Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The first item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. I will make the usual announcements about the procedures to be followed.
First, we will deal with the amendments to the bill; then, we will move on to the debate on the motion that the bill be passed. For the first part, members should have the bill—bill SP30A—as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the list of groupings. Amendments will be debated in groups where appropriate. An amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of the members present. It is possible for members not to move amendments, should they so wish.
The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions. I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments.
Section 1—Attachment of power of arrest to interdict
We start with amendment 7, in the name of the member in charge of the bill, Christine Grahame. It is grouped with amendments 8 and 9.
You are quite correct to say, Presiding Officer, that I am the member in charge of the bill. However, as it is a committee bill, the amendments appearing in my name are in fact committee amendments.
Amendments 7, 8 and 9 intend to make it clear who is entitled to apply for a power of arrest and to make subsequent, related court applications under the bill. It might be helpful if I set out a little background, explaining how the relevant sections of the bill operate.
Under section 1(2), a court must attach a power of arrest to an interdict if it is satisfied that, among other things, the power of arrest is necessary to protect the applicant or any other person from a risk of abuse. A similar provision is included under section 2(3) in relation to the granting of an extension of a power of arrest. Again, the court must grant an extension if it is satisfied that that is necessary to protect the applicant or any other person from a risk of abuse. Under section 2(7), a power of arrest must be recalled if the court is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to protect the applicant or any other person from a risk of abuse.
The reference in each of those provisions to "any other person" was inserted to follow the provision in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 that gives a parent the right to obtain a matrimonial interdict on behalf of a child of the family, regardless of that child's age. That provision applies even if the child has full capacity to act on its own behalf.
Capacity to act is a vital component in making an application to the courts. In general, all adults have capacity unless they suffer from a mental disorder, and in such cases the courts will appoint a person, often but not always a solicitor, to be named in their place on the court action. The fact that that person is acting in such a capacity would always be shown. Children, by which I mean persons under the age of 16 years, have legal capacity to instruct a solicitor in connection with a civil matter where they have a general understanding of what it means to do so. When they are aged over 12, the law presumes that a young person has a general understanding of what it means to instruct a lawyer in any civil proceedings, and that young people over that age have the same capacity as adults. They can, however, consent to an adult acting as their representative, and that would be shown on the court papers. If they do not have capacity, they are usually represented by their parent or parents as their legal representatives, and such a fact is also shown on the court papers.
Following further reflection, we do not consider it necessary to make express provision in the bill to try to cover the provision in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 relating to a child of any age. In accordance with normal civil laws, it seems more appropriate that a child with capacity should either apply for a power of arrest themselves or consent to their parent acting on their behalf. If they do not have capacity, they may apply through a representative.
That brings me back to the amendments that seek to delete the words "or any other person". We think that the policy that I have covered is already achieved without the need for those words. Removal of the words does not remove any protection that is currently provided by the bill. It will remain the position that a person can apply for a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict if they consider that that is necessary to protect them from abuse. Either they will apply in person or their representative will apply on their behalf. In each case, "the applicant" and
"the person who obtained … a power of arrest"
will be regarded for the purposes of the bill as the person whom the power of arrest is intended to protect.
There is an additional reason for making these amendments. At stage 2, the minister identified a possible difficulty in relation to what happens when the person in whose favour the application was made gains capacity. Arguably, there is then nobody who "obtained" the power of arrest and to whom section 2 of the bill can apply. The references to "any other person" could, in that connection, be misleading. They could be interpreted as trying to deal with children and adults who do not have the necessary capacity. They could lead to a construction of the phrases "the applicant" or "the person who obtained" the court order, which are used elsewhere in the bill, as references to the person who made the application, rather than to the person in whose favour the application and subsequent order were made. The proposed changes avoid that interpretation and the potential difficulty that the minister helpfully highlighted.
