Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be helpful, as it would give us wider context about the utility of those offences in general.

I will pick up on Pauline McNeill’s point and the point that Robert made about officials continually keeping these things under review, as we would expect. I would like to understand a wee bit more about the work that is being taken forward in that regard. I presume that the process of adding or removing offences for which fixed-penalty notices could be issued is as straightforward as the process that we are going through right now—it would just be another affirmative instrument.

That is helpful.

: That is helpful.

I turn to issues related to resourcing. Katy Clark asked a question on part 2 of the bill, but issues have also been raised about resourcing in relation to part 3. The submission from the Crown Office sets out its concern that

“the Bill’s Financial Memorandum … suggests that implementation of Part 3 within COPFS will be low and met within existing budgets.”

It goes on to say that

“Given the range of data to be collected … and the interface of COPFS systems, implementation is likely to require significant system updates with corresponding resource implications.”

Will you say a bit more about that? Has any assessment been done as to the likely resource implications for the organisation?

Police Scotland said something similar. It said that it is

“… generally supportive of the principles of Part 3”,

but that

“implementation would require Police Scotland to develop training mechanisms to ensure that the relevant data was collected appropriately and sensitively, along with updates to internal systems to ensure that data is recorded and reported accurately.”

I therefore put the same question to Detective Superintendent Brown.

That sounds as though it could be an extensive process for Police Scotland.

: That sounds as though it could be an extensive process for Police Scotland.

Do you get the sense that not enough thought has been given to the issue of compliance with the UNCRC at this stage?

: Do you get the sense that not enough thought has been given to the issue of compliance with the UNCRC at this stage?

I will stick with data collection and reporting for a question to Professor Gilchrist in relation to the Law Society’s written evidence, in which you set out concerns regarding the proposal. Perhaps you can respond more widely on what those concerns might be, but I notice that you say specifically that, as an organisation, you wonder

: I will stick with data collection and reporting for a question to Professor Gilchrist in relation to the Law Society’s written evidence, in which you set out concerns regarding the proposal. Perhaps you can respond more widely on what those concerns might be, but I notice that you say specifically that, as an organisation, you wonder

“whether it would be more useful to analyse data regarding the offence itself rather than the complainers’ characteristics.”

Will you say a bit more about that?

10:00

Is there potential for the cost to be quite significant?

: Is there potential for the cost to be quite significant?

Thank you.

: Thank you.

I have one final question, if I may, and it relates to education in schools. In its evidence, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlights the right given in the bill to withdraw pupils from domestic abuse education and suggests that there could be implications for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I found that an interesting observation. Can you say any more about it?

Apologies. I have a heavy cold today. I have a few questions for the witnesses, predicated on some of the written evidence that you have provided, with some questions that are specific to specific witnesses. The first is for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and is on the area of data collection and reporting. In your helpful submission, you set out your concern that the provisions in the bill

: Apologies. I have a heavy cold today. I have a few questions for the witnesses, predicated on some of the written evidence that you have provided, with some questions that are specific to specific witnesses. The first is for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and is on the area of data collection and reporting. In your helpful submission, you set out your concern that the provisions in the bill

“provide for a victim of domestic abuse potentially being asked for the same comprehensive personal data multiple times”.

Will you expand on that a little further and set out why that might be a concern?

In effect, you are saying that there would be another way of collecting the data without a statutory requirement for victims to be repeatedly asked to provide details.

: In effect, you are saying that there would be another way of collecting the data without a statutory requirement for victims to be repeatedly asked to provide details.

That was helpful.

: That was helpful.

I know that you did not cite this issue, Professor Gilchrist, but I saw you nodding along to what Dr Forbes was saying. Do you have an observation on this area?