Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice 1 Committee, 01 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 1, 2004


Contents


Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001

The Convener:

Item 3 is post-legislative scrutiny of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. Again, a note has been prepared that sets out the background to the act. Members will recall that the committee agreed to review the operation of the act as part of our approach to post-legislative scrutiny. A report from the Scottish Executive is available and there are a number of other papers on how the act is operating.

I invite members to consider whether they wish to take further action.

Stewart Stevenson:

I have given copies of the act to a number of visitors to my surgeries, on the basis that it will inform their legal advisers about something of which—it appeared to me—they were unaware. That was probably relatively early in the life of the act, but I have seen umpteen instances in which the act appears to offer a way forward where no other appears to exist. I would certainly like to know more about the success or otherwise of the act, so further research should certainly be conducted. I am not clear about the appropriate timing of that research, but it should not be done too long from now. The act has been in force for a couple of years and if it has not made an impact during that time it would be useful to know and understand why.

Margaret Mitchell:

There is an issue about general awareness of the powers of arrest in the act. There is concern that the powers are not being taken up and that some professionals know about the act, but not its details. Anything that we can suggest to try to raise awareness of the content of the act would be welcome. The fourth option in the clerks' note is such a suggestion, but I wonder whether the committee has any others, such as to run campaigns. Domestic abuse is often tackled in campaign form, so such action could perhaps be extended to let people know about the powers of arrest. That might be a way forward.

Marlyn Glen:

I agree. I read the action points at the end of the clerks' paper, and it seems to be a good idea to write to the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid to ask about responses to the article in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland. It is also a good idea to write

"to the Scottish Executive in support of further research".

That would leave timing of such research up to the Scottish Executive, but perhaps that is a wise thing to do.

I also like the idea of

"pursuing the option of issuing a press release"

on 6 February 2005. That seems to be a good date because it will be three years since the act came into force, which would give focus to raising awareness.

Mr McFee:

I think that the last action point, which is that we issue a press release sometime in the new year, is quite weak. If there is a problem and individuals who should know how to use the act do not appear to have that knowledge or are not in full possession of information, that suggests that we need a publicity campaign, whether it is fully public or focused on relevant organisations that are close to the ground. To be frank, I do not think that a press release would do that. Perhaps we could consider something a bit more adventurous.

Such as?

Such as a campaign to make people or organisations aware of the provisions and how they could use the act.

Or both.

Yes—if we were to be even more adventurous.

The Convener:

What we have in our responses is that solicitors, sheriffs and police organisations should now be aware of the provisions. What we will never know is what is happening at the Scottish Police College and whether the provisions of the act are being taught on each and every training course. We do not know whether every solicitor in Scotland is aware of the provisions in the act when a client comes to them. It is fair to say that we have changed the law substantially. We have attached a power of arrest to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. Solicitors now have at their disposal three separate areas of the law that they did not previously have at their disposal. I imagine that the subject is complex.

I agree with Marlyn Glen that we should ask the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid to comment on the matter. It is difficult to know at what point in the future we should review the operation of the act again, but we should review it. I am not in favour of reviewing potential amendments to the act. The responses that the committee has received contain some suggestions on amending the legislation. Our primary focus should be to advertise the fact that the legislation exists and can be used, rather than to review whether the act needs to be amended.

There were always different views about whether, when we changed the law of interdict, the breach of an interdict should be a criminal offence. I offer no opinion on that, but it is important that awareness be raised of the fact that an interdict is available and that, as far as we know, it could be an effective remedy. We will not be sure for a few years yet whether it is an effective remedy. It is a civil interdict and there will continue to be debate, in particular in relation to domestic abuse cases, about what the crossover would be between a civil interdict and the criminal act. It would be good for us to focus on raising awareness rather than on potential amendment of the act.

Bruce McFee suggests that a press release is not adventurous enough; that is fair enough. Whether such a press release would get coverage would depend on what news it was competing with on the day. It would be issued on 6 February, on the third anniversary of the act coming into force. We could suggest politely to the Executive that it would be good for it to use that date to do something more than that and to campaign to raise awareness of the provisions in the act. We could see what response we get to such a suggestion; it would be for the Executive to decide whether resources should be devoted to running a campaign.

Stewart Stevenson:

I have a simple suggestion. I saw one or two members nodding their heads when it was suggested that we have found the act useful in our constituency casework. To be frank, if MSPs were all aware of the value of the act to constituents who approach us, that would probably lead to a step change in its use, which might not be too hard a thing to achieve. Most of us, as constituency members who are trying to support our constituents, look for straightforward ways of helping people who approach us and the act has always seemed to me to be one of the easy ways of doing that. For a while, I took a couple of copies of the act with me to all my surgeries to hand out to constituents. The act also helps us to respond to constituents who approach us and to offer them a way forward. It might be that part of the solution is in our own hands.

The Convener:

You make a fair point—we can do our bit, too. Any MSP can advertise the fact that the option exists.

Does the committee agree to write to the Law Society and to Scottish Women's Aid asking to be kept informed, and to ask the Executive to pursue the option of a press release and perhaps to consider a slightly bigger campaign to promote awareness?

Mr McFee:

We would call it an awareness campaign. I hesitate even to include a reference to a press release. If there were an awareness campaign, there would be at least one press release with it, as that is the norm. We should suggest that the Executive undertake an awareness campaign, although I do not want to be prescriptive and say that it should focus on X, Y and Z, which would be more than presumptuous.

The Convener:

Okay—I accept the spirit of what you are asking for. We will suggest very strongly and in polite terms that there is a real need to push the existence of the 2001 act among those who are likely to use and need it. It is good legislation, which we are, as it was the first committee bill to be passed by Parliament, proud of. If we agree to that course of action, I suggest that we end our scrutiny of the act at this point, but keep our consideration of it live until we—or the Justice 2 Committee—determine that it should be reviewed when enough time has passed. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.