Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

Our justice partners—in particular, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service—have been acutely aware of the risks in and around digital exclusion and have their own policies in relation to that. Notwithstanding what I said earlier—heaven forfend that we return to wet signatures and so on—it is important to emphasise that the traditional way of communicating still exists. The bill does not remove the scope to communicate in the traditional way, if that is required; in fact, it simply makes permanent the temporary measures that are currently in force. It also retains the Lord Justice General’s power to give a direction that the provisions should not apply to specific documents. That power has never been used, but the flexibility is available, should it be required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When it comes to the budget, any cabinet secretary will want to negotiate the best possible deal for their portfolio in their direct engagement with the finance secretary, and I am very pleased that the resource budget for policing will be increasing by £57 million and that the overall investment is £1.62 billion.

That said, any cabinet secretary also looks beyond what they negotiate for their own portfolio. You look at what investment colleagues have in their areas—in this case, health—and how it can be aligned with your own work. I always take a pragmatic approach to this; I am less bothered about trying to carve out or capture part of another portfolio’s budget than I am about how that budget is being directed and aligned.