Chamber and committees

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.

The default position is that reports should be shared with families and loved ones. Nonetheless, consideration needs to be given to sensitive information about survivors who are living. Thought has been given to the need to respect people’s privacy. We live in a world of data protection and the general data protection regulation, but we want to be in a position in which information is shared with families who, in essence, are seeking answers. That is important to individual families, but the learning from such cases is also important to us as a nation.

With regard to what is published, we want to ensure that the learning and the findings are clear. There are always—rightly—sensitivities around information about individuals. Other matters need to be considered, too. I do not want to be in any way graphic, but we would not want to advertise in detail how someone took their life, for reasons that I am sure are obvious to Mr MacGregor. Under the auspices of the task force, there is a working group that is working through the issues of data and information sharing, confidentiality and transparency. That group is in regular engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The whole purpose of requiring ministers to report to Parliament every two years is to provide transparency on findings and to give visibility to learning or points of failure that need to be addressed on a systems-wide basis. It is hard to predict what the costs might be, because there are some lessons and recommendations that one could anticipate could be adopted by engaging in different ways of working, which might not incur costs. However, there might well be learning that has financial consequences, and it would be for Parliament and the Government, as well as for stakeholders, to pursue that in the normal fashion.

I hope that I am not being obtuse. Extra funding has not been ruled in or ruled out; whether that is required will depend on the findings. I certainly acknowledge that recommendations could be made that would mean that financial costs would be incurred.

It is a matter for my attention, and I am sure that MSPs would make sure of that if they had any doubt about it.

All that I am speaking to, Ms McNeill, is the fact that that reform is an on-going process. If we sat back and waited until every business case was completed, the legislation would be playing catch-up. Part 1 of the bill has come about because certain provisions in the emergency coronavirus legislation are coming to an end. Financially, we cannot afford to return to—heaven forfend—wet signatures, when, by and large, the court system communicates via electronic transmission. We do not want to return to those pre-Covid days, so we need to ensure that we are not turning the clock back and that the provisions in the bill will allow justice partners to proceed. I cannot give financial commitments in the absence of system-wide operational models or in the absence of a business case.

Earlier, I said that I endorsed the approach of the SCTS system in pausing the many and varied pilots, getting the learning and seeing how a systems-wide approach can be developed, particularly around virtual custodies. There will indeed be savings for the police in that. It is the right approach, and one that I support.

There will indeed need to be a retention and disposal policy—that is for sure. It will need to be developed. The Government will have an interest in that, but the policy will need to be informed and developed by the justice agencies with expertise in the area, and it will need to be done on a partnership basis.

As for safeguards, the bill gives the court the power to say that the evidence has to be physical, as opposed to a digital image, so that it can exercise that power when it is satisfied that such an approach would be appropriate. The bill also makes digital productions for solemn cases relevant in issues and objections. The use of digital evidence can be a preliminary issue; representatives can, with notice, raise objections, and the court can grant leave to raise a preliminary issue if it believes that cause has been shown. There are, therefore, some safeguards and powers that the court can exercise in particular circumstances, if it so wishes.

Absolutely. There has been in-depth conversation and engagement with stakeholders by the bill team and other officials, both verbally and in writing. The powers and provisions in the bill are enabling; they do not compel or force justice agencies to go down a particular operational path. It is when people come forward with specific operational plans or a specific business case that we can have specific discussions around finance.

As I indicated to Liam Kerr, if the bill is passed in 2025 we will seek to implement it in 2026. The financial considerations will therefore have to form part of the forthcoming budgetary process. I do not suggest that the costs will be in any way insignificant, bearing in mind the continuing pressure on public finances. The cost of the review model varies from £421,000, based on 10 reviews per annum, to £656,000, based on 20 reviews per annum. A high estimate would be 30 reviews per annum, which would cost just under £900,000. I do not suggest that that is not a lot of money, but I would be far less concerned about the affordability of implementing this bill than I would be about the affordability of implementing other pieces of legislation.

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.