Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is now on my radar.

My worry about that, Mr MacGregor—and I will be direct and forthright, so forgive me—is that it sounds like a cop-out. We have substantial evidence from the meta-analysis and the Scottish research. We do not have unanimity among all the stakeholders, but in my experience, unanimity among all parliamentarians, including at this committee, is somewhat of a rarity. You can build consensus, but consensus is different from absolute unanimity across the board, and we have a great range of evidence.

I hope that I have outlined that near unanimity, in the context of our existing system and in the context of reforms, is just too high a standard. However, based on the evidence, it is also my reading of the position that the majority of stakeholders recognise that a simple majority would be too low a standard. Therefore, the Government and the senators of the College of Justice have come to a balanced and proportionate view.

I will ask Lisa McCloy to come in on that. The process has, from beginning to end, been one of deliberation. I think that there has been good visibility of the consideration that would be required to amend the jury majority if the not proven verdict were to be abolished, but there have been numerous discussions with numerous stakeholders, and those will continue.

I do not know whether Lisa can add anything further.

There is the view of the senators. We also know the views of victim support organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, which are advocating for a simple majority. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are advocating for a supermajority, as it has been labelled by Mr Kerr.

I would point out that stakeholders, as a whole, have to come to a careful judgment, and, at the end of the day, it will be the committee and the Parliament that will vote on this. However, it appears to me that there is more rather than less acceptance that, if we move to a two-verdict system, you need to address issues around the—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I cannot read what my official is showing me. They will have to print it.

If it would be acceptable to Ms McNeill, I could raise the issue with the Lord Advocate and the Crown and ask them to reply to the committee. I am not in any way trying to be obtuse. I am conscious that, in the context of the bill, or with any legislation, I cannot modify the Lord Advocate’s discretion, because that gets us into issues of legislative competence.

Okay, so the concern is a bit broader than part 2 of the bill. I will try to trot through things fairly briefly, if I can.

Several provisions in part 1 make permanent measures that are currently temporary but which have been in practice, broadly, since 2020. The new provisions in part 1 on digital productions and the authentication of electronic copy documents will be addressed through the digital evidence sharing capability—DESC—programme, which the Government is committed to funding to the tune of £33 million.

On areas where we want to see improvements, such as the practical improvements that are required around measures such as virtual attendance or virtual custodies, I know that you will be aware of the evidence from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that it has paused some work for further evaluation.

There is still work to be done on evaluation and on defining models that can be operationalised in a systems-wide sense, and there will be further work on business cases. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland, both verbally and in writing, have indicated that it is a bit too early to say what some costs will be. In broad terms, we are not making mandatory operational requirements as such, although we should bear in mind that the bill will enable innovation and that it bolts in the gains that have been made thus far. We will need people to proceed to develop business cases, which will be brought forward in the normal course of annual budgeting.

In relation to part 2, the financial memorandum states that the costs of setting up the review oversight committee and the public appointment of the chairs and deputy chairs, including financial support for expenses related to their recruitment, would fall to the Government. There is also provision to support families with some of the costs that they bear. Therefore, costs under part 2 will be met by the Government, as detailed in the financial memorandum.

Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide evidence on the bill. The bill has a dual purpose: part 1 relates to criminal justice modernisation and part 2 relates to domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Both parts support the Scottish Government’s ambition to deliver effective and sustainable public services. There is broad stakeholder support for the bill, and we have engaged extensively with key justice partners and third sector groups, whose views have shaped the policy positions in the bill.

Part 1 of the bill seeks to make permanent some of the temporary measures that are set out in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022. Those provisions have been in force for some time—they were introduced in 2020—and have become firmly embedded in Scotland’s justice system, making many justice processes more efficient and reducing costs. They deliver tremendous benefits to various users of the justice system, including victims, witnesses, the accused and partners such as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the courts and the police.

The bill’s intention is to enable partners to maximise their resources and deliver services in an effective, efficient and sustainable way. I have listened carefully to the evidence that has been presented over the past few weeks and acknowledge that there is some work to be done to ensure that the system benefits everyone. However, even where there are practical issues to be worked through, the legislative underpinning provided in the bill is essential to allow pilots to be tested and for a sustainable model to be explored.

Part 1 also introduces two new provisions that will support the greater use of digital technologies. The provisions on digital productions and authentication of copy documents are key to on-going work such as the summary case management pilot and the roll-out of body-worn video.

The second purpose of the bill is to create the statutory framework for Scotland’s first national multi-agency domestic homicide and suicide review model. That presents a real opportunity to realise a model that so many of our stakeholders across justice, health, local government, social work, the third sector and academia have contributed to and worked towards for a considerable period.

It is right that we recognise the work of the multi-agency domestic homicide and suicide review task force, its sub-group, the task and finish groups and all those who have responded to the consultation and targeted engagement, particularly those with lived experience of domestic abuse and those who have been bereaved by it. Collectively, that has informed the development of the model.

Although we appreciate that Scotland is the only jurisdiction in the United Kingdom not yet to have such a model, a benefit that comes from that is that we have been able to learn lessons from other jurisdictions, not only across the UK but internationally, in order to understand what works well and where the limitations are. That has also been central to the scope of the model, which I know has been subject to some debate, and I very much welcome the opportunity to talk it through.

