Meeting of the Parliament 24 November 2015
I have chaired two justice committees—one in the first session of this Parliament and one now, in its fourth session—so I will focus on legislation that we have put through Parliament, although I am the last person to say that legislation is a cure-all. I note what the minister has said about trying to define domestic abuse in legislation and I wish her well in that. It will be difficult, but not impossible.
The Justice Committee in the first session introduced its own bill—now that is breaking news—which became the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. We did that because, at that time, someone could get an interdict against an abusive partner only under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. Therefore, they had to be married and in the matrimonial home. We wanted a power of arrest to be attached to all interdicts that involved any abuse, so we introduced that bill. We have moved on a lot since then, but that was a beginning.
Recent measures that have been brought before this session’s Justice Committee, such as the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, have tried to do their bit by ensuring that witnesses—the main witness in a case is often the victim—have some protection in the judicial process from the minute when they speak to the police about what happened to the point of judgment and that witnesses are talked about and treated appropriately. They are vulnerable, so they should be taken through the court process in a fashion that they can understand. The language can often be bewildering.
If somebody has pled or there is a judgment, victims and witnesses should understand what that means. If there is an interim order for bail, they should know what that bail order means, because bail exists to protect them—I will come to that later. That legislation pertains to all victims and witnesses, but it is particularly relevant to people who are vulnerable because of domestic abuse, including rape and sexual assault.
In passing, I congratulate Chief Constable Sir Stephen House—we do not hear that often in the Parliament. He put at the top of the agenda bringing domestic abuse into focus and ensured that it became a priority that was delivered right down to grass-roots, front-line policemen. So it should be. Those officers are sensitive to the difficulties in dealing with such victims.
The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which came before the Justice Committee, has been referred to. I will focus on the abuse of women in prostitution. It was important that we made it plain that trafficking may involve crossing continents, let alone countries, but trafficking can also mean trafficking from Scottish town to Scottish town—indeed, from flat to flat. Trafficking need not be international; it can be very local.
That act provides protection to those exploited women and young girls. Some of them do not know that they are being exploited because they come from such a devastating background that they do not realise what is happening to them. It is hellish where they come from, and what is happening is just slightly better. However, in our terms, we know fine that that is trafficking and exploitation. The act aims to make them feel secure in coming forward and to protect them once they have given evidence when serious organised crime might be involved, which it often is.
We are now taking evidence on the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill. I make it plain that that is not about domestic abuse per se; it is about the aggravation of a crime that has taken place that involved a degree of domestic sexual abuse, which would bring a more severe penalty.
A separate issue has been raised before. In these days of Facebook, the internet, sexting and so on, much threatening behaviour and embarrassment comes from images on the internet—indeed, they may drive somebody to suicide. We are not sure whether dealing with images is sufficient; we will come to a view on that in due course. The bill is trying to make inroads into a difficult area in which the technology will—no doubt—be one step ahead of us. As someone on one of our panels said today, the ink will hardly be dry on the legislation before we will find that there is some other activity. However, we will try our best.
As I have always said, legislation is not the cure-all; in fact, we sometimes have too much of it. Legislation is just part of the prescription. Education at primary school is a huge part of the issue. Others have referred to a changing culture. We have now introduced Clare’s law, which gives a degree of protection and gives the police discretion in finding out whether someone has a track record that a new partner should be aware of.
The legislation that we have now is not working. We heard evidence today from a young woman who, despite all kinds of orders—harassment, bail and stalking orders—lives a life that she described as “survival”. She expects to see her ex-husband prowling nearby in a very threatening manner at any moment in any day. The Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill may help.
I and, I am sure, the committee have concerns that bail orders are regularly breached and that apparently only fines are imposed. On paper, the bail order might say not to approach Miss X, but Miss X will have been through hell for years with the person through the civil courts and the criminal courts. The breach of the bail order about not approaching her will be a major thing in her life that involves her entire family in providing unpaid security protection, as it were, for her. The failure of that approach is so serious that we should pick up on it.
I caution members—particularly, if she will forgive me, Nanette Milne—about suggesting that politicians should meddle with judicial independence. Even if we disagree with a decision—it might or might not have a good basis—we will not have heard all the evidence. I would always want to respect the lines that are drawn between politicians and the judiciary.
I have concerns about that case, and perhaps in general where bail is being breached and the orders that we have provided to protect women are not strong enough, but it must not be for us to tell the judges what to do. If what they must do is not in statute, we must make sure that through their judicial training they learn to see the value of their judgments and the weight that must be put on them. That is a small cautionary note, but I am glad that the debate has been consensual.
15:25