Justice 1 Committee, 17 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 17, 2001

Official Report 156KB pdf

---

Proposed Protection from Abuse Bill

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we proceed to item 1 on the agenda, I will say something about the proposed protection from abuse bill. The debate on our report on the proposed bill is scheduled for next Wednesday's meeting of the Parliament. There is likely to be a ministerial statement before that, so the debate will probably start at around 3.15 pm. It would be helpful if committee members could attend the debate and participate in it, as it is an essential step in the progress of the bill—without agreement to our report, the bill cannot proceed further. If the Parliament votes in favour of the report, I can introduce a bill along the lines that have been suggested.

Members who were present at last week's debate on stalking and harassment will have heard the minister say that he wants to explore with the committee whether the bill might provide a suitable vehicle for the proposal to attach a power of arrest to non-harassment orders. Prior to the debate, Jim Wallace had approached me informally on the matter. If he makes a formal approach to the committee—and he has not yet done so—we will consider the matter.

It is too late for the additional proposals to be included in the report that the Parliament will debate next week. That debate will focus on what is in the report, not what others might like to insert into a subsequent bill. If the Parliament approves the report's proposal, the committee will decide whether to instruct the drafting of a bill straight away—and we have taken some preliminary steps to allow us to do so—or to consider whether to include in the bill some of the additional provisions that the minister may suggest.

If we choose the first option, the bill should be ready for introduction before Easter. If we choose the second option, I suspect that we would have to take further evidence and produce a second report, as we would be back in the position that we were in some months ago. We would be dealing with a different bill, which would have to be debated and approved by the Parliament in a debate similar to the one that we will have next Wednesday. That would delay the bill by a considerable time—I alert the committee to that. However, we cannot make any decision until we receive a formal approach from the minister.

Is there a possibility of the minister framing things in a way that would bring the matter within the parameters of our debate next week?

I doubt it, but that is difficult to say until we receive a formal approach from him. He was talking about stalking and harassment, which, although not unrelated, are different from the subject of the committee's report. The report says specifically that we excluded changes to the legislation that Jim Wallace has talked about changing. If he proposes amendments that would do the opposite of what the report suggests, that would pose a difficulty.

Given the amount of time that the committee has spent considering the issues surrounding the proposed bill, I feel that it would be wrong to delay it for the minister to make further proposals and for us to take further evidence for another report. We should not close the door on Jim Wallace's suggestion, but a lot of work has been put into the bill and time has been spent examining the issues. Furthermore, the report makes clear the areas that the proposed bill does not address. It would therefore be more appropriate for us to proceed with the bill as planned, and for Jim Wallace to introduce another bill to address his concerns. We will have to wait for Jim Wallace to approach the committee formally.

We must wait for two things: for the Parliament's approval of our proposal next Wednesday and for a formal proposal from Jim Wallace.