Chamber and committees

Some of the cabinet secretary’s amendments will restrict the definition of domestic abuse in the bill to the definition in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018—namely, to abusive behaviour between partners and ex-partners. That reflects the concerns that the committee heard from experts during its evidence gathering on the potential for the bill to undermine the definition of domestic abuse, as was acknowledged in the committee’s stage 1 report.

We support those amendments. However, my amendments to introduce familial homicide and honour killings as part of a domestic homicide or suicide review conflict with them. My intention was to reflect the support for the inclusion of honour killings in particular in the scope of the bill, as mentioned in the committee’s stage 1 report. For example, EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland and the Equality and Human Rights Commission all indicated support for a wider definition.

My amendments would extend the scope of reviews to cover familial homicide and honour killings. The amendments provide two options—to include that in the bill immediately or to require ministers to create regulations to allow for that within two years of the bill coming into force. The amendments also provide a definition of “family” for that purpose.

As a result of the cabinet secretary’s amendments, I will not press or move my amendments in this group today, but I will look at how best to bring them back at stage 3. Given that the bill retains the ministers’ ability to expand the scope of reviews in future, and that the cabinet secretary referenced honour killings specifically in her letter to the committee as one of the reasons for that, I ask her to confirm under what circumstances she would use the powers to include honour killings in the scope of reviews, and whether she has a timeline for doing so.

I move amendment 60.

I appreciate the comments from the cabinet secretary. I will withdraw amendment 60.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

Given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I will work on the amendments before stage 3, so I will not press amendment 56.

Amendment 56, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 57 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Virtual attendance at court

Given the issues that the cabinet secretary has raised, I would appreciate working with her towards an amendment at stage 3.

Amendment 77, by agreement, withdrawn.

My amendment 58 would require the Scottish ministers to publish a one-off report within a year of section 6 coming into force on the impact of the permanent increased scale of fiscal fine penalties. That report would cover

“an assessment of the number of fixed penalties issued”,

the impact of the permanent higher sum on reoffending and on victims, and whether the permanent

“increase in the scale of fixed penalties has a positive or negative impact on the courts.”

The Scottish ministers would also be able to determine other elements to include in the report.

My amendment is intended to complement and tie in with Liam Kerr’s amendment 50 in this group, which would, as we have heard, remove the power of Scottish ministers to increase fiscal fines beyond £500 by regulation. The committee heard some concern about the impact of permanently increasing the level of fiscal fines, such as the ability of certain individuals to pay them. It is important to monitor the impact of the increased scale of fiscal fines on reoffending rates and on victims.

We support the permanent increase in fiscal fines, in line with the general support from stakeholders and recognition of inflation. However, it should be monitored to ensure that the fines are used effectively. In its written submission, the Scottish Women’s Convention noted that it holds “strong reservations” about the permanent increase. It stated that the majority of those who receive fiscal fines

“reside in the most deprived areas in Scotland”

and it believes that,

“in most cases, fines worsen an individual’s outcomes, placing many into further financial hardship.”

Adult justice services at the City of Edinburgh Council indicated support for the permanent increase in fiscal fine penalties, but acknowledged that there must be

“a realistic prospect that a fine imposed will be paid, otherwise the proposal could increase pressure on the justice system.”

In recent discussions with the Law Society and Victim Support Scotland regarding the bill, both stakeholders indicated support for my amendment to monitor the use and impact of the permanent increase.

Amendment 58 would improve our understanding of the use and impact of fiscal fines, address concerns that stakeholders have raised, ensure that we measure the impact that the increase has on reoffending and ensure that the use of those fines gives justice to victims.

Amendment 59 would ensure that, when deciding whether there should be a national jurisdiction calling from custody, there must be consideration of the

“individual circumstances of the case”

by the Lord Advocate or procurator fiscal. That could include circumstances such the travelling time and expense incurred by victims, witnesses, the defence and the prosecution. Amendment 59 addresses the various practical issues related to the travel and cost implications of national jurisdiction that were raised by stakeholders such as Victim Support Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, the Edinburgh Bar Association and Police Scotland.

From my recent discussions on the bill with Victim Support Scotland, I know that it is keen to ensure that there would be no undue burdens on the ability of victims and witnesses to travel. Victim Support Scotland emphasised that victims cannot be expected to travel long distances and take additional time out of their day to attend court. There needs to be a strong consideration of expanding the options for remote evidence, including the acceptable locations from which witnesses can give evidence, which my colleague Liam Kerr’s amendments have tried to deal with. Amendment 59 would simply require that all circumstances in an individual case must be considered before making a national jurisdiction calling from custody. It aims to ensure that there is no unfair burden on any one of the parties who are involved.

My amendment 77 would require the review oversight committee to notify a family member who is next of kin to the victim when a domestic homicide or suicide review is being carried out. The proposed new section 17(1B) would define

“a family member who is a next of kin”

as either a sibling, parent or step-parent, grandparent, child or step-child or guardian. In addition, to reflect that all families are different, it would include any other such person whom Scottish ministers prescribe in regulations.

My amendment 92 is consequential to amendment 77.

Amendment 77 aims to ensure that a victim’s family is aware of the review and that there is sufficient communication throughout the review process. The committee heard in its evidence sessions that it is important to communicate with the family throughout. In recent discussions, Victim Support Scotland highlighted the importance of communicating with the family at each stage of the review process. Amendment 77 would help to ensure that.

Amendment 77 aims to ensure that notifying families of a review is not overly burdensome on the review oversight committee, as it would be required to notify only a single next of kin. The amendment would also leave it open to Scottish ministers to include other family members, if needed, beyond the immediate family.

I move amendment 77.

I take the cabinet secretary’s comments on board. I am still not convinced that enough is being done or that I could say that the penalties are effective. However, I will look at the comments after the meeting and bring the issue back at stage 3.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Section 7—National jurisdiction for custody cases in sheriff courts and JP courts

Together, amendments 56 and 57 seek to clarify that, when someone indicates that they wish to receive a paper copy of a document or does not express a willingness to receive it electronically, it will be available on request.

Throughout our evidence sessions on the bill, the committee heard concerns about the ability of certain vulnerable individuals to read and sign electronic copies. In a written submission, Age Scotland told the committee:

“More than a third of older people who have access to the internet lack the basic digital skills to use it effectively and safely.”

Older people in particular may not feel comfortable with, or fully know how to navigate, the system of electronic documents. Even if they receive help or guidance on that, there is still a need to allow for access to physical documents. Victim Support Scotland welcomed the ability for individuals to choose. In their contributions, Age Scotland and Victim Support Scotland emphasised the need for reassurance that physical documents would still be available.

The cabinet secretary has provided reassurance that the bill

“does not remove the scope to communicate in the traditional way”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 19 February 2025; c 22.]

However, my amendments seek to clarify that everyone will continue to have access to physical documents on request, so that there is no confusion or misunderstanding.

I move amendment 56.

My question was whether the restitution order replaces compensation orders.