The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19221, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Criminal Justice, Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
15:43
I thank all those who have engaged in the Criminal Justice, Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill throughout its passage. I am appreciative of the work of the Parliament and of the committees that considered the bill, particularly the members of the Criminal Justice Committee, past and present, and their clerks. I thank the bill team and my private office, as always, for their support.
The bill is in two distinct parts. Part 1 provides resilience to the criminal justice sector by embedding efficiency and modernisation in procedures to make sure that our criminal justice system can meet current and future demands on it. I would like to put on record my appreciation for the efforts, day and daily, of those who work in the criminal justice system, and of those who work more widely to support people who are affected by what can sometimes be deeply devastating and traumatising experiences.
The second part of the bill will establish a new domestic homicide and suicide review model. My gratitude goes to all those who are involved in getting us to this point today, and in particular to the members of the domestic homicide and suicide review task force and other stakeholders. Their contribution, commitment and constructive challenge in ensuring that the model will achieve its overall aims have been invaluable.
The bill seeks to make permanent some of the temporary provisions that were first put in place through the emergency legislation that was passed in response to the coronavirus pandemic and which were continued by the Parliament through subsequent legislation. Although those measures were introduced in the context of an emergency, they achieved much-needed modernisation and laid essential groundwork for a number of the provisions in the bill that is before the Parliament today.
Most provisions in part 1 have been in place for more than five years and have become a vital part of the justice system. Where members have made recommendations for improvements, such as on virtual attendance and national jurisdiction, I am pleased to have worked with them to improve the bill. Part 1 also introduces new provisions that aim to support greater modernisation and enhance effectiveness in justice processes. Those provisions will support the further roll-out of the groundbreaking digital evidence-sharing capability and Police Scotland’s use of body-worn video, which are essential technologies that are transforming the operation and delivery of justice services.
Part 2 establishes a gold standard for domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Although we all wish that they were not necessary, the purpose of those reviews is to learn lessons following domestic abuse-related deaths, improve services and better protect victims. Our work to develop a national domestic homicide and suicide review model began in 2022 and has been guided since then by a multi-agency and multidisciplinary task force.
The bill is an important part of how the gold standard will be achieved, but legislation alone will not secure that. Statutory guidance and the continued hard work and dedication of stakeholders are also needed. In particular, part 2 has highlighted the exemplar partnership working of stakeholders, which demonstrates what can be achieved by working constructively together and what more can be done.
I am therefore pleased to tell Parliament that I want to go further in that work. That is why I have commissioned Healthcare Improvement Scotland to work with stakeholders to develop national standards for domestic homicide and suicide reviews in order to support the review model to meet and exceed the gold standard that victims and their bereaved families deserve. Scoping workshops with key stakeholders will be held next month, and a standards development group will shortly be established. The development group will be co-chaired by Professor John Devaney of the University of Edinburgh and Dr Edward Doyle, deputy medical director of NHS Lothian. The group will include strategic and operational expertise from health, social care, justice and the third sector. Importantly, the work will be underpinned by the experiences of families and people with lived experience.
Any death in connection with domestic abuse is one too many. Although we know that more can be done and needs to be done, the establishment of a domestic homicide and suicide review model, backed by national standards, will help to ensure that Scotland implements best practice in establishing the review system, with the aim of learning lessons, improving services and better protecting victims.
I reiterate my thanks to the committees that considered the bill, to the wide range of individuals and organisations that brought significant operational, legal and academic expertise to its development and progress, and to those who have shared their lived experience of domestic abuse and those who are bereaved by it.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:48
The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at decision time today.
Before I deal with the specifics, I wish to reiterate some remarks that I made earlier in the process. My first point is about the fact that the two parts of the bill cover quite distinct aspects. Part 1 is focused on introducing, on a permanent basis, some of the criminal justice measures from the coronavirus legislation, while part 2 introduces a review mechanism for deaths in the context of abusive domestic behaviours.
I remain unpersuaded of the merits of locking two very distinct mechanisms together in such a way. My fear, as I set out at stage 1, is that it can lead to different parts of the bill receiving different levels of scrutiny and interest. Although that is not the case with this bill, there is a risk that, if we do such things with bills, those who might support one part very strongly but perhaps oppose the other are left in a quite invidious position when we come to stage 3.