Under the bill, it remains the position that a person can apply for a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict, and the court will attach the power of arrest if it is satisfied that the power of arrest is necessary to protect the applicant. By removing the words "or any other person", it will be clearer that the real applicant is the child or person with mental incapacity, despite the fact that, under the general law, the child or adult is being represented.
Similarly, where the bill confers power on the person who obtained the power of arrest and that power was obtained by the representative of a child or adult without capacity, it will be regarded as having been obtained by that child or adult. The child or adult will therefore be entitled to apply for an extension of a power of arrest if they subsequently have capacity.
I move amendment 7.
I can see the intention behind amendments 7, 8 and 9. Deletion of the words "or any other person" from section 1(2)(c) means that, before the court can attach a power of arrest, it must be satisfied that attaching that power is necessary to protect the applicant from the risk of abuse.
The bill as amended at stage 2 demonstrates that a power of arrest could be attached in circumstances in which a person other than the applicant was at risk of abuse. I would question how an adult suffering from incapacity who was at risk would be able to be given protection under that measure, and I am not entirely convinced that the bill's provisions offer a sufficient safeguard. As I understand the law as it stands, such an adult could not make an application under the 1981 act through lack of capacity, and the application would therefore be made by his or her guardian. However, because the guardian would not be at risk, it is difficult to ascertain the basis on which the power of arrest could be attached.
Christine Grahame has clarified the position to some extent, and I do not think that the amendments should cause us any great concern. There is, however, a little bit of dubiety about the relevant provisions, and I would be anxious for the minister to clarify that—I mean the member in charge; I keep forgetting that everything that we do here is new and unique. I am not quite convinced about the aspect of the guardian's involvement that I described.
I am grateful to Christine Grahame for setting out the general purpose behind the bill and for explaining how we arrived at the first group of amendments. It is the Executive's view that the additional words to which Christine Grahame has drawn our attention were not needed, and that the bill provides adequate cover without them. Iain Gray raised the issue at stage 2, and we are grateful to the Justice 1 Committee for taking it on board at this stage.
The purpose of the amendments is to remove unnecessary wording from the bill which had originally been inserted to allow a person to make an application for a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict for the purpose of protecting another person. On consideration, it was thought that that was unnecessary. The bill already enables any power of arrest to be applied for by that person, or by their parent, guardian or other legal representatives acting on their behalf if they do not have the necessary capacity. In other words, the provision already exists for a parent, for example, to make application to give protection. The wording that it is proposed should be deleted could therefore cause confusion. The Executive therefore supports Christine Grahame's amendments 7, 8 and 9.
I will respond briefly to the point made by Bill Aitken. In the circumstances that he outlined, the applicant would be the person with incapacity. That would not be appropriate.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Section 2—Duration, extension and recall
Amendments 8 and 9 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Powers and duties of police
The next amendment for debate is amendment 10, in the name of Christine Grahame, which is grouped with amendments 11 and 13.
I can be brief in relation to these amendments. Section 4(4) of the bill sets out on the face of the bill the rights available to an arrested person. Those rights are specified in full and are essentially the same as the normal rights of a person arrested on a criminal matter.
At stage 2 I gave a commitment to consider further the rights conferred on an abuser when the police arrest them. As I indicated at stage 2, there was concern that the alleged abuser should be informed of the reason for their arrest at the time of arrest. These amendments follow on from that consideration.
Amendment 10 addresses the specific concern that I have mentioned and requires the police immediately to tell the person why they are being arrested.
Amendments 11 and 13 are consequential to amendment 10 and I propose to say no more about them.
I move amendment 10.
These amendments are infinitely reasonable. Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that the person who is arrested under the provisions of the bill is informed immediately of the reasons for their arrest. Natural justice demands that. The amendment is welcome and I am extremely pleased that the issue that it addresses is to be clarified. I need say no more on the matter. We will support amendment 10 and the consequential amendments 11 and 13.
