Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum
Item 2 is to take evidence on the financial memorandum to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Rhoda Grant MSP, who is accompanied by Liza Gilhooly, her researcher. I invite Rhoda to make an opening statement.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to give evidence. It is not as comfortable at this end of the table as it is at the other end, so bear with me.
As the committee knows, the bill seeks to offer victims of domestic abuse greater protection from abuse by bringing civil non-harassment orders into line with criminal non-harassment orders. That would be done by removing the course-of-conduct requirement, which would mean that civil non-harassment orders could be applied for after one conviction for harassment. The bill also seeks to provide greater protection by making breach of interdict with powers of arrest a criminal offence in its own right, rather than just contempt of court. That change would mean that the prosecution service would deal with breaches, which would remove the requirement for the victim to seek redress through the courts.
The bill also seeks to end the anomaly by which some victims—those who do not qualify for legal aid—are required to pay for their own protection. It would do so by making legal aid available for non-harassment orders and interdicts with powers of arrest with regard to domestic abuse.
My team and I have gathered information on costs from a range of bodies through the process of consultation on the bill and prior to that. We have also had a meeting with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and sought further written information from it directly and through the Scottish Parliament information centre. We have also sought information from other agencies.
The financial memorandum makes it clear that the costs are difficult to estimate because of the lack of definite information on domestic abuse. That remains the case. The committee will be aware that the Scottish Court Service has, in response to the committee’s call for evidence, quantified its costs, which is welcome. Members will also be aware that the Scottish Legal Aid Board has now produced an end-year figure for primary cases, which is lower than that estimated in the financial memorandum. However, the board has highlighted additional cases in which non-harassment orders and interdicts with powers of arrest have been applied for, along with other court procedures such as divorce and custody cases. That has increased the numbers, because we did not have that information when constructing the financial memorandum.
We were unclear how the board’s figures had been calculated and asked it for further information, which it kindly provided last week. We have now used the board’s figures to identify cases to which non-harassment orders for family actions and interdicts with powers of arrest for family actions are attached. It is still impossible to identify which of those cases were a result of domestic abuse. Therefore, we have counted them all. We have also counted defenders as well as pursuers, because SLAB has stated in its evidence that a small number of defenders are victims.
The committee should be aware that the figures that we have used to calculate are lower than those that SLAB has provided. We believe that there were 410 primary cases and 320 ancillary cases. To assist the committee, we have made calculations, which I think have been passed to members, based on our figures and those of the Scottish Legal Aid Board as outlined in its evidence to the committee. Those are estimates, because we are working on average costs. It is clear from the calculations, including those that are based on our figures, that they are overestimates, because they are based on all family interdicts with powers of arrest and all family non-harassment orders, not just those that have been initiated as a result of domestic abuse.
As in the financial memorandum, we have used the number of cases multiplied by the average cost per case, while taking into account contributions made. SLAB tells us that about 75 per cent of the population currently qualify for legal aid. SPICe estimates that as many as 90 per cent of victims of domestic abuse qualify for legal aid. Therefore, we have calculated an absolute maximum cost using a 25 per cent increase in cases. We still believe that the figure will be nearer SPICe’s estimated 10 per cent increase, because we are aware that 90 per cent of domestic abuse cases currently qualify for legal aid. Therefore, we have also worked up estimates for a 10 per cent increase in cases. When the legal aid threshold was increased to cover a further 31 per cent of the population, which happened last year, there was no corresponding rise in grants—our initial calculation shows that the rise was nearer 6 per cent.
There might also be savings because of economies of scale when dealing with ancillary cases. We need to listen to the evidence on that and seek further information to cost that and confirm it. There would also be savings to the legal aid budget because victims would no longer require legal aid to pursue breach of interdict cases.
In relation to court fees, we face similar difficulties. However, we have used the figures that the Scottish Court Service has given us on the costs of cases and the SLAB figures on the number of cases to make calculations. At the lowest, using my figure of 10 per cent, the additional costs would be £23,360 and, at their highest, using SLAB’s figure of 25 per cent, they would be £73,200. Again, that figure includes people who are not suffering from domestic abuse and it includes defenders.
With regard to criminal court cases, there could be savings as well as costs, because of reduced reoffending. We are aware that most cases of domestic abuse that are dealt with by the police—61 per cent—involve reoffending. Current civil breach of interdict costs would be offset also, because breach of interdict would be criminalised.
None of those costs takes account of the further savings that would be made to the public purse by reducing repeat offending and dealing with domestic abuse more quickly and effectively. The committee will be aware that domestic abuse costs the Scottish taxpayer £2.3 billion per annum. That figure represents a huge amount of human misery. Against that figure, even the high end of the estimate for my bill would represent good value for money.
I apologise for taking so long over my opening statement, but I thought that it would benefit the committee to have a full explanation of the cost.
Your final remark was very timely, because we have just started an inquiry into preventative spend. Your final few sentences were particularly interesting. I see that the submission from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland picked up that point:
“it was considered that any and all additional costs can be factored and will be a fraction in comparison to the emotional and financial costs required to respond to and investigate further domestic abuse incidents.”
You touched on the global figure, but it might help the discussion if you could give some examples of what you think the additional spend would be if we stick with the current system and do not strengthen it. Based on the experiences that I have had with constituents who have tried to get justice, we need to strengthen the system.
As abusers become more aware that, as the situation stands, a breach of interdict is not a criminal offence, they become more likely to breach it. That means that the victim has to go back to court, which is a cost to the public purse. If the victim is getting legal aid, they have to go and claim it to go back to court. It is also a cost to the police, because they have to pick up that person repeatedly. The abuser is locked up for two days, then released, and it goes on and on. There is also a personal cost to the victim, who continues to be abused, while society does nothing to stop that abuse.
Legal aid is the area that we might want to question you on. Are you saying that, although the bill might lead to more legal aid costs in some cases, it will lead to a reduction in the legal aid budget for those who are already receiving it?
Yes. At the moment, people who are receiving legal aid and who need to go back to court because of a breach of interdict find that they have to push the issue as contempt of court, which is a civil issue not a criminal issue. The costs of that fall on the legal aid system. Breaches of interdict with powers of arrest would be removed from the legal aid budget and the case would become a criminal case.
The Scottish Government’s submission to the Justice Committee says that
“the Bill needs to reflect the current legislation.”
but it suggests that the bill does not do that. What is your view on that? Has the bill been amended? Should it be amended? If so, would that change the position as set out in the financial memorandum?
The bill will need to be amended because the Government changed non-harassment orders for criminal cases. Obviously, a non-harassment order can be obtained in the criminal court and the bill needs to take that into account. That change was going through at around the same time as we were drafting the bill.
Another issue arises around ancillary cases. The Scottish Legal Aid Board’s submission refers to a number of additional cases, which it calls ancillary cases, in which the interdict or non-harassment order is applied for in connection with other issues, such as divorce or custody. We were not aware of those cases when we first drew up the bill, but we will seek to amend the bill to take account of them and ensure that they can be dealt with holistically. If the bill were passed in its current form, I do not think that that would not be possible. We must also ensure that there are no additional costs. Such cases could give rise to costs, but those costs that it could give rise to are included in those figures; again, if we amend the bill in that way at stage 2, the costs would be reduced.
There are no further questions from members. Do you wish to make any final comments?
No. I am very grateful that the committee has taken the time to listen to us. I understand that many committee members support the fight against domestic abuse, and I appreciate that too.
Thank you for your attendance and contribution.