I also remain of the view that the timescale for consideration of the bill is not ideal. As I flagged at stage 1, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Parliament as a whole have wrestled with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which passed fortnight ago. Last week, the Parliament passed the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are imminent. At stage 1, that is exactly what I warned about when I referenced an op-ed by my colleague Edward Mountain. There are those who might fear that the bill has been somewhat rushed or that it has been given less attention than it merits, and that, as a result, the risk is that opportunities are missed—a theme that I will return to when I deal with part 2.
According to the policy memorandum, part 1 contains measures that aim to improve
“future resilience, effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice sector through modernisation, in particular through greater use of digital processes.”
It does so principally, but not entirely, by making permanent some of the provisions in the temporary coronavirus legislation. Those measures include electronic signing and sending of documents in criminal cases; enabling virtual attendance at criminal courts; removing geographical limitations on criminal courts dealing with initial stages; permitting digital pictures to be used; raising the limit on fiscal fines; and dealing with time limits in solemn cases. The Scottish Conservatives are entirely comfortable that part 1 achieves the policy memorandum’s aims.
Part 2 establishes a framework for a national system of domestic homicide and suicide reviews. The idea is to identify what lessons can be learned and potentially applied following a death in which domestic abuse is known or suspected in order to help prevent future abuse and deaths. The provisions have been welcomed throughout the bill’s passage, but it is fair to say that more involvement has been required when it comes to things such as definitions, overlaps and, especially, costs, which I will return to in short order.
Before I do that, I want to raise again my concern about the bill’s timescales. We have received a very helpful stage 3 briefing from Scottish Women’s Aid, which has campaigned for the provisions that are set out in part 2 for nearly 10 years. Crucially, the briefing seeks to draw members’ attention to concerning omissions from the bill. I worry that, because there has understandably been so much focus on other bills, we as a Parliament might have inadvertently missed taking some of the opportunities that Scottish Women’s Aid has suggested, although I am pleased that the cabinet secretary takes its suggestions very seriously.
I mentioned the costs of the measures earlier. At stage 1, I highlighted that Police Scotland had flagged that the financial memorandum was
“silent on the anticipated financial impact on the police budget.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 27.]
I have not seen any significant additional information or reaction since then.
It has been contended that a lot of the finance will be known only on implementation, but given the Scottish Police Federation’s warning to the Criminal Justice Committee, which has been reported widely today, that policing in Scotland could be “unsustainable” without further funding, the lack of financial certainty seems particularly concerning, especially as the legislation loads yet more responsibility on to the police.
Indeed, before stage 1, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities noted:
“The financial memorandum does not reflect the costs and capacity needs of local authorities and their strategic community planning partners”.
It has been said that the stage 1 financial memorandum and the revised memorandum that was to be produced after stage 2 proceedings were not expected to give rise to any additional costs on local authorities. However, the cabinet secretary will recall the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns in recent years about the quality—or otherwise—of financial memoranda in the Parliament.
It is fair to say that, although the memoranda are fairly clear about publication and the like, they are less clear about the full cost of staffing and training, or of the costs of maintenance of new information technology and digital systems, of bringing court rooms up to standard for virtual hearings, and, perhaps, of any additional legal aid or court representation, should there be increased numbers of hearings or reviews, or more people requiring assistance because of the shifting of some processes to court or review.
All that said, at decision time, we will be asked whether the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill, and I confirm that we will do so.
15:55
As members have heard, the bill deals with two distinct issues: criminal justice modernisation, and domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Like Liam Kerr, Scottish Labour is not in favour of putting two distinct issues together, because we might have disagreements, and, in some ways, we have been here before. However, we will support the bill tonight, because we believe in modernisation and because part 2 of the bill is really required and is an excellent piece of legislation.
Most of the focus has been on the modernisation aspects of the bill. As I have tried to demonstrate through my amendments, there is quite a lot for non-practitioners and legislators to understand about the status quo in courts versus the new arrangements. The principle that we are trying to pursue is to confirm what is already in use and to ensure that there is no loss of existing rights and no detriment to the interests of justice in the court system. Therefore, we were right to test those issues.
