Chamber and committees

Men’s violence against women and girls continues to be a plague on Scottish society. Women and girls remain the victims on a spectrum of violence ranging from misogynistic conduct to violent sexual crimes. It is one of the most widespread, persistent and devastating human rights violations in our world today. Today’s debate falls within the United Nations 16 days of action campaign and represents an opportunity to take stock of our progress and consider what more can be done both from the justice perspective and by everyone in society.

We approach today’s debate and year end reeling from a series of public and disturbing examples of extreme violence against women. In the context of the Covid-19 restrictions and the consequent increases in many forms of gendered violence, we find the spotlight firmly focused on those issues and our responses. Society is rightly asking questions on prevalence, the attitudes of men, cultures of organisations and the role that the justice system plays in addressing those issues.

The question of whether gender matters to the justice sector is relevant to the debate. Is justice blind, when women’s experiences of crime are gendered? Achieving gender equality includes an obligation to address the underlying causes and structures of gender inequality, including discriminatory norms, prejudices and stereotypes. The justice system has a prominent role in setting out the parameters of what is expected from a modern progressive society. Our vision is for Scotland to be a country where women and girls have equal rights and equal access to power and resources, and where they can live their lives free from gender-based violence. We believe that Scotland can demonstrate international leadership by its commitment to equality.

The murders of Esther Brown, Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, the sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and many more are painful examples that show that, despite our collective efforts, we are faced with the sobering reality that women are dying at the hands of men. The latest United Kingdom femicide census found that, on average, a woman is killed by a man every three days. It is not a surprise that generations of women are unconvinced by our efforts to tackle perpetrator behaviour nor that they do not feel safe. The recent outcry from women regarding spiking and the boycotting of nightclubs demonstrate that women will not accept that.

“Equally Safe: Scotland’s strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls” makes the causal link between gender inequality and violence against women and girls. It has been credited as the basis for the groundbreaking Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which came into force in April 2019. With recent figures showing that 84 per cent of court proceedings are leading to a conviction, the act is living up to its reputation for being a global gold standard.

Our programme for government includes several ambitious commitments that recognise the unique opportunity that this Parliament has to consider transforming the justice system in order to benefit victims of gender-based violence. We are pressing forward with the consideration of Lady Dorrian’s review, including the introduction of specialist courts and measures to enhance victims’ rights. The recommendations included a pilot—which is being supported by the Scottish Government, justice partners and Rape Crisis Scotland—to reduce the trauma that is associated with going to court through the pre-recording of police statements for later use at trial. That initiative, which represents a fundamental shift in how evidence is captured, puts victims at the centre. It has continued throughout the pandemic, and we are now scaling it up with operational partners so that more people can access its benefits.

Incremental changes are not enough, because the justice system has historically been designed around the needs of men and not women. I think that we all agree that women deserve better, and I am pleased to be leading new work to develop a strategic approach to women in the justice system. That work will invest in developing an evidence base to demonstrate how experience of the justice system differs depending on gender and intersectionality. It will improve outcomes for women and build a case for system change where women are being failed. It will align with efforts to tackle the systemic inequality and disadvantage that women experience, which have been made worse by the pandemic.

Poverty, social security and housing are issues that are layered throughout people’s access to services, and they impact on women’s abilities to move forward. Lived experience is central to understanding that, so, earlier this month, we put out the first national tender to gather qualitative evidence to inform service design in relation to those who are involved in prostitution—a marginalised group that has experienced multiple barriers to support during the pandemic.

We are also committed to setting in place the right legislative environment to support and protect women. Our aspirations as a global leader in human rights include a new human rights bill that will incorporate into Scots law four United Nations human rights treaties including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. CEDAW compels us to

“take all appropriate measures ... To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women”

where they are

“based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes”.

It also obligates us to

“take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of

trafficking and the exploitation of women through prostitution.

That is highly relevant as we move forward with plans to design a new model for Scotland to challenge men’s demand for prostitution—a behaviour that strengthens and emboldens male entitlement and misogynistic attitudes. We must do all that we can to root out misogynistic behaviours in society. They cannot be allowed to go unchecked or to exist in plain sight. Baroness Helena Kennedy QC is looking at that very issue and exploring whether a stand-alone offence is needed to tackle misogynistic conduct. That work is vital and we stand ready to consider her recommendations and act swiftly.

The cabinet secretary and I spoke to Baroness Kennedy just last week and she confirmed that she is on track to meet the committee’s deadline of reporting to ministers by February next year.

Despite our best efforts to eliminate men’s violence against women and girls from society, it remains a daily occurrence. We must work relentlessly to challenge all the behaviours that facilitate and enable it. My vision is of a Scotland where women and girls are treated with respect, not one where we turn a blind eye to things such as abuse, violence and sex trafficking. I am determined to work across this Parliament and with our stakeholders to realise that vision.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the opportunity to highlight the 16 Days of Activism to End Gender-Based Violence and to reaffirm a strong commitment and programme of action to prevent and eradicate all forms of violence against women and girls; recognises the opportunity as Scotland emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic to transform its justice services, ensuring effective, efficient and resilient services that meet the needs of people and reflect the role for justice in a modern society; welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to setting in place the right legislative environment to support, enable and protect women and girls, including the introduction of world-leading human rights legislation furthering Scotland's international obligations; welcomes the planned establishment of a Governance Group comprising key stakeholders to progress the detailed consideration of the recommendations in the Lord Justice Clerk’s Review Group report, Improving the management of sexual offence cases, including the potential introduction of specialist courts, and to identify and prioritise recommendations that can be taken forward without legislative change; recognises and reflects on the advancements made and key achievements to date, including the delivery of a pilot to pre-record rape complainers’ statements; notes the progress of the Misogyny and Criminal Justice in Scotland Working Group, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy; acknowledges a new work stream to take a strategic approach to women in justice in the system to address the unique needs of women not currently being met, either as offenders or victims; commends the work of frontline criminal justice advocacy support services, which have worked tirelessly to redesign services and ensure that women and children can still access support throughout the pandemic, and encourages continued collaboration to ensure that the interests of victims of gender-based violence and those who rely on the justice system remain at the heart of necessary reforms, and to deliver a modern justice system fit for the future.