There is a blossoming of consensus. I am grateful to Christine Grahame and the Justice 1 Committee for agreeing to reconsider the rights that ought to afforded to the alleged abuser under the terms of the bill. Amendments 10, 11 and 13 would make a proper adjustment to the bill; accordingly, the Executive is happy to support them.
Does the member in charge wish to respond?
I have nothing to add.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 1, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendment 3.
This is the first in a series of amendments lodged in my name on behalf of the Conservative group. At the appropriate juncture, we will support the motion that the bill be passed, as we regard it as a worthwhile piece of legislation. The purpose of our amendments is to make this good piece of legislation better. They should be seen as a positive effort to improve a bill that will provide much-needed protection for many people in Scotland who over the years have found themselves the subject of abuse.
Amendment 1 seeks to clarify a situation that may not occur very frequently, but is likely to occur sometimes. If someone is arrested in a city, in a large town or even in a reasonably well-populated urban area, there is a high possibility that it will be possible to detain him or her in a police office. However, in rural or Highland communities the situation is somewhat different and incidents may occur many miles from the nearest police office. It may, therefore, be appropriate to allow the place of detention to be other than the police office.
I am reminded of the considerable impact made by Maureen Macmillan's speech when that matter was first debated in the Parliament, well over two years ago. On that occasion she spoke about incidents that had taken place in her neck of the woods, where it might not be easy to take someone to a police office after they had been arrested. Amendments 1 and 3 seek to address that issue.
I move amendment 1.
Amendments 1 and 3 seek to replicate in the bill a discretion that is given to the police under criminal law. The amendments would allow the police to take an arrested person to premises other than a police station. For a number of reasons, such discretion at the point of arrest is inappropriate.
At stage 2, there was much debate about importing criminal provisions into the bill. The Justice 1 Committee accepted that this bill, which is a civil measure, should stand alone, and expressed its approval for the fact that the bill is self-contained. The bill is not a criminal measure, and it is necessary to examine closely the purpose and effect of importing provisions that resemble criminal provisions into a bill where the purpose of detention is quite different from that of detention under the criminal law.
At section 4(2) the bill requires the arrested person to
"be taken to a police station as quickly as is reasonably practicable".
It does not require the person to be detained thereafter at the police station; it requires only that they be detained. That is in line with the equivalent provisions in the 1981 act.
Under the criminal law, an arrested person could be taken elsewhere for other purposes, such as attendance at an identity parade or the search of premises. Both those situations would be in connection with the on-going investigation of a crime. Neither can apply under the bill, as there is no further investigation to be undertaken. The arrested person may also need to be taken to another police area where the crime is being investigated. Again, that situation does not apply under the bill. The person requires to be brought before the sheriff for the district where they were arrested.
Although under the bill there are no release provisions by the police, we see no operational reason why an arrested person should not initially be taken to a police station, be advised there of their rights, have those rights recorded and have any requests acted on. Should the police for operational reasons wish to detain the arrested person elsewhere thereafter, the bill allows for that.
We also consider that it is desirable that a child be taken initially to a police station in order to ensure that the active step of intimation to the parent is properly carried out and supervised. We note the additional safeguards provided to children under section 43 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That section requires the involvement of senior officers or the officer in charge of a police station when a child is not released immediately. It suggests that the provision in section 15(4) of the 1995 act refers only to a police station and that children under criminal law must be taken directly to a police station. We consider that the serious circumstances of the arrest of a child merit their being taken directly to a police station.
For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there is a problem with amendment 3. At present, the officer in charge of the police station must intimate the detention to the child's parents. The amendment would require the officer in charge of the other premises to intimate the detention to the child's parents. However, there may be no officer in charge of the other premises.
It remains our view that there are sound reasons for requiring the alleged abuser to be brought to a police station immediately after arrest and that the provisions of the bill should be consistent with the equivalent provisions of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 1 and not to move amendment 3.
Christine Grahame has given a number of reasons for resisting amendments 1 and 3. In particular, she indicated that they were inappropriate in two respects for dealing with young people under the age of 16. The bill also seeks to be consistent with the provisions of the parallel Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. To import into the bill the additional words proposed by Bill Aitken would lead to significant divergence between those two pieces of legislation. For those reasons, I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 1 and not to move amendment 3.
