Chamber and committees

Thank you. That is helpful, too. Dr Graham is indicating that she has nothing to add. It is good that you agree that perhaps more clarity is needed on that point.

You are saying that, to take it at a basic level, common sense should be used in domestic abuse cases. There has to be a pattern anyway before there would be a conviction, so surely that would come down to common sense without having to use specific parameters.

Thank you. That is really helpful. What is Professor McAra’s opinion on that point?

I am wondering about the chronological order for that. If we are going to ask the SCTS how many such trials have taken place, perhaps we should wait until we have that information before we contact the cabinet secretary.

I turn to Kate Wallace. From the point of view of victims, would it cause some alarm if section 23D was repealed and victims felt that they were being treated just the same as victims of every other offence, despite the almost unique nature of domestic abuse and sexual offences?

Do you want any changes to be made to the current exemptions? Should those exceptions be strengthened, or are you happy that they are in place?

I go back to a point that Professor McNeill made at the start of the session, about gravity of risk. If I understood him correctly, he said that he did not believe that the bill is for serious or solemn offences per se. If that is the case, does the fact that there is only one public safety test for all offences not send out the wrong message—for example, to victims? Should the current exceptions on domestic abuse and sexual offences not still stand? Could I have his opinion on the specific nature of individual risk and public safety in relation to the bill?

Good morning, minister. This morning’s session has been very reassuring on a number of counts. We have heard from witnesses who do not want to think that the service is being rushed through without their having a chance to be listened to or to be part of the co-design. From what you have said to my colleague Russell Findlay about the timescale, you are giving that time.

There are two aspects to the bill. If we leave aside the constitutional question, the first issue is that the bill is, I believe, a very bad one. It shuts the door on justice for people who are looking for justice for what happened decades ago in Northern Ireland. The bill is in no one’s interest—its premise is very bad.

Constitutionally, it is a no-brainer. For example, the response from the Lord Advocate states:

“The Bill, in its current form, engages a number of areas over which I have constitutional responsibility and does so in a manner novel to Scots criminal law.”

Therefore, the bill would represent new ground and not good new ground, so I strongly recommend that we do not consent to the LCM.

That is very reassuring.

We have also heard from witnesses that the status quo is not an option. Pretty much across the board, people realise that they want something to be done. I am very reassured that you have been listening to people with lived experience, and I am sure that other stakeholders will be similarly reassured.

Are you confident that, if local authorities put pressure on you not to include justice social work in the bill and that pressure is mainly based on local authorities’ financial fears, you can answer those concerns?