It is. We have committed to that. I want to have the most effective dog control regime. We have been talking about two acts. It is envisaged that the 2010 act should act as a preventative regime. We want people to be responsible dog owners by keeping their dogs under control and behaving when they are out, so that they do not become dangerous dogs, which is an issue that is covered by the 1991 act.

There is quite a complex interplay, with dog wardens at one end and Police Scotland and the Crown at the other. There is an opportunity to look at everything in the round and to see whether the legislation needs to be strengthened, although I think that we all agree that it does need to be strengthened. There is an opportunity to consider all those factors. Miles Briggs has raised a good point.

Absolutely. I have had conversations with the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home about the issue. As you said, it and a number of smaller stakeholders with expertise in the area want to contribute to the development of the work. We will expand the working group, because we want to ensure that we have the right expertise on it. We are moving from considering operational issues relating to the 2010 act to considering wider policy and legislative changes. We will keep Miles Briggs’s point in mind.

The provisions in the 2010 act control what we can do in establishing the database, and they are very specific. The act sets out what data we can hold and who can access it. At the moment, we are able to enact only what the act’s provisions give us the power to enact. That is what we have done; we have gone as far as we can. We have followed the act’s provisions in laying the draft order that is in front of the committee. That is why the order refers only to the organisations that you mentioned.

You are right to say that there is the potential for other organisations with an interest to be able to access the database and for additional data to be held on it. When the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee considered the matter, there were questions about whether the database should hold additional data. For example, should it hold all the complaints that have been made about the conduct of a certain dog? Should it contain information on whether a DCN has been breached? At the moment, such data is not able to be held on the database because there are only specific provisions that we are allowed to enact.

However, I am going through a process of looking at what needs to be done to improve the enforcement of the provisions in the 2010 act. This session is part of that process. In the previous session, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee produced a report on the issue—which I am sure this committee will have seen—and recommended that that work be done.

We have now moved on to review the wider regime of dog control. That includes consideration of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which I am committed to reviewing. We will go through a number of steps in doing that. Once we have done that, we will introduce—I hope, in this parliamentary session—a bill on the control of dogs regime. If we want to change the database to allow additional information to be held and additional organisations to access it, that needs to be done through primary legislation, and the forthcoming bill will give us an opportunity to do that. We are actively considering including all those things in that bill.

That is an important point. From the beginning of the process of developing the database, we have involved the Information Commissioner’s Office. Obviously, the database will contain personal data, and we are required to ensure that the data is used and held appropriately.

The Government carried out a data protection impact assessment. I hope that the committee has that assessment as part of the documents that accompany the draft order, so members can have a look at that if they are interested in the detail. The ICO was also involved in the preparation of the draft order, and it is content with the policy as it stands.

There is a little complexity in relation to joint data sharing and so on, so a process needs to be worked through. The Improvement Service has what it calls framework service agreements, which will cover data sharing between all the organisations that are data controllers. Those agreements will need to be in place with all 32 local authorities. Local authorities will be issued with those agreements, and they have a statement of work that they will need to sign up to before the database goes live.

Have I missed anything out, Jim?

Yes, we have. We have had quite a large amount of consultation with local authorities and others on the design and implementation of the database. I will ask Jim Wilson to give some of the detail of that.

Right at the beginning of the process, I initiated direct engagement with Councillor Kelly Parry, who is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities spokesperson for community safety and wellbeing. That was to ensure that COSLA was sighted on what we were doing and to get its full involvement in the plan for initiating the design of the database and so on. I think that I have met her twice over the past year—I ask Jim Wilson to confirm whether that is right.

No, that would not be an offence under the 2010 act. We might look at that as part of our review in relation to potential future legislation.

That issue could be considered, but I think that that is more to do with animal welfare. I think that there is a reporting duty in the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020. I did not work on that legislation, but there might be opportunities for justice and animal welfare colleagues to work together on such issues. I know that Jim Wilson works with them, so he might be able to give the committee an update.

Good morning. I thank the committee for inviting me to speak about the draft order that has been laid for Parliament’s approval. I very much welcome the opportunity to give evidence. I also thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its consideration of the draft order earlier this month.

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 introduced the dog control notice regime. Local authority dog wardens are able to issue a dog control notice to a dog owner who allows their dog to be out of control. The civil notice can contain a number of conditions, such as the need to muzzle the dog or to keep it on a lead whenever it is in a public place. Breach of a dog control notice is a criminal offence.

Section 8 of the 2010 act provides the Scottish ministers with an enabling power to make an order to establish a national database of dog control notices. The intention of the draft order is to provide for the establishment of such a database. Each local authority already has a statutory responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of every dog control notice that it has issued, but the national database will bring together the records of all local authorities in a centralised database that will be accessible to local authorities and Police Scotland. The database will be a valuable tool in improving the effectiveness of the 2010 act.

The information that will be held on the database will include the name of the person to whom the dog control notice applies, the address of that person, and information relating to the dog, such as whether it is microchipped and the name of the animal.

That is a brief overview of the draft order. I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee has about it.