Hansard

This has been a very good debate. I welcome the contributions from across the chamber, and I welcome the fact that each and every member we have heard from will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, following this stage 1 debate, for which I am grateful.

I am also grateful for members’ feedback. I know that, in the midst of a global pandemic, it is difficult to have the conversations that we would normally have had on the bill—the process has undoubtedly been truncated—but I appreciate the fact that we have a comprehensive stage 1 report. Once again, I thank the Justice Committee for its report, the clerking team for the effort that it put in and all those who gave evidence to the committee.

I will spend some time addressing some of the areas of concern that were raised by members—I have taken a fair number of notes on some of them. A number of members, including Rhoda Grant, John Finnie, Rachael Hamilton and Liam Kerr, raised the interaction of a DAPN or DAPO with other core orders, particularly those relating to the children of the person against whom a DAPO is made.

To be clear from the outset, it is a criminal offence, as the bill highlights, to breach any of the terms of a DAPO or a DAPN without reasonable excuse. The fact that a contact or residence order was in effect would not change that; it would not prevent a DAPN or DAPO from taking effect. I note the committee’s view, as articulated by a number of members, that the bill should make provision to make that absolutely clear. I will give careful consideration to that recommendation. However, I would need to ensure that an amendment to that effect would not risk calling into question provisions in other legislation where the issue is not made explicit. As ever, I would wish to ensure that such an amendment would not introduce any unintended adverse consequences. I should add that it is not unusual for courts to take into account child contact orders in imposing other orders, such as exclusion orders or non-harassment orders.

A number of members referenced home detention curfew in relation to the interaction of a DAPO or a DAPN with requirements on a person to remain at a particular address. Rhoda Grant, in particular, mentioned that issue in her opening speech, and I addressed it when I gave evidence to the committee. The answer is quite straightforward in a sense. The police may well impose a DAPN if they think that one is necessary to protect a person at risk of domestic abuse, and the court may well impose a DAPO if it considers that one is necessary for the same reason, although doing so may affect existing conditions to which a person is subject, such as staying at a particular address as part of their release on HDC. When a DAPN or DAPO is imposed, it will be for Police Scotland to ensure that the information about that development is passed on to the relevant agency. For HDC, that will be the Scottish Prison Service, and for release on licence, it will be the local authority supervising officer and the Scottish ministers.

Effective operational engagement will clearly be needed. It will essentially be for the authorities concerned—the SPS or the local authority supervising officer—to determine whether the individual can remain on HDC or under their licence conditions without being recalled back to custody, or whether the circumstances of the imposition of the DAPN or DAPO merit recall. I will ensure that the issue is discussed at the Government-chaired implementation board, but I do not think that it is as complex as some members perhaps—[Interruption.] I will continue.

A number of members also raised the potential extension of powers so that other organisations could apply to the courts for a DAPO, particularly local authorities and registered social landlords, which often have to respond to domestic abuse cases.

In some cases, it might be helpful for such organisations to apply for a DAPO on behalf of a person at risk rather than have to approach the police. I know that the Justice Committee has indicated in its report that that could be considered in the future. If Parliament passes the bill, and in light of experience of the scheme’s operation, I agree that it could be considered.

A number of members, including John Finnie, Pauline McNeill and Rhoda Grant, raised the question whether the suspected perpetrator should be offered more than advice and assistance. I carefully listened to opinions on that point and remain of the view that the provision in the bill is appropriate. My concern is that, if we were to impose a further duty on social landlords, they might be reluctant to use the powers that the bill provides. Existing homelessness legislation places a duty on local authorities to provide support and accommodation to those who present as homeless.

John Finnie said that he was concerned that the bill gives the police the powers of a court of law. I have a fundamental disagreement with him on that point, which I am happy to take further in conversation with him offline. It is because we are so concerned about the ECHR implications of any DAPN and because we believe that judicial oversight is required for such significant powers that the timescale within which a police officer has to apply to the court for a DAPO—they must do so on the next court day—is so narrow. I am happy to take those issues up with John Finnie.

Rachael Hamilton asked how DAPNs would be issued in practice. I refer her to similar provisions in England and Wales, where the majority of protective orders are issued at the police station. I take the point that, in some cases, an individual might refuse to go to a police station. In those cases, the police could return to the address and issue an individual with a DAPN. If that individual was not at their address—which is not an uncommon situation for Police Scotland to face—the police would use the necessary powers to track down that individual.

Rachael Hamilton also asked about financial abuse. That comes under the definition of domestic abuse; I should add that ex-partners are also covered in the bill. However, it may be an issue if individuals live separately, in which case a DAPO might not be the correct remedy.

The debate has been good and has helped me to understand members’ main concerns. I look forward to working with members across the parties to address a number of them.

Regardless of the concerns that individual members and their parties have, I have no doubt that we are all united in ensuring that the police have every possible tool to help tackle the scourge of domestic abuse—a cancer in our society that has been of great concern, particularly during lockdown periods. I commit to working with members across the chamber, operational partners and victim support organisations, and I look forward to further engagement on the bill.