Would Christine Grahame like to add anything?
I have nothing to add.
I have heard what the member in charge and the minister have said, but I remain unconvinced by their arguments. I believe that amendments 1 and 3 are necessary to tidy up the anomalies to which I referred, as they recognise the practical difficulties that may apply in rural areas.
I accept that there is some inconsistency between what I propose and existing legislation. However, I suggest that existing legislation, rather than my amendments, is inept in this regard. I wish, therefore, to press my amendments.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 14, Against 69, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.
Amendment 12 is grouped with amendment 2.
At stage 2, Bill Aitken raised the question of detention under criminal proceedings following upon an arrest under the provisions of the bill. As I indicated then, that was helpful and the matter has been given careful consideration since that debate. I am grateful to Bill Aitken for pointing out that area and for allowing us time to look into the position.
The bill sets out the procedure that is to be followed on and after arrest when no criminal proceedings are to be taken in respect of the incident that gave rise to the arrest. That will be the normal position, as the purpose of the bill is to provide powers to the police to arrest and remove alleged abusers in situations in which the criminal law does not apply. When the conduct is sufficient to be a breach of the criminal law, it is to be expected that the arrest will be under criminal law provisions.
Having considered the position further, I accept that there is a need for an amendment to make it clear that the detention that the bill permits will cease at the point where criminal proceedings are initiated. In other words, when is the alleged abuser subject to the normal provisions of criminal law? Amendment 12 amends section 4(2) to make it clear that the detention under the power of arrest in the bill stops when the alleged abuser is accused of a criminal offence on petition or is charged on a summary complaint. From that time onwards, any detention of the person will be under the provisions of the criminal law and they will be in a similar position to other persons charged on complaint or accused on petition.
The position that I have described seems fair. It is fair to the alleged abuser, who will be returned to the criminal law sphere with the rights that apply to others who have been accused or charged. It is clear for the police, who will have a definite point in time when the civil warrant ceases to be applicable, and it is fair on the victim, who will have had the additional benefit conveyed by the power of arrest until the criminal law takes over.
In practice, in most cases the service of a petition or complaint will occur after the alleged abuser has been taken to court to await their appearance before the sheriff. Service will occur in the cells at court and the then accused will be required to appear before the criminal court later that day. We expect that, in most cases, detention will continue until their appearance in court, but that is a criminal law matter and not a matter for the bill.
Amendment 2 is in the name of Bill Aitken. The wording is the same as that of an amendment that he moved and subsequently withdrew at stage 2. As he indicated at stage 2, the amendment is directed at providing the police with the power to continue detention after an arrest under the bill but in the circumstances in which the fiscal has initiated criminal proceedings. We do not consider that it is appropriate to put such a power in a civil law measure. Any detention prior to the alleged abuser's appearance before the criminal courts is a matter for the criminal law. The procedure in the bill is no longer relevant to such a situation.
We also consider that amendment 2 remains defective, as its reference to section 135(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is incorrect. That section deals with taking an accused person to court on the first court day after arrest on a summary criminal charge. However, the accused will be appearing at court under section 144 of the 1995 act, following the service of the complaint by the fiscal. Furthermore, amendment 2 does not deal with appearance at court following the initiation of solemn proceedings.
I hope that Bill Aitken will not press amendment 2 and will feel able to support amendment 12.
I move amendment 12.
As Christine Grahame highlighted, history is attached to amendment 2. When the bill came before the Justice 2 Committee at stage 2, I lodged a similar amendment. We had considerable discussions on the matter at stage 2 and I reserved the right to pursue it further at stage 3, should it not be satisfactorily resolved.
Since then, Christine Grahame and I have exchanged correspondence on the subject. While there was some excitement yesterday afternoon, when it appeared to me that the wording of amendment 12 was not as clear as it might have been, I am satisfied that amendment 12 seeks to remedy a flaw in the bill as introduced.