Much of the detail of the bill’s provisions is not in the bill but will be set out via regulations, so there is still a lot to put on trust. As was put to me by a lawyer, if the system works the way in which it is supposed to work, there is no reason why it will not all go well, but that does not always happen. I have no doubt about everyone’s best intentions, but we need to ensure that there is not institutional creep, which is something that I have had to tease out in certain areas. That is why I whole-heartedly welcomed small but important Government amendments that were agreed today.
I cited the example at stage 1 of a previous time when we agreed a time limit of 180 days for High Court trials, and look where we are now. There were delays in the High Court system well before Covid, because the law on time limits was not adhered to. That is my example of the fact that, sometimes, things can creep in that we did not intend, and that is why we must be vigilant.
The bill makes permanent the temporary provisions relating to virtual attendance in order to increase its use. Virtual attendance is a very important tool, supported by victims organisations and the legal sector. We know that, without it, some victims simply could not give their evidence. It allows cases to proceed in circumstances that, previously, would have prevented the case from going ahead. It is interesting that, at stage 1, the police witnesses demonstrated that there is more work to be done to ensure that it is an efficient process that reduces police time in court, as they were not as enthusiastic about that as I thought they might be. It is important to note that.
It is extremely important, from the point of view of victims, to note that virtual attendance should have the same value as attendance at the courtroom, not just because of the need to create solemnity and equality between the courtroom and virtual attendance, but because it is important to always ensure that the evidence that victims give virtually is taken as seriously as it would be if it were given physically in court. For that reason, there should be on-going research to ensure that that is the case.
The bill sets out that the Lord Justice General has the power to issue determinations to change the default position to virtual attendance for particular categories of cases, and my amendments, supported by the Government, set out that the Lord Justice General must provide reasons in making any determination. That is an important step, because, as we examine the reasons why virtual attendance is granted by the Lord President, it is important to see the rationale. I am glad that the Government has accepted that. The committee noted that it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than there being a class of trials for which virtual attendance can be used, so that is clear.
I am also broadly satisfied with the Government’s amendment on national jurisdiction, which is a matter that my colleague Katy Clark raised in her amendments. I agree with the Law Society of Scotland that local justice should still be preferred where possible and that changes should be made only to make the system smoother.
On the issue of digital productions, my intention was that I did not want parties to lose their existing rights in relation to physical items, and it can sometimes be important for the jury to see the physical item in court. However, on the basis of what we heard from the cabinet secretary today and at stage 2 , I am satisfied that that will not be denied and that there is a process for doing that.
In conclusion, it is important to welcome the national standards for review cases involving domestic abuse and homicide. It is an important part of the legislation. If we are to stop the alarming trend of violence against women and girls, we must do everything that we can to understand why it happens in the first place. Notwithstanding the fact that, as Liam Kerr said, there could have been more improvements if we had had more time to focus specifically on that aspect, I believe and welcome that the bill will enhance our knowledge and processes in the fight against violence against women and girls.
16:00
Before I begin, I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I worked for a rape crisis centre when I was elected in 2021.
Today we reach the final stage of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which is both technical and deeply human. At its heart lies the question of how we can make our justice system not only faster and more efficient but more compassionate, equitable and restorative—a more humane system that upholds fairness, care and compassion for everyone it touches.
The bill offers us a step in that direction. It speaks to a modern Scotland that recognises that justice must evolve to meet people where they are in the 21st century and in the realities of their lives. I am pleased that, through its reforms to criminal procedure and the creation of domestic homicide and suicide reviews, the bill represents progress towards a system that listens, learns and acts with integrity.
As we have heard, part 1 of the bill contains reforms that make permanent many of the emergency measures that were introduced during the pandemic, including digital submissions, virtual attendance and electronic documentation. Those might sound procedural but, as Victim Support Scotland has reminded us, they have made a real difference for victims and witnesses by reducing delays, cutting travel time and cost, and improving the smooth running of proceedings.
