Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I think that it is a practical one. There are clearly practical issues around the virtual custody court model. We have heard lots of examples of practical issues, including with policing. We have also heard evidence from defence agents. That was clearly acknowledged by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which leads on the development work around the virtual custody court model, and its representatives spoke about the practical, logistical and technical solutions. I would endorse their assessment.

The arrangements have worked well in most instances. The practice arose out of necessity during the pandemic, and it is fair to say that that would have been done at pace. For the record, I endorse the approach that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is taking in stopping or pausing various pilots to evaluate the work and to explore how we can get system-wide learning. That is important because it will require collaboration, and it will enable further work to be done in developing a robust operational model, which will then lead to a robust business case.

I appreciate why the member would want to explore that thoroughly but, until there is an operational model and a business case, costs are conjecture. The financial memorandum is right to reflect the bill as it stands.

I could draw parallels with other reform work that has been enabled and supported financially, and I would cite DESC—the digital evidence sharing capability. Other work has been led by justice agencies on summary case management, which has led to significant savings for justice partners and, not least, to a better experience for victims.

Those are all examples of practice that has been enabled and supported but that did not require the detail to be set out in legislation. The difficulty—bearing in mind that many justice partners have independence in their operations—is that a lot of operational detail cannot and should not be dictated by Government when it comes to how to do things or how to develop models that will actually work in practice. That relates to partnership. We have a parliamentary and budget process that must be alive to new opportunities as well as new challenges.

I will do my best to be succinct. The member speaks to the fact that there are many applications of virtual attendance. I will try to speak to this with clarity. The default position is that people attend court in person. However, on a case-by-case basis, the court can determine otherwise. Virtual attendance might be used for things such as procedural hearings.

The Lord Justice General has the power to issue a determination to change the default in certain cases or circumstances. They cannot issue a determination that trials should be held virtually by default. In 2022, the Lord Justice General made a determination on when the default is for trials to be virtual: that is, preliminary hearings in the High Court, sentencing hearings, full committal hearings in the sheriff court and bail appeal hearings. However, for things such as custody hearings, the default remains for them to be held in person.

I have given an overview, but Louise Miller may add anything more specific.

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.

Good morning. The draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 is an order in council made by His Majesty under powers in the International Organisations Act 1968. The nature of the reserved/devolved divide means that, where privileges and immunities relate to devolved matters in Scotland, the function of advising His Majesty in relation to the order is devolved. As such, the order deals only with matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The purpose of the order is primarily to ensure that the relevant privileges and immunities are in place for two international organisations: the European Forest Institute and the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation, which is otherwise known as GIGO.

Committee members might recall that we committed to correct a drafting error in the previous immunities and privileges order, and the order fulfils that commitment, too.

To assist the committee, I will say a little more about the background to the order. The European Forest Institute—EFI—and the United Kingdom Government have signed a host country agreement to formally establish an EFI office in London, which requires certain privileges and immunities to function and operate effectively. The EFI is an international organisation that was set up to conduct research and provide policy advice on forest-related issues.

The global combat air programme—GCAP—is a multinational initiative that is led by the UK, Japan and Italy to jointly develop next-generation fighter aircraft by 2035. GIGO will function as the executive body of GCAP, with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners. Defence manufacturing in Scotland is fundamental to our national engineering and manufacturing sector, and the global combat air programme is an important opportunity for Scotland that will drive future investment. The order in council forms part of the secondary legislation that is needed to establish GIGO.

As is common in recent privileges and immunities orders, the order provides for exceptions to immunity in respect of road traffic offences and accidents. Approving the order will correct a historical error and, importantly, ensure that we are able to meet our international obligations. As a good global citizen, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to bring the order to the Parliament for consideration. I commend it to the committee.

I have always been clear that, internally in the Scottish Government, we need to practise what we preach if we expect our partners to take a whole-system approach, working outwith operational boundaries and silos. In Government, we need to be doing likewise. Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is the eighth ministerial role that I have held over a number of years, and this is an area in which I have seen a vast improvement internally.

I will give one example. Obviously, the Cabinet meets, but, as far as work on adult social care and adult protection is concerned, you are right to point out that there is a myriad of workstreams, plans and interventions. I chair a ministerial group that involves three health ministers, the children’s minister and the equalities minister. The group oversees six divisions of Government. That is just one example of working across portfolios, and there are many others that I could give you.

The mental health review that was undertaken by Lord Scott was a substantial piece of work—it was quite incredible, actually. Indeed, I remember its 900 pages dropping into my inbox when I was the Minister for Drugs Policy. It is a substantive bit of work to implement. What health colleagues have done thus far is, as you would expect, take a bit of time to consider Lord Scott’s recommendations and his very thorough and detailed report, because it looks not only at law reform, capacity and the importance of support but at increasing accountability, and our commitment to human rights is woven through all of that, too. Health colleagues undertook to devise an initial delivery plan, and last June they published the mental health and capacity reform programme.

Although the overall work will take several years to implement—and colleagues have been very up front about that—action has been planned and pursued from October 2023 to April 2025, and colleagues have prioritised what can be achieved quickly and, indeed, within existing resources. They will start to scope out new work on the next steps. That work contributes to the outcomes in the mental health and wellbeing strategy, which is led by health but is, of course, a cross-Government endeavour.

I suppose that there are two aspects to that, convener; Dr Cook can pitch in after me. On the one hand, we need to move away from practice that is unduly risk averse and make sure that positive decisions are made around risk assessment. I fully support the chief constable in her drive for safe and timely handovers, for a host of reasons that you will be well versed in.

On gaps in provision, the work around safe spaces is also potentially important in that sphere. However, the purpose of the partnership development group and its action plan and collaborative commitments is to give local areas the tools and wherewithal to ensure that they have good local relationships and that there is direct communication from services and people on the ground that is specific to individuals, and that local protocols and distress pathways are more clearly visible and identified.

The central goal is, I suppose, for every area to have well-developed distress pathways. We cannot fit everybody into a box. We have to recognise that, whether we are talking about health services or Police Scotland, first and foremost, they are dealing with people, and they are also dealing with dynamic situations.

The strength of the work is that it looks to support and develop from the ground up, as opposed to imposing a solution from on high, and I know that HMICS would endorse that point. However, not all the focus should be on the front line. Part of the partnership development group approach is that the people who are involved at strategic level all have responsibilities to implement decisions at that level. When the framework and the collaborative commitments are published, you will see that very clear commitments are made by named individuals in organisations.

I will check with Dr Cook whether there is anything more to say from a practice point of view that would help.

I will check whether the Crown Office wishes to do this, but I will ensure that the committee gets that factual information from the most relevant source, whether that is me or the Crown Office, on the pre and post positions with respect to the change in recorded police warnings that took place in 2021.