Hansard

I thank and congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and stakeholders for what has clearly been a collaborative and constructive process. To echo what I said at stage 1, I share some of the concerns that were expressed earlier today by Liam Kerr and Pauline McNeill about the fact that we are dealing with two distinct issues, which would ideally be covered by stand-alone primary legislation. However, it is fair to acknowledge that, were the two issues to be covered by separate pieces of proposed legislation, the chances are that one or other of them would not have made it through during this session of Parliament. Some of the concerns that were expressed at stage 1 have been addressed through the process.

As other members have observed, part 1 deals with many of the modernisation aspects that were introduced during the pandemic, and it is right that we take time during peacetime to reflect on how those might be made more permanent, surrounded by the appropriate guidance and structures that stakeholders would expect. The modernisation of our criminal justice system is certainly long overdue, and making the best use of technology and digital advancements is entirely sensible. For example, the electronic signing of legal documents and digital copy mechanisms are very positive outcomes—albeit long overdue—and they have been welcomed by stakeholders including the Law Society of Scotland and Victim Support Scotland. Virtual attendance has been in place for many years across the Scottish criminal justice system, and there are benefits from it. However, as we look to broaden it out, time needs to be taken to ensure that we put in place the proper safeguards and guidance around it. I acknowledge the efforts of Liam Kerr and Pauline McNeill, in particular, in taking their amendments through stages 2 and 3, endeavouring to ensure that those provisions are workable and as efficient as they can be.

The Law Society previously raised concerns about the permanent inclusion of virtual attendance, but it now appears to be more reassured, which is testament to the good work that has been done since stage 1. Ultimately, remote attendance can be beneficial in giving victims agency during what are often traumatic processes, and making the option more widely available has been endorsed by Victim Support Scotland. I would make a plea, however, that that cannot be done on the cheap, and resources will be necessary to ensure that the infrastructure is there to support it.

I move briefly to part 2, which introduces a system for reviewing deaths relating to abusive behaviour in relationships, with the aim of identifying where opportunities for intervention were missed and improving the understanding of the profile of abusive domestic behaviours and of the associated risks. At stage 1, I expressed concerns about the complexity of the review landscape, and progress has been made over the course of stages 2 and 3 to begin to address some of those concerns. Notwithstanding some of my broader concerns about the need for reform of our fatal accident inquiry system, I was assured by the cabinet secretary’s indication at stage 2 that statutory guidance will set out the safeguards being considered in relation to children and young people and that steps will be taken to ensure that families are not subject to additional lengthy review processes as a result.

It is not ideal that we are dealing with two distinct issues in the context of a single bill, but it appears that the process that has been embarked on through stages 2 and 3 has addressed those concerns as far as possible. The Scottish Liberal Democrats will be pleased to support the bill at decision time this evening.