The ability to give evidence virtually can spare victims the trauma of being in the same courtroom as the accused. It can make participation possible for those who would otherwise struggle to attend in person. We must ensure that the reforms are delivered in a way that enhances accessibility and choice. Modernisation must never become a barrier to justice—it must open doors, not close them. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing the impact of virtual attendance and to working with organisations such as Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid to ensure that trauma-informed practice is embedded in every part of the justice process. I also welcome Liam Kerr’s work in that area.
Victim Support Scotland has also made it clear that victims and witnesses now expect flexibility and that taking it away would be a backward step. It has also reminded us that victims must be kept informed of developments, including any changes to charges or indictments. In this case, communication is not a courtesy but a right.
Part 2 of the bill, which creates a statutory model for domestic homicide and suicide reviews, is long overdue. Scottish Women’s Aid and others have campaigned for it for almost a decade. They have called for a framework that allows us to learn, with honesty and care, from the most devastating cases of domestic abuse and coercive control. The reviews will not undo tragedy, but they will help to prevent repetition. They will shine a light on where systems fail in housing, policing, health and in the co-ordination between those and other services.
Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland have stressed that the reviews must be independent, properly resourced and inclusive. The voluntary and specialist sectors—those that are closest to survivors and families—must have a guaranteed seat at the table. I welcome the Scottish Government’s assurances that that will be reflected in statutory guidance.
For me, justice must be feminist, restorative and rooted in compassion. It must not only punish harm but work to prevent it and to build systems that protect, heal and repair. As we have heard this afternoon, the bill does not do everything, but it moves us forward in the right direction. It offers a foundation on which to build a justice system that is responsive to people’s lives and experiences. Let us pass the bill this evening, not as the end of a process but as the beginning of lasting change.
16:04
I thank and congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and stakeholders for what has clearly been a collaborative and constructive process. To echo what I said at stage 1, I share some of the concerns that were expressed earlier today by Liam Kerr and Pauline McNeill about the fact that we are dealing with two distinct issues, which would ideally be covered by stand-alone primary legislation. However, it is fair to acknowledge that, were the two issues to be covered by separate pieces of proposed legislation, the chances are that one or other of them would not have made it through during this session of Parliament. Some of the concerns that were expressed at stage 1 have been addressed through the process.
As other members have observed, part 1 deals with many of the modernisation aspects that were introduced during the pandemic, and it is right that we take time during peacetime to reflect on how those might be made more permanent, surrounded by the appropriate guidance and structures that stakeholders would expect. The modernisation of our criminal justice system is certainly long overdue, and making the best use of technology and digital advancements is entirely sensible. For example, the electronic signing of legal documents and digital copy mechanisms are very positive outcomes—albeit long overdue—and they have been welcomed by stakeholders including the Law Society of Scotland and Victim Support Scotland. Virtual attendance has been in place for many years across the Scottish criminal justice system, and there are benefits from it. However, as we look to broaden it out, time needs to be taken to ensure that we put in place the proper safeguards and guidance around it. I acknowledge the efforts of Liam Kerr and Pauline McNeill, in particular, in taking their amendments through stages 2 and 3, endeavouring to ensure that those provisions are workable and as efficient as they can be.
The Law Society previously raised concerns about the permanent inclusion of virtual attendance, but it now appears to be more reassured, which is testament to the good work that has been done since stage 1. Ultimately, remote attendance can be beneficial in giving victims agency during what are often traumatic processes, and making the option more widely available has been endorsed by Victim Support Scotland. I would make a plea, however, that that cannot be done on the cheap, and resources will be necessary to ensure that the infrastructure is there to support it.
I move briefly to part 2, which introduces a system for reviewing deaths relating to abusive behaviour in relationships, with the aim of identifying where opportunities for intervention were missed and improving the understanding of the profile of abusive domestic behaviours and of the associated risks. At stage 1, I expressed concerns about the complexity of the review landscape, and progress has been made over the course of stages 2 and 3 to begin to address some of those concerns. Notwithstanding some of my broader concerns about the need for reform of our fatal accident inquiry system, I was assured by the cabinet secretary’s indication at stage 2 that statutory guidance will set out the safeguards being considered in relation to children and young people and that steps will be taken to ensure that families are not subject to additional lengthy review processes as a result.
