Hansard

The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at decision time today.

Before I deal with the specifics, I wish to reiterate some remarks that I made earlier in the process. My first point is about the fact that the two parts of the bill cover quite distinct aspects. Part 1 is focused on introducing, on a permanent basis, some of the criminal justice measures from the coronavirus legislation, while part 2 introduces a review mechanism for deaths in the context of abusive domestic behaviours.

I remain unpersuaded of the merits of locking two very distinct mechanisms together in such a way. My fear, as I set out at stage 1, is that it can lead to different parts of the bill receiving different levels of scrutiny and interest. Although that is not the case with this bill, there is a risk that, if we do such things with bills, those who might support one part very strongly but perhaps oppose the other are left in a quite invidious position when we come to stage 3.

I also remain of the view that the timescale for consideration of the bill is not ideal. As I flagged at stage 1, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Parliament as a whole have wrestled with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which passed fortnight ago. Last week, the Parliament passed the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are imminent. At stage 1, that is exactly what I warned about when I referenced an op-ed by my colleague Edward Mountain. There are those who might fear that the bill has been somewhat rushed or that it has been given less attention than it merits, and that, as a result, the risk is that opportunities are missed—a theme that I will return to when I deal with part 2.

According to the policy memorandum, part 1 contains measures that aim to improve

“future resilience, effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice sector through modernisation, in particular through greater use of digital processes.”

It does so principally, but not entirely, by making permanent some of the provisions in the temporary coronavirus legislation. Those measures include electronic signing and sending of documents in criminal cases; enabling virtual attendance at criminal courts; removing geographical limitations on criminal courts dealing with initial stages; permitting digital pictures to be used; raising the limit on fiscal fines; and dealing with time limits in solemn cases. The Scottish Conservatives are entirely comfortable that part 1 achieves the policy memorandum’s aims.

Part 2 establishes a framework for a national system of domestic homicide and suicide reviews. The idea is to identify what lessons can be learned and potentially applied following a death in which domestic abuse is known or suspected in order to help prevent future abuse and deaths. The provisions have been welcomed throughout the bill’s passage, but it is fair to say that more involvement has been required when it comes to things such as definitions, overlaps and, especially, costs, which I will return to in short order.

Before I do that, I want to raise again my concern about the bill’s timescales. We have received a very helpful stage 3 briefing from Scottish Women’s Aid, which has campaigned for the provisions that are set out in part 2 for nearly 10 years. Crucially, the briefing seeks to draw members’ attention to concerning omissions from the bill. I worry that, because there has understandably been so much focus on other bills, we as a Parliament might have inadvertently missed taking some of the opportunities that Scottish Women’s Aid has suggested, although I am pleased that the cabinet secretary takes its suggestions very seriously.

I mentioned the costs of the measures earlier. At stage 1, I highlighted that Police Scotland had flagged that the financial memorandum was

“silent on the anticipated financial impact on the police budget.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 27.]

I have not seen any significant additional information or reaction since then.

It has been contended that a lot of the finance will be known only on implementation, but given the Scottish Police Federation’s warning to the Criminal Justice Committee, which has been reported widely today, that policing in Scotland could be “unsustainable” without further funding, the lack of financial certainty seems particularly concerning, especially as the legislation loads yet more responsibility on to the police.

Indeed, before stage 1, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities noted:

“The financial memorandum does not reflect the costs and capacity needs of local authorities and their strategic community planning partners”.

It has been said that the stage 1 financial memorandum and the revised memorandum that was to be produced after stage 2 proceedings were not expected to give rise to any additional costs on local authorities. However, the cabinet secretary will recall the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns in recent years about the quality—or otherwise—of financial memoranda in the Parliament.

It is fair to say that, although the memoranda are fairly clear about publication and the like, they are less clear about the full cost of staffing and training, or of the costs of maintenance of new information technology and digital systems, of bringing court rooms up to standard for virtual hearings, and, perhaps, of any additional legal aid or court representation, should there be increased numbers of hearings or reviews, or more people requiring assistance because of the shifting of some processes to court or review.

All that said, at decision time, we will be asked whether the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill, and I confirm that we will do so.