In all the circumstances, and on the basis of the reassurances that Christine Grahame has given, I am prepared to accept amendment 12 and not to move amendment 2.
Bill Aitken's concession is welcome. The Parliament is grateful to him for focusing on the situation of those who are originally detained under the bill's provisions but against whom criminal charges are subsequently made.
It is important that there should be clarification for the police on the interaction between the bill's provisions and the criminal law. Amendment 12 achieves that aim, as it clarifies the position for the police and provides an important measure of protection for the accused person.
In the circumstances, the Executive will support amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Amendment 13 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 is in a group on its own.
To some extent, I will argue for amendment 4 from a converse position to my arguments of a few moments ago. We are dealing with practicalities once again. The effect of the amendment would be to place a positive onus on the police to take active steps to contact the parent or guardian of a child held in custody. The police would need to intimate that the child had been arrested and where he or she was being held.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in all cases where a child has been arrested under section 4(1), the officer in charge of the police station will contact the person with parental responsibility for that child. That is essential. As the bill stands, the duty to intimate applies only in circumstances where it is "practicable" to do so. That does not offer sufficient protection for children who could be held in custody under the bill.
The term "practicable" is open to many varying interpretations. Although there should be no difficulty in the vast majority of cases and I fully accept the premise that hard cases do not make good law, we must have the safeguard that the amendment would provide. There is an analogous provision in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which creates a positive onus on the officer to contact the parent or guardian in all cases. If there is such a provision in that piece of legislation, we should have one in this bill too.
I move amendment 4.
Amendment 4 has the laudable aim of protecting children in police custody by requiring the police to intimate to the person with parental responsibilities that the child is being detained. I agree with the thinking behind the amendment, but the bill already states that the police "must" intimate.
In an attempt to save police time, the bill gives the police an element of discretion by providing that the police "must where practicable" intimate. The police must intimate unless it is not practicable to do so. It seems sensible that, without in any way diluting the protection given to a child, we prevent the police from undertaking fruitless attempts to intimate when it is known that the attempt is bound to fail.
Let me give an example. A child of 15 is arrested for being in breach of an interdict. At the police station, he tells the duty officer that his parent or parents are on holiday abroad. Under the amendment, despite the fact that the child has given the police that information, the police would still be required to send intimation to the parent or parents. That seems pointless and would be a waste of precious resources.
As I have said, we are keen to ensure that children are protected. We have made specific provision in the bill to give children extra protection. Very few children will be affected by the bill. It is extremely unusual and possibly almost unique for a child to be interdicted. Even so, protection has been provided.
Will the member give way?
Let me conclude. Bill Aitken still has a right to reply.
However, that protection has been tempered with a touch of realism about the duties of the police. The bill states that the police must intimate; only if it is not practicable to do so is the obligation removed.
I ask Bill Aitken to withdraw his amendment.
I support what Christine Grahame has said. No one questions the motives that underlie Bill Aitken's amendment, but Christine Grahame has given the practical reasons why the bill already meets the need to ensure that children are properly protected. The bill does so in a way that does not place on the police an undue burden that could be fruitless. For example, if it were known that the parents were abroad but it was not known where, an effort to contact them would still have to be made, even though it was known from the outset that the effort could not succeed.
I will make one further point. Christine Grahame emphasised that the bill states that the officer "must where practicable" intimate. The bill actually states:
"must where practicable, without delay".
That is another safeguard for the protection of children. I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 4.
