, the role of the oversight committee, supported by the development of things such as statutory guidance, is to ensure that we have consistency. There is always a need for flexibility and variation, but we do not want unwarranted variation, because we want to ensure the quality of the process.

The membership of the regional oversight group will have to be broad and capture a range of expertise. The task force has a working group that is looking at things such as job descriptions and training needs. The membership of individual case reviews will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, but I expect that it will include statutory organisations, such as the police, social workers and organisations that have a responsibility in and around public protection.

Before I answer that question, I want to put on the record, for absolute clarity, a point that Mr MacGregor’s question has reminded me about. In my exchange with Pauline McNeill, I think that I equivocated on a point on which there is, in fact, clarity, which is that the default position for custody hearings is appearance in person. I was perhaps less than clear about that earlier.

On Mr MacGregor’s question about virtual trial court pilots for domestic abuse cases, that is actively being explored. Some time ago, I met Sheriff Pyle, who is based in the Grampian area. There were initial difficulties in getting full engagement from the whole range of partners, but when I met him, he spoke positively about his own engagement with various partners and said that the work is progressing and that people are working together. I was also heartened by the Law Society of Scotland’s evidence that defence agents are broadly supportive of the working group that Sheriff Pyle leads.

I should say that other measures are very important in domestic abuse cases. Earlier, I mentioned summary case management, which leads to earlier resolution of cases and so reduces the need for matters to proceed to trial.

Right now, we need to work on partnership; I am not persuaded that enforcement is the place to go. I want to see progress, and I very much support the work being led by Sheriff Pyle on trialling the holding of domestic abuse cases virtually. It is important that that approach is explored fully. We should largely be in the terrain of enabling and supporting, because some of the issues are about culture and practice. This is about having the right operational models that are deliverable in practice, as well as paying attention to and overcoming practical infrastructure issues.

In broad terms, it is important that we do not fall into the trap of Scottish exceptionalism, which I am always mindful to avoid. Learning from other jurisdictions, whether they are elsewhere in the UK or international, is vital. However, we can never simply lift and shift anyone else’s system, and we cannot cherry pick. We need to understand and learn from those other systems and adapt them to the Scottish context.

As is often the case in these situations, on the one hand, people will say that the definition and the scope are too narrow, but, on the other hand, people will say that they are too wide. Although you never get 100 per cent unanimity, there was an overwhelming consensus among the task force members, which included the entire range of statutory and non-statutory partners. They rested on the position that is outlined in the bill and its documents.

The work of the task force has been informed by the learning that other jurisdictions have not needed to rely on domestic abuse legislation. I understand and endorse the fact that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 was ahead of its time. I know that the Parliament is very proud of that legislation, as are prosecutors, who use it to good effect in delivering justice. There has been a lot of international interest in the 2018 act. There is always a lot of interest in our legislative provisions, particularly those around violence against women and girls.

However, the review process is not legislation. It is not about finding blame, it is not about establishing who has done what and it is not about establishing guilt in a court.

The Crown Office spoke very powerfully about the ripple effect of domestic abuse. I know that the committee also received evidence from Fiona Drouet, who spoke about the importance of the wider context and about the missed opportunities and near misses. We sometimes have to cast the net a bit wider to capture all the relevant learning.

My final point is that an offence that is committed in the context of domestic abuse or suicide might not actually be an offence under domestic abuse legislation.

I feel that we have landed in the correct place.

No, the bill does not specify where evidence should be presented. If there are concerns, people’s legal representatives can raise issues such as fairness and integrity of proceedings, issues that are prejudicial to the process and safeguards.

There are two parts to that question. On the broader point about the implementation of legislation, I will not stray too much into part 1, but there are aspects of it that are already happening in practice, because of the temporary nature of the Covid legislation restrictions. On part 2, what needs to be done is the recruitment of chairs and the drafting of statutory guidance. As soon as the structure is ready, the provisions can be implemented. The gap between commencement and implementation should be about six months. In broad terms, we are looking at 2026 for implementation of part 2 of the bill.

The retrospective aspect is difficult, because there is a question about how retrospective to make it. There will be cases that occur after the commencement of the legislation. If I have understood you correctly, you are asking for the provisions to be implemented and to apply to domestic homicides and suicides that occurred prior to the introduction of the bill, or its implementation.

The bill provides for joint reviews and multi-agency reviews. That is important, because a scenario could include both a significant child protection concern and a concern about domestic abuse or suicide. At the end of the day, we want to achieve one set of recommendations, and it is of central importance that they be joined up.

As for the broader public protection landscape, I chair a ministerial oversight group that is attended by several ministers. Mirroring that is a senior officers group that is led by the agencies and people on the ground at the local level. Alignment of public protection matters is a particular focus of my attention, which is why I chair the oversight group, and so I understand the importance of that point. If it would be useful, I would be happy to share with the committee some information on the group’s work to reassure members that we are not constantly creating new systems and that, in practice, our aim is to achieve such alignment and focus on core duties and responsibilities.

There is a gap in the current legislation, which the bill intends to address. None of the previous forms of review focused on domestic abuse or domestic abuse-related homicides or suicides, so we need to address that, but that work can be joined up with other reviews and other issues.

I wrote to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in response to its correspondence and pointed out that the financial memorandum outlined the substantial savings that have been made by the provisions that are currently in place. There are savings for justice partners—the police, in particular—if you think about things such as remote professional witness evidence. I set out largely what I have just outlined to you just now.

The most significant costs associated with the bill are those around the domestic homicide and suicide reviews, as opposed to those associated with part 1, with 70 per cent of the costs relating to the review chairs and secretariat. We have been very clear about that in the financial memorandum.

It is important that we have that power in the bill, because nobody wants to jeopardise criminal proceedings. A similar arrangement exists for other reviews. That said, the policy intention, which has been particularly informed by the experience of victims, is for reviews to take place earlier as opposed to later, because families and survivors need answers. The court process can give answers, but there is a deeper experience and learning, particularly in relation to prevention, so we want the review to take place sooner as opposed to later, notwithstanding the care that needs to be taken around the processes and procedures, as well as in engaging with people and protecting their welfare.

The two obvious examples in which the Crown Office might exercise the right to pause or end a review would relate to fatal accident inquiries or criminal proceedings. It is important that there is a protocol, as there is for other reviews in which there is interaction with the Crown Office. That needs to be transparent. My understanding is that there are no objections from the Crown Office in relation to that, because it is generally helpful for people to understand the relationships.