Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Official Report 571KB pdf

---

Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Agenda item 6 is consideration of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I ask members to refer to their copy of the bill and to the marshalled list of amendments.

I welcome again the cabinet secretary, who has been joined by different officials.

After section 12

Amendment 13, in the name of Mary Fee, in is a group on its own.

The purpose of amendment 13 is to strengthen the bill by requiring the Scottish Government to produce an annual report

“as soon as practicable after 31 March each year”.

The report would contain information on the offences that are created by section 1 of the bill and on aggravated offences under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, including information on

“the types of support and assistance”

that victims were provided with,

“the average period of time during which support and assistance was provided,”

and the funding that was provided to secure that support. The report would also contain information about the number of relevant proceedings in relation to which special measures were applied for and authorised.

It is my intention that the new reporting mechanism will build an evidence base that could be used to improve services for victims, and to demonstrate that the bill is being properly implemented. The annual report would become a vehicle to ensure that support is provided to victims of domestic abuse, that there is appropriate funding for the voluntary and third sector organisations that support victims, and that special measures are provided for victims and witnesses who appear in court.

There is a significant level of consensus on the aims and objectives of the bill, as it stands. Amendment 13 would simply establish a reporting mechanism to ensure that the Government, the courts and public services deliver the ambitions for better victim support that we all share.

I move amendment 13.

As members have no comments, I invite the cabinet secretary to respond.

As I understand it, amendment 13 is intended to address concerns about the need to ensure that effective support and assistance is in place to help victims of domestic abuse. I recognise that its intention is to collect information that would enable steps to be taken to monitor and improve how support is provided to victims of domestic abuse.

Although I sympathise with the intention behind amendment 13, I am concerned that it risks putting a significant burden on the organisations that provide support to victims of domestic abuse, which are mainly third sector bodies, and that that burden could mean that less of the funding that is given to those bodies would go directly to helping victims.

Many third sector groups that provide support to victims of domestic abuse receive funding from the Scottish Government, and it is a condition of that funding that they report on how the money is spent and on what support they provide to victims. I am concerned that the level of detailed information that amendment 13 would require third sector groups to collect and pass on to the Scottish Government would be disproportionate to the aim of effectively monitoring the support that is provided to victims of domestic abuse; indeed, it would mean that time and money could well be spent on reporting that would not provide insight into how services could be improved.

In order for the information that amendment 13 would require to be included in the annual report to be collected, third sector groups and other agencies that provide support to victims would have to record and transmit to the Scottish Government information about the length of time for which they provided support to each individual, the type of support that they provided and the manner in which it was provided.

In 2016-17, Police Scotland recorded 27,496 incidents of domestic abuse that resulted in the recording of at least one crime. If a significant proportion of the victims sought support and assistance from third sector bodies, the amount of data that they would be required to record and provide to the Scottish Government would be very large.

Given that each case will be quite different, any attempt to categorise the type of assistance and support that were provided or the manner in which they were provided would not necessarily provide the kind of detailed information that would enable decisions to be made on how services could be improved.

11:00  

Amendment 13 is specifically concerned with cases involving the committing of an offence under section 1 of the bill, or an offence in which the domestic abuse aggravation in section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 applies. Many of the groups that provide support to people who experience abuse do so irrespective of whether the victim has reported the matter to the police, and will not necessarily know whether the victim has done so. Therefore, an additional specific burden would be placed on some third sector bodies in relation to the breakdown between help that is offered to people where an offence has been committed and where an offence has not been committed.

There might also be data protection issues with an approach that would require that information be shared between the police and third sector groups without the prior agreement of the subject of the data. That could add to third sector groups’ difficulty in providing accurate information about the cases to which amendment 13 relates.

I have great sympathy with the thinking that lies behind amendment 13, and with the amendment that was lodged by Claire Baker relating to reporting on the operation of the new domestic abuse offence, which was debated on 21 November. However, we should not rush to specify in law the exact detail of what data should and should not be collected. There should be a process in which key interests are given the opportunity to offer views on what information would be proportionate and valuable to inform understanding of how the legislation is operating. That process should also be informed by the fact that information will be published on the operation of the legislation as part of the existing data that is routinely made available by the Scottish Government in our published surveys of criminal proceedings, recorded crime and crime and justice.

I also have concerns that parting from the normal approach to the collection of data for each new piece of legislation might not be the most appropriate approach.

I am happy to work with Mary Fee and Claire Baker ahead of stage 3 to consider whether additional steps are required to ensure that information relating to the provision of support and assistance to victims of domestic abuse is collected and made available. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I am concerned that the approach that is proposed in amendment 13 would place too great a burden on the groups that provide support, and that they would have to meet the requirements of that burden from their existing resources, which would have the potential unintended consequence of reducing direct support to victims.

I therefore invite Mary Fee to seek to withdraw amendment 13.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his remarks. During the committee’s evidence sessions on the bill, members heard moving testimony and compelling evidence about forms of abuse that are not sufficiently addressed in the law. As I said earlier, there is consensus on the need to tackle domestic abuse and to close the gap, which is what the bill seeks to do. I believe that my amendment would strengthen the bill by placing a requirement on ministers to produce an annual report. The reporting provisions that I have proposed in my amendment resemble the provisions of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. I believe that including reporting provisions in the bill would help to ensure that victims are properly supported and that there is adequate funding. In my view, the reporting mechanism will deliver improvements in services, and for that reason I will press my amendment 13.