I recognise that the deaths in the scope of the review model do not mirror the definition in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. As the committee is aware, the 2018 act focuses more narrowly on relationships between partners and is about domestic abuse as an offence. However, the impact of domestic abuse reaches beyond the relationships that are set out in the 2018 act. The bill therefore focuses on that broader impact to better understand the full effect and create wider opportunities for learning in order to prevent the wide range of abusive domestic behaviour and future deaths.

The approach that we have taken to get to this point has been collaborative, open, transparent and evidence based—and that shall remain the case. I therefore see today as an opportunity to shape what is a significant and necessary piece of legislation on domestic homicide and suicide. The committee has always played an important role in shaping and improving legislation, and I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on the bill and on how we can collectively deliver a more efficient and effective justice system that works for everybody.

Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide evidence on the bill. The bill has a dual purpose: part 1 relates to criminal justice modernisation and part 2 relates to domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Both parts support the Scottish Government’s ambition to deliver effective and sustainable public services. There is broad stakeholder support for the bill, and we have engaged extensively with key justice partners and third sector groups, whose views have shaped the policy positions in the bill.

Part 1 of the bill seeks to make permanent some of the temporary measures that are set out in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022. Those provisions have been in force for some time—they were introduced in 2020—and have become firmly embedded in Scotland’s justice system, making many justice processes more efficient and reducing costs. They deliver tremendous benefits to various users of the justice system, including victims, witnesses, the accused and partners such as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the courts and the police.

The bill’s intention is to enable partners to maximise their resources and deliver services in an effective, efficient and sustainable way. I have listened carefully to the evidence that has been presented over the past few weeks and acknowledge that there is some work to be done to ensure that the system benefits everyone. However, even where there are practical issues to be worked through, the legislative underpinning provided in the bill is essential to allow pilots to be tested and for a sustainable model to be explored.

Part 1 also introduces two new provisions that will support the greater use of digital technologies. The provisions on digital productions and authentication of copy documents are key to on-going work such as the summary case management pilot and the roll-out of body-worn video.

The second purpose of the bill is to create the statutory framework for Scotland’s first national multi-agency domestic homicide and suicide review model. That presents a real opportunity to realise a model that so many of our stakeholders across justice, health, local government, social work, the third sector and academia have contributed to and worked towards for a considerable period.

It is right that we recognise the work of the multi-agency domestic homicide and suicide review task force, its sub-group, the task and finish groups and all those who have responded to the consultation and targeted engagement, particularly those with lived experience of domestic abuse and those who have been bereaved by it. Collectively, that has informed the development of the model.

Although we appreciate that Scotland is the only jurisdiction in the United Kingdom not yet to have such a model, a benefit that comes from that is that we have been able to learn lessons from other jurisdictions, not only across the UK but internationally, in order to understand what works well and where the limitations are. That has also been central to the scope of the model, which I know has been subject to some debate, and I very much welcome the opportunity to talk it through.

I recognise that the deaths in the scope of the review model do not mirror the definition in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. As the committee is aware, the 2018 act focuses more narrowly on relationships between partners and is about domestic abuse as an offence. However, the impact of domestic abuse reaches beyond the relationships that are set out in the 2018 act. The bill therefore focuses on that broader impact to better understand the full effect and create wider opportunities for learning in order to prevent the wide range of abusive domestic behaviour and future deaths.

The approach that we have taken to get to this point has been collaborative, open, transparent and evidence based—and that shall remain the case. I therefore see today as an opportunity to shape what is a significant and necessary piece of legislation on domestic homicide and suicide. The committee has always played an important role in shaping and improving legislation, and I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on the bill and on how we can collectively deliver a more efficient and effective justice system that works for everybody.

Okay, so the concern is a bit broader than part 2 of the bill. I will try to trot through things fairly briefly, if I can.

Several provisions in part 1 make permanent measures that are currently temporary but which have been in practice, broadly, since 2020. The new provisions in part 1 on digital productions and the authentication of electronic copy documents will be addressed through the digital evidence sharing capability—DESC—programme, which the Government is committed to funding to the tune of £33 million.

On areas where we want to see improvements, such as the practical improvements that are required around measures such as virtual attendance or virtual custodies, I know that you will be aware of the evidence from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that it has paused some work for further evaluation.

There is still work to be done on evaluation and on defining models that can be operationalised in a systems-wide sense, and there will be further work on business cases. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland, both verbally and in writing, have indicated that it is a bit too early to say what some costs will be. In broad terms, we are not making mandatory operational requirements as such, although we should bear in mind that the bill will enable innovation and that it bolts in the gains that have been made thus far. We will need people to proceed to develop business cases, which will be brought forward in the normal course of annual budgeting.

In relation to part 2, the financial memorandum states that the costs of setting up the review oversight committee and the public appointment of the chairs and deputy chairs, including financial support for expenses related to their recruitment, would fall to the Government. There is also provision to support families with some of the costs that they bear. Therefore, costs under part 2 will be met by the Government, as detailed in the financial memorandum.

Okay. I understand that your question has more specificity and that you are not advocating going back years. My first point is that, if the bill passes this year, it will be implemented next year, so I do not envisage a significant window, but I will look at the gap—even if it is six months or 12 months—and have a think about whether there is anything that could or should be done. I will not make a commitment either way just now, but I will go away and look at it.