Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you, convener, and happy new year to you and everybody on the committee.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about some of the work that I have outlined in my correspondence to the committee, and for the opportunity to principally focus on policing and mental health. In relation to mental health concerns, the Scottish Government believes that there should be no wrong door to accessing unplanned or urgent mental health support, and that anyone in need of that support must receive the right care in the right place at the right time.

At the outset, however, it is only right that I acknowledge that not everyone who may have a mental health-related concern is vulnerable or in distress. There are many circumstances not related to mental health in which a person may be classed as vulnerable, unable to protect themselves or at risk of harm and exploitation.

It is also important to acknowledge that distress can be a normal response to life-challenging situations, and that does not mean that everyone experiencing distress will need formal mental health intervention. In any and all of those circumstances, individuals should be able to access the service that is best placed to meet their needs.

However, there are undoubtedly continued concerns about the demand that mental health-related calls in particular place on policing. We are working with partners, including Police Scotland, to improve individuals’ experience of accessing support and to ensure that resources are deployed appropriately to reduce unnecessary demands on police officers.?

Since 2021, we have been working with partners, including health boards and Police Scotland, through the mental health unscheduled care network to improve the mental health unscheduled care response and to ensure that those in need of urgent or unplanned mental health care are directed to the most appropriate service and receive support quickly. That is being facilitated by the 24/7 availability of a mental health clinician in every health board for those who require urgent mental health assessment or an urgent referral to local mental health services. Those clinicians are available to front-line services, including Police Scotland, through local community triage pathways.

Through the development of the enhanced mental health pathway, we have enabled Police Scotland’s command and control centres to direct calls from individuals who have been identified as needing mental health advice and support to NHS 24’s mental health hub. In her update to the Scottish Police Authority in November, the chief constable acknowledged the impact of the pathway in helping to reduce demands on officers: 10,611 referrals to NHS 24 have allowed 54,328 officer hours to be redirected to other duties.

More broadly, we are working with a number of partners to deliver the actions in the mental health and wellbeing strategy’s first joint delivery plan and workforce action plan, which were published jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. They seek to create real and lasting change in the country’s mental health, with a whole-systems approach that has a renewed focus on prevention and early intervention.

In its thematic review of mental health demand on policing, HMICS recognised that mental health is a multifaceted issue that needs an effective whole-systems partnership response. HMICS set out a number of recommendations for Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government. As part of our commitment to implement the review’s recommendations, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland have established a partnership delivery group, or PDG, which is working across organisational boundaries to identify and deliver support to individuals that can be delivered in a person-centred and trauma-informed way.

I am pleased to inform the committee that those on the group have worked together to support the Scottish Government to develop a framework for collaboration. The framework, which will very shortly be published, aims to promote—crucially—a multi-agency collaborative approach to improving local distress pathways. Alongside the framework, a mental health and policing action plan will be published, outlining numerous collaborative commitments across sectors, which will further bolster the PDG’s aim of improving the multi-agency approach to mental distress.

I extend my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our partners for their support in developing the framework and collaborative commitments, and I acknowledge the tireless efforts of all those who continue to contribute to the delivery of mental health services, including our ambulance, policing and third sector partners, whose roles are crucial.

In all of this, partnership working is undoubtedly the key that will unlock many shared challenges. It is only by working together that we can deliver real, lasting and meaningful change. The Scottish Government remains fully committed to continuing the partnership approach that has been so crucial to the development of the framework and collaborative commitments, particularly as we move forward to implementation.

Policing is absolutely is a 24/7 service, but so is health—