Amendment 4 should be considered. The example that was given by Christine Grahame and the minister is not particularly apposite. Clearly, if a child is arrested whose parents are on holiday in Mallorca or at some unknown destination, notifying the parents will be a practical problem. However, if the parents are abroad, someone will be acting in their place. By definition, someone must be in charge of a child under the age of 16. It would be illegal for the parents to desert the child to go on holiday abroad without leaving someone in charge of him or her. Therefore, the example given does not apply. If a child were arrested whose parents were overseas or could not be traced, the person who was looking after the child in the parents' absence would be notified. Amendment 4 would be a wise piece of protection of the rights of the child. I am firmly of the view that the amendment should be accepted.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 14 follows on from considering the rights given to the accused, which we have just discussed in the debate on amendments 10, 11 and 13. While examining the rights available to an arrested person under section 4(3), we felt that there were some additional matters that should be recorded by the police.
As drafted, the bill requires the police to record the time and nature of any request made by the detained person under section 4(3) and the time and nature of any action taken by the police under that subsection. In addition, the police are required to record the time and nature of any action that they have taken under subsection (4) in relation to a person who appears to be under the age of 16.
Amendment 14 repeats the existing recording requirements, but requires the police to record five additional matters. First, the time of arrest, the police station to which the arrested person is taken and the time of arrival at the police station must be recorded. Those facts could be significant in ascertaining whether the arrested person was taken to a police station as soon as was reasonably practicable, which is a requirement imposed on the police by subsection (2), and whether the procurator fiscal was informed of the arrest as soon as was practicable, as required under subsection (6).
The recording of any other place to which the arrested person is taken is included and reflects equivalent requirements under the criminal law. For completeness, the police are required to record the time the arrested person was informed of their rights under subsection (3). That could be significant in ascertaining whether the police informed them of their rights as soon as they arrived at the police station.
The requirements to record the time and nature of a request to the police and the time and nature of any action taken are in the bill as drafted and are repeated in amendment 14.
Amendment 14 brings the information that the bill requires the police to record into line with what is required under criminal procedure.
I move amendment 14.
As has been said, the bill is a hybrid, which contains an amalgam of civil and criminal law. Shortly, I shall seek to probe the meaning of the phrase
"as soon as is practicable."
Amendment 14 has merit and we shall support it.
I am grateful to Christine Grahame for lodging amendment 14, which clearly gives improved protection for the rights of the alleged abuser. We are happy to support the amendment.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendment 5 is on its own.
In amendment 5 I seek to probe the meaning of the phrase
"as soon as is practicable."
Article 5 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with the right to liberty and security of person, states that those who have been deprived of their liberty through arrest should have the right to challenge in court the lawfulness of that deprivation. In the interests of justice, such a challenge should be heard as soon as possible. Therefore, it is essential that the circumstances of any arrest are reported immediately to the procurator fiscal and not simply
"as soon as is practicable."
The case can then be brought before the competent court as in any normal criminal proceedings where there is a statutory obligation on the authorities to do that. I lodged the amendment at stage 2 and withdrew it, because at that stage there was some discussion as to what might come thereafter. At that stage, I was in favour of the use of the term "immediately", but the majority of members of the Justice 2 Committee felt that that would be impractical.
However, on balance, I am of the view that the term "immediately" should be substituted in the interests of justice and the speedy resolution of matters that come to the attention of the authorities. That would ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR.
I move amendment 5.
As Bill Aitken said, amendment 5 was debated at stage 2 and subsequently withdrawn. Bill Aitken's amendment would require the police to inform the procurator fiscal of an arrest "immediately" following the moment of arrest, which might not be practical. As with amendment 14, there are good reasons for allowing the police some flexibility. At present, section 4(6) states that when the alleged abuser is arrested, the police should inform the procurator fiscal of the facts and circumstances of the arrest
"as soon as is practicable."
In practice, intimation to the procurator fiscal will be given as soon as the fiscal's office is open. There is nothing to be gained by requiring an immediate intimation when the office is known to be closed; we are not dealing with situations in which the immediate attention of the fiscal would have any effect on the alleged abuser.
The concern that was expressed during the Justice 2 Committee debate on the ECHR is misplaced. The bill is fully compliant. Section 4(6) requires the police to take action as soon as they can. The purpose of that is to ensure that the alleged abuser is brought before the court on the first possible date after the arrest. Therefore, the alleged abuser is able to challenge the deprivation of their liberty at the earliest possible opportunity.
