Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are you talking about just part 2 of the bill or about part 1 as well when you mention concerns about resources?

With regard to representatives of voluntary organisations, we should remember that individuals who have been impacted or who are deceased may well have been in receipt of services from voluntary organisations. Those will not necessarily have been domestic abuse organisations, but they could be organisations that, like families, friends and communities of interest, will be able to give voice to the suffering and experience of victims. They could be organisations that specialise in domestic abuse, but they could also be voluntary organisations that have been involved with a victim in some other capacity.

I refute the point that there is a specific discouragement of people who have been involved in victims organisations from applying for the role of chair. There is a long list of people who would not be able to apply within a year of occupying a particular role, and that includes parliamentarians. People who have been involved in victims organisations are also mentioned in that list.

It is about ensuring independence. A core part of the learning from elsewhere is that the independence of the chair is crucial. We want people to come from various relevant backgrounds, but that gap of a year is based on learning from elsewhere. It is imperative to ensure the independence of the person chairing not just the oversight committee but the individual case review panels.

I am conscious that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provides the committee with regular updates on the use of fiscal fines. Such fines have existed for a very long time. By making it possible for cases to be resolved outwith the court, where that is proportionate and appropriate, they free up court time and enable the courts to deal with more serious offences. I do not have any evidence to suggest that fiscal fines are being used inappropriately. I note that, in its most recent update to the committee, COPFS said that higher fines—that is, those in the £300 to £500 bracket—had not been used with 16 to 18-year-olds, because of concern about younger people having less income.

Throughout our justice system, we need to get better at giving the right information to victims at the right time. The issue that you raise is part of a much bigger discussion and, indeed, a much bigger body of work. The question pivots around the need to respect personal agency when it comes what information victims want to receive. I am sympathetic to the calls for the system to be more proactive, while respecting personal agency.

The issue with fiscal fines is that, given that they tend to be used in less serious cases—and I make it clear that there is no excuse for any offending—it might be difficult to identify the victim. From an operational point of view, I am not sure how that would be done. Those who operate the system might have more fruitful and practical ideas about that. As a point of principle, however, the justice system needs to find better ways to proactively inform victims.

I recognise and endorse the good work that the SCTS has led in tackling the backlog. The backlog has reduced by 52 per cent and, in fact, the Covid backlog is almost away. However, it is fair to talk about the increasing business for prosecutors and, therefore, the court system. I recognise that demand on solemn court capacity will increase.

I have been to the committee twice now to extend the temporary measures. We have always had a robust debate and there has been some reticence among members of the committee every time that I have come to extend those time limits. I have been clear, and the legislation has always been clear, that the remaining solemn time limits were going to come to an end.

Although there is scope to extend time limits on a case-by-case basis, and that has existed for a long time, I do not want court recovery to be jeopardised and I do not want our court system to be wrapped up in procedural hearings, as opposed to getting on with the business of trials. We are therefore looking closely at the notion of a savings provision, which was one of the suggestions. That would require a statutory instrument and, therefore, the approval or otherwise of the committee. It would ensure that the current temporary time limits would apply to cases that are already in the system prior to 1 December 2025. For new cases that come into the system after 30 November 2025, the pre-pandemic time limits would apply.

To me, that speaks of an orderly process of transition. I want to explore that possibility further with partners, but the view of committee members is also important in that regard.

I will address the national jurisdiction point first and then, if it will be useful to the member, Louise Miller can expand on any points of detail.

Perhaps I can distinguish, first of all, between summary and solemn cases. I am talking about national jurisdiction here, which, of course, can be either in person or virtual. Sometimes we assume that national jurisdiction equates to virtual custody cases, but it can happen in person, too. In summary cases, national jurisdiction applies to appearances from custody but ceases after the accused pleads not guilty. If the accused pleads not guilty, the case has to go on to further proceedings and to trial, so it is very clear when national jurisdiction stops.

There is also clarity on when national jurisdiction ceases in solemn cases. In such cases, it ceases after the accused is fully committed, so it is only used for appearances in relation to questions of bail, not broader appearances with regard to first diets or trial court.

Over to Louise.

No, I do not believe that that is a risk. That is partly because of the breadth and depth of the work undertaken by the task force, the members of which have included the Crown Office, Social Work Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, victim support organisations, Scottish Women’s Aid and academics. The issues have been well debated—notwithstanding the fact that it is also for this committee to debate and test them. I will not repeat what I said to the convener, to avoid the risk of incurring her wrath, but the purpose of the review is very different from the purpose of the previous legislation, which is to secure convictions.

I listened carefully to the comments that were made by, for example, Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid, and I have also seen the written representations that have been made to the committee. The point that we have to capture is that, although the term “child” is normally defined in statutes to mean a person below a certain age, that approach has not been adopted in the bill, because it is about relationship and connection, and the child could be an adult who is living independently.

We are all familiar with cases where children are harmed or murdered as part of a coercive control and domestic violence relationship but, for example, someone’s child can be an adult and can be living independently. Given the cases that have occurred in the past, across jurisdictions, if we get into defining children by age, we will have to define all sorts of other categories of people. Therefore, as things stand, my view is that we are trying to capture those who have been impacted, where there is a relationship between two people, and regardless of age. The phrase that we have used in the explanatory notes on the bill is:

“The nature of the relationship is what matters”.

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.