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

For

Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Amendment 26, in the name of Maurice Corry, is in a group on its own.

I would like the Scottish ministers to take steps to allow for the bill’s provisions to be properly conveyed and promoted to ensure that we have maximum awareness, understanding and clarity about the operation of the act among the public and Police Scotland and its team, including an understanding of

“the kind of conduct that constitutes abusive behaviour for the purposes of an offence under section 1(1).”

I move amendment 26.

Are there any comments or questions?

Can Mr Corry outline the range of his suggestion—I see a lot of merit in such promotion—and how that would look? I presume that Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service would develop their own procedures, but how would Mr Corry envisage raising public awareness?

It should be done on social media and traditional media, including radio and television. I would ask for information to be put in public places, such as libraries, police stations and health centres—where it is likely that victims may go—and every government establishment that the public frequents.

Amendment 26 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to promote public awareness of the new offence of domestic abuse. I repeat what I told the Justice Committee when I gave evidence on the bill at stage 1 in June. The Scottish Government will take steps to promote awareness of the new offence ahead of it coming into force. That will include raising awareness as to the kind of behaviour that would amount to abusive behaviour as set out in the legislation.

It has always been our intention to raise public awareness prior to the implementation of the offence and so, as I advised the committee a few months ago, amendment 26 is unnecessary to achieve what Maurice Corry seeks, because that will happen anyway. In addition, such a requirement is not normally included in legislation. The statute book would become rather crowded if we were to include a provision in relation to publicity for every new offence or policy.

When a new offence is created or there is another significant policy change, the Scottish Government will always consider what steps are required to ensure that the public is made aware of it. Members may remember that, earlier this year, the Scottish Government ran a campaign to coincide with the commencement of the intimate images offence contained in the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016. When statutory jury directions concerning the way in which victims of certain sexual offences may react were commenced, we funded Rape Crisis Scotland to produce the “I just froze” campaign to change public understanding of why victims of rape do not always fight back or report the crime straight away.

On the basis of the commitment that I gave to the Justice Committee in June and which I have repeated today, I ask the member to withdraw amendment 26.

I intend to press the amendment. I am slightly surprised by the minister’s response, because that is not the view that he took when we debated the subject in Parliament.

The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 26 disagreed to.

Amendment 27 was debated with amendment 37 on day 1 of stage 2 proceedings.

Amendment 27 moved—[Claire Baker].

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)

Abstentions

Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 27 disagreed to.

Amendment 28 was debated with amendment 37 on day 1 of stage 2 proceedings.

Amendment 28 moved—[Claire Baker].

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendment 38, in the name of Liam Kerr, is in a group on its own.

The purpose of amendment 38 is to strengthen the bill. Throughout the process, the committee heard extensive evidence about the requirement for emergency barring orders. Amendment 38 requires the Scottish ministers to carry out a review of legal measures that would have the effect of temporarily excluding a perpetrator or a suspected perpetrator of domestic abuse from the home of the person they have abused or potentially abused. The review would need to take place within one year of royal assent and the Scottish ministers would be required to consult with certain specified persons in carrying out the review. The results of the review would need to be published and laid before Parliament, and the Scottish ministers would be required to announce their intentions in respect of the results of the review.

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary made a public commitment in his letter of 6 November to the Justice Committee to formally consult on the introduction of new powers in this area, but I would prefer that commitment to be in the bill to obligate it.

I move amendment 38.

I thank members for considering the important issue of how people who are at risk of domestic abuse can be better protected. I understand that amendment 38 is directed at the issue of emergency barring orders and I am aware that the committee heard a range of opinion on the operation of emergency barring orders at its meeting on 31 October. Although a number of views were offered about the potential benefits of emergency barring orders, there was also a wide range of unanswered questions.

After that evidence session, I wrote to the committee to explain how the Scottish Government intends to consider the issues relating to emergency barring orders. I explained that a consultation would be published in early 2018 and that it would seek views on the many unanswered questions about how such legislation might operate. Those include, what exactly should be the basis or grounds on which orders may be sought or granted? Who is to apply for such orders and what court procedures are to be involved? Who should have the power to exclude someone from their home? Are there to be powers of arrest? What kind of funding would be needed to operate the scheme? Those are just a few of the many questions that will need to be explored and they will be explored carefully through the Scottish Government’s consultation.

Today, therefore, I confirm that, as I advised in my recent letter to the committee, the Scottish Government will consult justice partners such as Police Scotland and the Crown Office, as well as other people and groups who have an interest in these issues.

Liam Kerr’s amendment 38 is well-intentioned and it picks up on the committee’s discussions. However, the Scottish Government has already committed to consulting on the issues, so the amendment is unnecessary to achieve what is being sought, as it will happen anyway. In addition, it is not best practice to clutter the bill with provisions that say nothing more than what the Government has already undertaken to do, especially as I have just now repeated that undertaking on the record. In light of my firm commitment, I ask Liam Kerr to withdraw amendment 38.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his remarks. I am comforted and reassured by those remarks and their strength. For that reason, I shall withdraw amendment 38.

Amendment 38, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. The committee will suspend briefly to allow a change of witnesses.

11:14 Meeting suspended.  

11:16 On resuming—