It is not ideal that we are dealing with two distinct issues in the context of a single bill, but it appears that the process that has been embarked on through stages 2 and 3 has addressed those concerns as far as possible. The Scottish Liberal Democrats will be pleased to support the bill at decision time this evening.
We move to the open debate.
16:09
I thank everyone who supported scrutiny of the bill through its passage to stage 3 this afternoon. As we have heard, the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill seeks to do two things: first, to provide a basis upon which our justice system can continue to modernise, specifically through embracing digital technology; and, secondly, to establish a review process that supports learning in the aftermath of a domestic homicide or suicide.
I want to make a couple of points in the debate. On part 1, I note that justice systems value tradition; that is certainly no different in Scotland, where deeply rooted customs and formal rituals are highly regarded.
The Covid-19 pandemic obviously posed a monumental challenge for the justice system, but, in doing so, it created an opportunity to modernise the justice sector through greater use of digital technology. The bill seeks to make certain processes permanent, one of which is virtual attendance at court, which has already been examined in detail in the debate. At stage 1, as we have heard, there was strong support for that from victims organisations, which cited trauma-informed practice and giving victims agency.
However, the virtual attendance provision understandably raised a number of questions about scope, reliability of technology, appearance from custody and security—that is, ensuring that witnesses are not susceptible to any undue influence. The latter point was discussed earlier this afternoon. A key point that the cabinet secretary made is the default arrangement, whereby attendance should be in person. I agree that Pauline McNeill’s well-intended amendment 58, which proposed a requirement for closer supervision of anyone attending court virtually, would have had monumental resource implications and would have been completely unworkable.
I am pleased that, since the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Government has engaged with stakeholders, including the Lord Justice General, on virtual attendance. There is consensus that the current provisions have been in place for some time, that practitioners are familiar with them and that they work well, as currently framed.
I very much welcome the Government’s amendment 9, on the addition of charges to an indictment. I note the conditions that the cabinet secretary outlined and welcome that amendment.
I turn to part 2. Scotland does not currently have a statutory system to review deaths linked to domestic abuse, which means that the opportunity to learn lessons is lost.
During stage 1 scrutiny, the scope of the review process raised questions in so far as it is broader than the current definition of domestic abuse, as outlined in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. The Criminal Justice Committee heard conflicting views on whether the definition in the bill was too wide in scope and should only apply to incidents that would fall within the definition that is in the 2018 act. Strong arguments were made by Emma Forbes of the Crown Office and Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid on that point.
On the other hand, it was recognised that many of those who experience domestic abuse do not report their abusers to the police. That is often an action of last resort, so a broader definition would create wider opportunities to learn through the review process and to prevent future deaths. I agree with the view that the impact of domestic abuse reaches beyond the relationships that are set out in the 2018 act definition and that the bill allows wider opportunities for learning and, ultimately, the prevention of future deaths.
I very much welcome the provisions in the bill. They reflect the fact that Scotland’s justice system is determined to modernise and move with the times. I ask members to support the bill this evening.
We move to closing speeches. I call on Maggie Chapman to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
16:13
As we close the debate, I thank everyone who has shaped the bill: survivors, campaigners, practitioners and the organisations whose expertise has been essential, specifically Scottish Women’s Aid, Victim Support Scotland and many others. I thank, too, the members and clerks of the Criminal Justice Committee for their meticulous scrutiny of the legislation, and I thank the legislation team for all their work. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and her team for the various discussions that we have had about the bill over the past months.
The bill is rooted in learning and listening. It reflects what can happen when we really listen to the experiences of victims and survivors. Victim Support Scotland has been clear that the reforms must make justice smoother, safer and more humane.
The flexibility of virtual attendance, the use of digital evidence and the modernisation of documentation are not simply technical improvements; they are changes that can reduce trauma and delay. But, as Scottish Women’s Aid has warned, technology alone is not enough. Modernisation must be guided by trauma-informed, feminist principles, and survivors of abuse must have choice and control of how they participate in proceedings. The Greens support those measures because they show that efficiency and empathy can go hand in hand and that a justice system can be both effective and compassionate.