Section 5 makes it clear that appearance on the next court day is required. An additional protection can be found in the actions of the procurator fiscal, who must present a petition to the court on that day. The procurator fiscal can therefore be expected to be anxious to be informed promptly of the facts and circumstances so that the petition can be prepared. Because the liberty of the individual is at stake, the courts will be very strict in their assessment of how much leeway is permitted to the police on this matter.
I have no doubt that the courts will interpret the phrase in section 4(6) as requiring the police to intimate to the fiscal almost immediately after the arrest and just as soon as it is feasible to get in touch with the fiscal. The sensible discretion that is given to the police does not in any way affect the protection that is available to the alleged abuser, nor does it delay their appearance at court. I therefore invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 5.
It is right that, whenever the liberty of the individual is at stake, proper consideration be given to the way in which powers are exercised. I agree with Christine Grahame that there is nothing essential about informing the procurator fiscal immediately. The situation would be different for a murder case, when the fiscal would have to attend the scene of the crime immediately.
Bill Aitken properly indicated the importance of the individual having the opportunity to challenge the withdrawal of his or her liberty. The key protection is in section 5, in which there are strict requirements regarding court appearances. As Christine Grahame said, it will be incumbent on the procurator fiscal to present a petition to the court at the time of the court appearance. Therefore, an early—nearly immediate—intimation will have to be made to the procurator fiscal. However, to stipulate that such an intimation should be made "immediately", as amendment 5 requires, would not be practical. I therefore again invite Bill Aitken to reconsider his position.
I have listened carefully to what has been said, but I am not entirely convinced. We are talking about people being detained in custody. It is clearly essential that such situations should be resolved as soon as possible. I see no difficulty in including the word "immediately" in section 4(6)—doing so would comply fully with what we are trying to do. I am also concerned that there may be problems with ECHR compliance that have not been anticipated. I will press my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 5—Court appearance
Amendment 6 is in a group on its own.
The issue that amendment 6 addresses is straightforward. The amendment would enable the arrested person to instruct legal representation to present information to the court. I am uncertain as to why the provision has not been included in the bill; it may be that it is considered that it is already implied in the bill. Accordingly, I shall wait to hear what Christine Grahame has to say.
I move amendment 6.
Amendment 6 seeks to ensure that an arrested person who is brought before the court can have their solicitor or counsel speak on their behalf. That is entirely appropriate and is already allowed for in the bill.
Section 5(4) requires the sheriff who is hearing the facts surrounding the arrest and alleged breach of interdict to afford the detained person the opportunity to make representations. It does not say that those representations can come only from the arrested person. As drafted, subject perhaps to the normal civil court rules on representation, anybody could make representations on behalf of the arrested person. The bill places no restriction on that.
That is a natural follow-on from the provision in section 4(3)(e), which allows an arrested person, on request, the opportunity for a private interview with a solicitor before any appearance in court. In addition, I understand that legal aid regulations are being examined to ensure that a duty civil lawyer is available for the arrested person should they wish such a service.
There is also a potential consequence that could flow from the amendment being accepted. The rules on representation at court are less strict in civil proceedings and, on occasion, family members or advice workers appear in order to speak for parties. Although the bill does not encourage that, it would not prevent it from happening where such representation is appropriate. By specifying solicitors and counsel, the amendment could cause the courts to interpret such assistance as being the only alternative open to the arrested person. I hope that it is clear that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially harmful and that solicitors and counsel can appear if required. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
There is no dispute that we are working to the same end. As Christine Grahame has explained, the bill already allows for legal representation and the acceptance of the amendment could lead to an undesirable restriction. I hope that Bill Aitken will withdraw the amendment.
Having heard those reassurances, I seek permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.
That concludes the debate on amendments to the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. We have made extraordinarily good speed and we are in for an early finish this morning.