Chamber and committees

Just out of interest, what do you think of the trams now that we have them?

As I said at the start, I will now give you an opportunity to add any final reflections before we draw the meeting to a close.

We will come back to two things that you touched on. One is the proposal in relation to a national memorial, because I realise that, in your lifetime of politics, we have seen memorials to the Piper Alpha disaster and the Lockerbie tragedy. It would be interesting to touch on what might be appropriate—or otherwise—in relation to the loss of life. That is one of the imperatives that drives forward the interest of the committee, and, in fact, it was the original raison d’être for the commitment.

The manifesto commitment from the Scottish National Party at the time did not make particular reference to economic wellbeing or the benefit of potential expansion in the north-east of Scotland. It made particular reference to the fact that dualling could lead to a significant reduction in the loss of life on the route. Was that not a prime motivator in the underpinning of the commitment?

Well, I do not know; I suppose that, arguably, either might be possible. In any event, welcome; I am delighted to have you with us this morning. We will move straight to questions, if that is okay. When we conclude, if we have not touched on anything that you think might be helpful, we would be pleased to hear it.

Let me start with Alex Neil’s evidence. In painting a picture of his meeting with civil servants on the original commitment to the A9, Alex Neil said that one of them kind of looked at him and said that they could be pursuing lots of other projects. Alex Neil replied, saying that the A9 project had one thing that none of those other projects had: “a manifesto commitment”. Indeed, it very much was a manifesto commitment of the Scottish National Party as it went into Government.

What was your commitment to the project, Mr Salmond, and your understanding of the credibility of what was being proposed and the Government’s ability to achieve it?

I will bring in David Torrance next.

First, I listened with interest this morning when you were on “Good Morning Scotland”, being asked questions similar to some of those that we are exploring—

It is an absolute delight to be able to bring a petition to the chamber for debate. I say that because, when the Parliament convened and I found that it fell to the Scottish Conservatives to convene the public petitions committee for the first time in the Parliament’s history, I fought very hard to have that opportunity. That is because I happen to believe that we have one of the finest petitions committee systems of any Parliament anywhere. That is not just because important issues such as free personal care for the elderly, the scandal of mesh and the extension of care to those who suffer from dementia at the age of 50 came to the Parliament through the committee, but because of the various people whom the committee hears from.

That includes young Callum Isted, who, at the age of seven, was the youngest person ever to bring a petition before the Scottish Parliament. He left a little disappointed in one respect because, when Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister, she promised him a tour of Bute house, but, unfortunately, she left office before that promise could be fulfilled. I catch out of the corner of my eye a man who might be able to fix that sin of omission. I say to John Swinney that he will have the undying gratitude of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee if young Callum Isted finally has the opportunity to have that tour. We wait to see whether that promise can be fulfilled.

I always say that I bring petitions to the chamber not with the mandate of any party election manifesto but with the mandate of the petitioner themselves. That is what motivates the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and that invariably unites us behind the aims of a petition. I speak today very much on behalf of the committee, but also on behalf of the petitioner, Nicola Murray, and all those affected by the issues that are raised in the petition.

I thank Mr Swinney for that observation. I also observe that we were able to take forward a petition to secure free transport for asylum seekers at the recent Conveners Group meeting with the sitting First Minister, who was able, at that time, to give a commitment and a promise to include that in the legislative programme. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is a committee that can achieve things.

I am pleased to discuss the petition that is before us. It was lodged in 2021 by Nicola Murray, who has, along with members of her family, joined us in the public gallery today. It calls for the creation of a specific offence that would enable courts to hand down longer sentences when miscarriage has been caused by acts of domestic violence.

In considering the issues that the petition raises, the committee was fortunate enough to hear directly from Nicola. I thank her for the courage and determination that she demonstrated back in 2022 in sharing with us her harrowing experience. It is no small matter to come to the Parliament to discuss these issues. [Applause.]

We must not underestimate how daunting it is for someone to share their personal experiences and present their case to a parliamentary committee. Nicola has also supported and campaigned on behalf of other women who have suffered pregnancy loss as a result of domestic abuse. Her resolve was instrumental in our decision to bring her petition to the chamber today.

In the current session of Parliament, we held a round-table discussion with Steven Tidy from Victim Support Scotland, Dr Mary Neal from the University of Strathclyde and Dr Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid, and I will refer to their evidence during my remarks.

There is currently a legal framework for responding to domestic abuse, and we recognise in particular the Scottish Government’s recent work through the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. The act created a new statutory offence of domestic abuse and, in particular, it allows for physical, psychological and controlling behaviour that is carried out over a sustained period to be prosecuted as a single course of conduct. The maximum penalty for an offence under the act is imprisonment for a term of up to 14 years.