The second part of the bill, which deals with the establishment of domestic homicide and suicide reviews, reminds us that justice is not only about courts and trials but about learning from failure. Both Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland have championed that reform because they know what is at stake: real lives, real families and real grief. Victim Support Scotland’s work with families bereaved by murder and culpable homicide gives it a unique perspective. It has rightly insisted that families must have a voice and must have choice and control in those reviews, including the right to request reconsideration when new information emerges. Scottish Women’s Aid has made it clear that those reviews will succeed only if they are independent and transparent, with equal representation from the third sector. Their expertise must be embedded, not merely consulted.
Passing the bill is only the beginning. We must now ensure that reviews lead to change; that recommendations are implemented, tracked and made public; that families are supported through every step; and that survivors see a system that learns from its mistakes rather than repeating them.
Justice can never be static. It must evolve with empathy, grounded in the belief that every life lost to abuse is one too many. This bill, alongside the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which passed just a couple of weeks ago, can help reshape Scotland’s justice system to make it more compassionate, more transparent and more just. It will take vigilance, courage and collaboration to make that promise real, because we know that we still have work to do, despite the passing of both bills, but today, with this bill, we take an important step, and the Scottish Greens will proudly vote for it at decision time.
16:17
I am pleased to close the debate for Scottish Labour.
Many of the changes in part 1 of the bill were introduced during the pandemic, with the Scottish Government now seeking to make them permanent. Although we are generally supportive of that, we have some concerns about how far some provisions in the bill might extend.
We are particularly concerned about whether too many decisions will be left to the discretion of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and whether that service is properly resourced to deliver the changes set out in the bill. Although the Scottish Government has given assurances that there will be no overreach, we believe that monitoring will be necessary to ensure that the provisions do not in any way hinder justice.
It is clear that increased use of digital documents and evidence will be vital to modernising the court system. However, there is also a need to ensure that physical evidence can continue to be available in criminal cases if requested. Labour members made those arguments during today’s debate, as well as earlier in the bill process. Greater use of digital documents and evidence also raises questions about digital inclusion, which the Scottish Government must address. Audit Scotland has previously highlighted the fact that 15 per cent of adults lack foundational digital skills, such as knowing how to turn on a digital device, and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has called on the Scottish Government to publish a digital inclusion action plan.
Members have spoken about the bill’s provisions for virtual attendance at court proceedings. Those provisions were introduced temporarily during the pandemic and we believe that making them permanent will both increase their use and help to reduce the backlog that still exists in courts. Many victims groups, and the legal sector, have welcomed making virtual attendance a permanent feature of our court system. However, we urge the Scottish Government to do more to ensure that virtual attendance is always safe and free from interference. We accept that, regardless of whether the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance are absolutely and utterly watertight, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service sees it as an inherent part of the system. Work needs to be done to ensure that locations offer a strong video and wi-fi connection and good picture quality. We heard evidence that that has been a problem in the courts over the past five years.
The Scottish Government must address the concerns of Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations about the bill’s provisions on virtual attendance. Scottish Women’s Aid has argued that the provisions do not go far enough in protecting women, children and young people who experience domestic abuse. As has been said in the debate, I think, the committee did not look at that in detail during our scrutiny of the process. Even at this late stage, we need to give thought to it, and I am sure that the Scottish Government will be thinking about that as we move forward. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has indicated clearly that she will engage with Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations on the issues that they raise.
As well as increasing the use of virtual attendance, the bill seeks to allow cases in which a person appears from police custody to take place in any sheriff court in Scotland. We recognise that that could lead to savings in court costs—in particular, in the costs of transferring prisoners around the country. However, many organisations, such as the Law Society of Scotland, have rightly raised the importance of local justice. Those issues must also be given adequate consideration.
We welcome the creation in part 2 of the bill of a framework to review domestic homicides and suicides, and we agree with the comments that that has perhaps not had the scrutiny that it should have had, given that it deals with a gap in existing legislation and frameworks. We should remember that similar provisions already exist in England and Wales, and that the ways in which England and Wales deal with such things is very different. We recognise the vital work that victim support groups have played in developing the framework, but we also believe that we need to look closely at how reviews have worked in other jurisdictions in the UK.
We urge the cabinet secretary to address the issues that relate to membership of the proposed review oversight committee that have been raised by Scottish Women’s Aid—specifically, to ensure the proper representation of victim support groups, including those that deal on the front line with violence against women and girls.
