Chamber and committees

Minister, you will be glad to know that this is, I think, the last question. The Law Society has highlighted to the committee that it would like powers in addition to those that are provided under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to deal with certain issues that can arise with firms taking the form of incorporated practices.

When the Law Society gave evidence on 23 April, it indicated that its preferred legislative vehicle for change was stage 2 amendments to the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Is it the Scottish Government’s view that that bill is the right place to add the powers that the Law Society seeks?

Under the current law, a judicial factor must find caution—which means to take out a specialist bond from an insurance company—to protect against any wrongdoing, such as theft of the estate, by the factor. In a policy change to the current law, section 5 of the bill abolishes the requirement on a judicial factor to find caution, except in exceptional circumstances. When proposing that new threshold, what investigation did the Scottish Government do of professional indemnity insurance or of any other possible alternatives to bonds of caution?

The committee heard evidence from several legal stakeholders that the proposed threshold of “exceptional circumstances” may be set too high. It therefore might not result in caution being required where a layperson is being appointed and specific professional indemnity insurance might not be an adequate substitute for professionals. On the other hand, Missing People is concerned about the costs of caution and prefers the existing threshold. Having heard all the views expressed to the committee about that issue, are you still convinced that “exceptional circumstances” is the right threshold? If not, what policy alternatives would you propose, and why?

The organisation Missing People has expressed concern about what it sees as a lack of clarity associated with the interaction between the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977 and part 4 of the bill. Does the minister think the relationship between the two pieces of legislation needs to be clarified, either in the text of the bill or in associated guidance?

Do you think that it is necessary to put a definition either in legislation or in guidance?

In 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed its Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. It was said at that time to be landmark legislation and a momentous day for survivors of domestic abuse in Scotland. In that case, we should be proud of the Parliament’s work. However, as the petition and the evidence that we have heard make clear, more work has to be done to support those who are subject to domestic abuse.

According to the National Centre for Domestic Violence, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lives. In the most recent statistics, 61 per cent of logged incidents of domestic abuse did not include the recording of a crime or offence. Yet we must keep it in mind that the true rate of abuse is likely to be much greater than what is reported. The National Centre for Domestic Violence estimates that less than 24 per cent of domestic abuse crime is reported to the police. That should be greatly concerning.

Last year, the Criminal Justice Committee’s report on the implementation of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 outlined several areas that need improvement. Police need to be fully trained in recognising domestic abuse, particularly when it is of a non-violent, psychological nature. Some survivors felt that building a case against non-physical abuse was too difficult, and the use of time-limited non-harassment orders caused survivors to leave their homes when the orders expired.

The evidence that the committee has seen in considering the petition demonstrates that pregnancy amplifies the barriers that survivors face in reporting domestic abuse. Four pregnant women every day in Scotland face domestic abuse. Research from the University of Edinburgh shows that domestic abuse becomes more likely when a woman is pregnant.

Nicola Murray, who brought the petition to the Scottish Parliament, outlined in her harrowing evidence to the committee that we are failing survivors. There is the fear of having to see their abuser again in the court and having to relive their trauma, the lottery as to whether the police pursue a case, and survivors being told, without being consulted, that their case is being closed. Pregnant survivors or those with young children often avoid reporting their abuse for fear that they will be seen as a bad mother or their children will be taken from them. Empowering survivors so that they can go to the police and leave their abusers and get support to break the cycle of abuse must be made paramount by this Parliament.

On healthcare, I am sure that many members have spoken to Held in Our Hearts this week. It is calling for a minimum bereavement framework for women who have lost a baby. It also describes a postcode lottery of care for bereaved mothers. Where care is available, there is no personalised one-to-one support that is inclusive of both families and mothers.

In the evidence that the committee heard and from my conversation with Held in Our Hearts, I think that we are failing women who have lost their child. The introduction of the memorial book of pregnancy and baby loss prior to 24 weeks is a good start to officially recognising the grief of losing a pregnancy, but universal personal support is needed.

The petition has raised important issues that are faced by too many women across Scotland. We must recognise the immense pain of losing a child to domestic abuse.

When it comes to domestic abuse and supporting women who have lost a child, it is clear that we are failing on multiple levels. The unacceptable increase in domestic abuse when women become pregnant must be investigated, and our system of support for victims of domestic abuse should reflect that reality. Laws need to be better implemented and enforced, so that no abuser goes unpunished or underpunished. In addition, mothers need to have access to counselling and other support, so that no one is left to suffer in silence.

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with environmental groups and communities regarding how it plans to deliver strong action on climate change, following the removal of the 2030 climate target. (S6F-03083)

Will the Scottish Government support my colleague Sarah Boyack’s amendments to place the purpose of a circular economy in Scotland in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, and my colleague Monica Lennon’s amendment to put in place a reusable nappy scheme that would represent concrete action to reduce consumption-based carbon emissions in Scotland? Will it also properly fund local authorities so that they can deliver the transformation that we need in our local communities?

If we close the petitions, we will be saying to the Government that the matter is closed. We will not be giving the Government the option to look at the possibility of working with the council or to come up with other solutions.

That was a powerful presentation from Rhoda Grant. Can we ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with local authorities, because so many hours are involved? Could we suggest a visit to the area by the committee?