A joint protocol exists between Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that outlines how domestic abuse cases should be handled. However, the current legal framework does not specifically recognise pregnancy loss as a result of domestic abuse. We heard about the impact on victims and the importance of having that specific type of abuse recognised in the justice system. We also heard that pregnancy can act as a trigger for the abuse beginning in the first place and that abuse can intensify during the pregnancy. We recognise that, at any time, pregnancy can be a very vulnerable time for any woman.

The evidence that we have gathered to date has been profoundly moving and extremely effective. In bringing the committee to a view on the issue, we made two recommendations to the Scottish Government following our evidence taking. The first was that the Scottish Government should undertake

“a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current legal framework in bringing forward prosecuting charges”

of this nature.

We heard that, in cases of domestic abuse, there are problems with the system, from initial contact with the police through to charging and prosecuting perpetrators. There have been positive steps, with additional Police Scotland funding to support training on the implementation of the 2018 act. However, despite that, it is clear that we can still do more to support survivors of domestic abuse.

Nicola Murray expressed the view that

“The justice system ... fails on many levels when it comes to domestic violence”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2.]

and that that deters women from even reporting in the first place.

Stakeholders warned us that the reported figures could be underrepresenting the scale of the problem because of the significant barriers to disclosure that women face. We heard that those barriers might be particularly acute in cases of coercive and controlling behaviour. Scottish Women’s Aid told us:

“coercive and controlling behaviour is the single variable that best predicts lethality, so it is critical that, if nothing else, police officers are able to identify whether coercive and controlling behaviours are being exhibited”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 9 November 2022; c 15.]

Scottish Women’s Aid also shared concerns that police risk assessments focus on physical abuse. We were told that women do not get the help and support that they need when they first reach out and that they will be deterred from seeking help in future.

Nicola Murray told the committee that

“it is a lottery as to whether”

the responding police officers will be knowledgeable about domestic abuse and that some officers will advise women

“that reporting ... is a waste of time”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2.]

or even blame victims for what they have gone through.

We understand that Police Scotland is working to improve its response to domestic abuse and that it is time for the 2018 act to be fully effective. However, we heard that Scotland has an implementation disorder and that more needs to be done.

We were concerned to hear that victims do not feel informed and supported when they report domestic abuse. We were told that communication is lacking when cases are taken to court, particularly when charges are reduced, and that the process of seeking justice often traumatises victims. In one of Nicola’s cases, the perpetrator took a deal to lessen his charge. In the end, he was ordered to pay her just £300 in compensation for the loss of her unborn child. Nicola described that as deeply inappropriate, given the trauma that she was caused. We heard of another case in which the perpetrator was ordered to pay just £50 in compensation for his actions.

Although this is not a political point, it is worth noting that provisions in other parts of the United Kingdom are much stronger in relation to the statutory offence of child destruction as an aggravating factor. In February last year, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans responded to our recommendations by highlighting research projects on the experiences of witnesses in domestic abuse cases. I look forward to hearing an update on that from the current cabinet secretary.

The committee’s second and more significant recommendation is that legislation should be introduced to create a specific statutory offence or a statutory aggravator of causing miscarriage through acts of violence. We heard from Nicola that the loss of her pregnancies impacted her entire family and that she was deeply traumatised and emotional. I will conclude by quoting Nicola:

“It is life impacting, not just for the victims but for their families. When I lost my pregnancies, I lost a child—I lost children—my children lost siblings and my parents lost grandchildren, so it impacts the entire family. Obviously, afterwards, it is deeply traumatising and emotional. It is not just that you have to deal with the loss itself; it is the circumstances of the loss and the fact that the perpetrator can get away with it so easily. It is often the case that they are not even charged at all. However, if they are ... the sentencing is inappropriate, which is like rubbing salt in the wounds of the victims. It is almost like saying to them that what happened meant nothing. That can add further trauma to the victims and their families, because they feel like they have not received justice.”

She said:

“I am very lucky that I have such an amazing family. My mum has been a tremendous support. I really do not know what I would have done without her. However, a lot of the women I engage with do not have family support, for whatever reason. They might have had to flee their homes and their support network of friends. They feel very vulnerable, very let down and, at times, almost hopeless. We need to change that, and we need to have an opportunity to do that.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2, 8-9.]

On behalf of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I hope that we can play a part in considering how we recognise, support and find justice for victims of that harrowing form of domestic abuse. I very much look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to the debate that will follow.

I move,

That the Parliament notes public petition PE1887 on creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences where miscarriage has been caused through acts of domestic violence.

Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—excuse my slightly hoarse voice. The first item on our agenda is a decision on taking items 4 and 5 in private. Item 4 relates to PE1975 and item 5 relates to the consideration of content for our annual report. Are members content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Given that that is the case, our questions might be quite focused and to the point. I do not think that we are pushing a stone up a hill, in the sense that the Government appears to have accepted the argument. However, it would be interesting to explore some of the issues underpinning the need for all of this.

That remains to be seen. Thank you, Mr Ewing.

Do any other colleagues wish to come in?