We support the bill. We very much hope that its provisions will allow a modernisation of the courts that improves the experience of those who use them—victims and witnesses—and that will help to address the considerable backlogs that still exist. However, we also recognise that far wider issues surround the resourcing of our courts and the state of legal aid, so we remain concerned that, although some of the provisions are very welcome, a great deal more work needs to be done to address the significant backlogs in our courts system.
16:23
Scotland’s justice system is in a state of crisis, and the Scottish Conservatives welcome anything that improves things for those who work in it and, of course, for victims and witnesses. As such, the bill has our support, and the priority now should be to ensure that the changes that are agreed today will genuinely make life better for those who matter most. Although we will vote for the bill, we still have some concerns about implementation and financing, and we remain disappointed that some of our suggestions were rejected.
Like many of our institutions, the courts system is in desperate need of modernisation, so I am glad to see some sensible provisions in the bill. As the cabinet secretary said, some of those were introduced on an emergency basis during Covid, through necessity rather than design. Although it is right that some pandemic-era measures are consigned to history, it is absolutely correct that those that work well are retained.
The courts system is under huge stress. Backlogs show little sign of clearing, and there are fears among senior lawyers that things will get even worse. In addition, the system can cause unnecessary distress and inconvenience to victims and witnesses.
Pauline McNeill highlighted that virtual attendance is a positive change, although it is vital that the correct technology is in place to make sure that such appearances are smooth, free from technical glitches and of good enough quality that it does not matter that the person speaking is not in the room. That point was also emphasised by Liam McArthur.
Similarly, the change to photographed evidence must also come with assurances. There is an obvious risk of tampering when real, physical things are replaced with photographs—a threat that is becoming greater with advancements in artificial intelligence. The system must be absolutely bullet proof.
Another element of the bill that requires caution and monitoring is the permanent increase of the fiscal fine limit to £500. On the face of it, that makes sense and represents a strengthening of the system of punishment for offenders whose crime fits that punishment. However, we already know that criminals are let off with fines when they really ought to be receiving something more serious. That weakens deterrence, emboldening criminals to offend again, safe in the knowledge that the gains from their crimes will probably outweigh the fine handed down by the court. That is particularly true of shoplifting, a scourge that has run out of control across Scotland. Indeed, as the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association highlighted in evidence, shoplifting is already effectively decriminalised, given how readily courts deal with it by way of fines.
What must be made crystal clear is that a raising of the threshold does not mean an expansion of how fines are used. That increase should absolutely not be seen as a replacement for stiffer punishments. It is disappointing that my amendment that would have compelled ministers to produce a progress report within a year of this change was rejected. That will make it harder to know whether the new measure is being used as intended.
As is the case with all legislation, we need to ensure it is matched by resources. We cannot place additional strain on public services without giving them the right tools. That is especially true of the police, who are already under immense strain and on whom many of the changes will fall. Both Police Scotland and COSLA have expressed concern about funding when it comes to the domestic homicide and suicide reviews. However, the finances behind the reviews are vague in the bill, and we need to make sure that the reviews will work effectively in practice. Audrey Nicoll highlighted the benefits of that happening.
I am also disappointed that my amendment on working with family members when producing these reviews was rejected. We know from experience that when the legal and justice system deals with tragic cases, families often feel marginalised and out of the loop. My amendment would have reduced the chances of those mistakes being repeated, and ministers must now find another way to keep family members included. Maggie Chapman also highlighted the importance of communication.
Liam Kerr highlighted the differences between part 1 and part 2 of the bill. The risk of rushing through legislation is that we might not give it the scrutiny that it deserves and that we might miss opportunities to include more improvements. We need to consider that in relation to any further legislation that comes through.
Katy Clark highlighted concerns about digital inclusion. For far too long in Scotland, victims have played second fiddle to criminals. Victims have been let down by a justice system that does not punish or deter, does not keep communities safe and does not rehabilitate offenders. Today, there is at least an opportunity to reverse some of that decline. That is why we will vote for the bill, but it must be the start of a sea change, not a ceiling for victims and witnesses, and not warm words that are matched by little action.
I call the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, to wind up the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
16:28
I thank everyone for their constructive engagement on the bill and for their remarks this afternoon. In particular, I thank the criminal justice spokespeople from the Opposition parties, the members of the Criminal Justice Committee and the committee’s convener, Audrey Nicoll. It is indeed a busy committee and its members have my sympathy.
I note the views of Liam Kerr when he spoke about this being a two-part bill. There are, of course, pros and cons to that approach. Like Liam McArthur, I fall on the side of pragmatism. I am always looking to get things done, particularly given where we are in the parliamentary cycle.
I feel that there has been significant scrutiny, but that is perhaps just because of where I sit. I think that the scrutiny, particularly on part 1, has been detailed, and we have certainly been in the weeds of court procedure and process. I am pleased that the bill now has broad agreement and consensus on its aims, and I am particularly pleased that it looks as though the bill will be passed when Parliament votes on it this evening.
The bill will deliver the necessary legislative underpinning that will ensure that our justice system can continue to meet the demands that are placed on it. It will provide a solid foundation to ensure that we learn the lessons following domestic abuse-related deaths, improve services and, ultimately, better protect victims. Justice agencies and victim support organisations strongly support the temporary measures that the bill will make permanent, and they have been clear that those are essential features of a modern system.
I remind members that significant progress has been made in reducing court backlogs. The total number of scheduled trials that are outstanding has fallen by more than 60 per cent since January 2022, and we have reached the milestone of returning to a position where the number of outstanding scheduled trials across all criminal business types is below 20,000. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service considers that to be a manageable level of workload for the justice system.
However, I acknowledge that we need to give focused and acute attention to the increased demand, particularly on the High Court. The nature of that business is changing, even though the overall volume has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Initiatives such as the £33 million investment in the digital evidence sharing capability that is being rolled out will support the bill’s provisions on digital productions.
I take exception to the statement that shoplifting has, in effect, been decriminalised in this country. I am rightly notified of every death in custody and I can advise members that, as I shared with some colleagues earlier, there was one such death of a person who was in custody for shoplifting times seven, so I really cannot—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?
I will indeed.
I cannot be silent on that. In my community, there are not enough police on Dumbarton High Street, and the number of people who are shoplifting and getting away with it is acute. It is a real problem, and I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary would acknowledge that.
I acknowledge that shoplifting is certainly a problem for our communities and our retail sector. That is why our budget for this year has invested £3 million to tackle those issues. Indeed, improvements are being seen as a result of that investment, which I can demonstrate if the member wishes. I was purely challenging the point that shoplifting has been decriminalised in this country. It has not, and our budget of £1.64 billion is maintaining police numbers at 16,500. Indeed, over the past year or so, Police Scotland has recruited more police officers than at any time in its history since 2013.
It is important to acknowledge members’ concerns. I have appeared before the committee annually with regard to the temporary measures, which I hope we will agree at decision time to make permanent. I assure members that, although I will continue to focus more on part 2 in my closing remarks, I will continue to work with Scottish Women’s Aid.
I am glad that Pauline McNeill welcomes the national standards. Maggie Chapman is right to say that, although, in many ways, part 2 felt technocratic, the amendments have a very human purpose. Liam McArthur is right to say that families should not endure duplication of reviews.
However, there is always work to do, and that is why the bill has been future proofed, so that we can return to the issue of so-called honour killings when that policy work has been completed.
When I introduced this bill a year ago, its publication was marked by the unveiling of a previously unmarked memorial cairn in Holyrood park, in memory of domestic homicide victim Margaret Hall, who was murdered by her husband in 1720.
As I said when I opened this debate, we all wish that reviews were not necessary, but, to all those who have played their part in making sure that Scotland can learn lessons to better protect victims, I offer my sincere thanks.
Fiona Drouet, founder and chief executive of EmilyTest, said:
“The introduction of domestic homicide and suicide reviews marks a critical step forward in Scotland. These reviews will help us better understand the warning signs so often missed before a tragedy. They will be crucial in helping to prevent so many avoidable deaths, whether by murder or suicide.”
Today, this Parliament has the opportunity to ensure that the review model becomes law, and I urge everyone to support the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill.
That concludes the debate on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.