Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 08 February 2011

08 Feb 2011 · S3 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Ewing, Fergus SNP Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber Watch on SPTV

Thank you, convener. I am pleased to work with Rhoda Grant, precisely as she has indicated. At the stage 1 debate, I said that we were happy to do that. Both Rhoda Grant and the Government were helped considerably by the committee report, which was extremely useful. We have met Rhoda Grant and her advisers to discuss amendments. As she said, we agreed on a great many of them; where we disagreed, we reached a clear understanding of the lines of disagreement. I thank Rhoda Grant and her supporters for that co-operative approach, which will help us considerably to focus on the issues that we are considering today.I would like to respond at some length, to read into the record important matters that apply and to indicate why we support all the amendments.I begin with amendment 1. Section 1 of the bill inserts new section 8A into the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Section 8A is based on existing section 8 of the 1997 act but makes some modifications. The most significant difference is that section 8A does not refer to a “course of conduct”. The new section also includes a revised definition of conduct, which could include just being in certain locations, such as outside the victim’s home or workplace, or the school that the victim’s children attend. Such conduct might or might not involve speech.After considering the drafting, we concluded that the definition of conduct did not need to refer to“speech and presence in a specified place or area”.Instead, it is sufficient for the definition just to say what it intends to cover. Amendment 1 therefore provides that “conduct” includes “speech” and“presence in any place or area”.I turn to amendment 2. Proposed section 8A of the 1997 act is based on section 8 and applies many of the provisions of section 8, with modifications. Section 8(1) of the 1997 act provides that“a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment”.By contrast, proposed section 8A(1) provides that“a person must not engage in conduct which amounts to harassment”.However, section 8(4)(b) has not been modified to refer to conduct being “engaged in” rather than “pursued”. Amendment 2 makes that modification, which improves the consistency of the language.The Government also supports amendments 3 and 8, although those amendments relate to one of the most difficult areas of the bill: namely, whether or not a definition of domestic abuse is required. Allusion has already been made to that issue. I understand why the bill as introduced included a definition of domestic abuse in section 4, so there was clarity on what was meant. However, the definition attracted adverse comment from witnesses at stage 1. The Government agreed that it was too wide and could dilute the focus on abuse within a relationship. However, I considered that there was a strong argument for a definition, given that the bill criminalises breaches of some interdicts.I believe that we have reached a sensible solution. The definition of domestic abuse was not supported by witnesses and will be removed by amendment 8. However, amendment 5 in my name, which is in the third grouping of amendments, to which we will turn later, outlines which interdicts are to be covered by section 3 and provides the clarity that is needed in relation to criminalisation. The term “domestic abuse” is also used in section 2, but amendment 4 in my name, which is in the second grouping of amendments, would remove section 2.Amendment 3 means that the term “domestic abuse” in proposed section 8A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which is to be inserted by section 1 of the bill, will not be defined and will take its ordinary meaning. That may not be a perfect solution. It will place the onus on the courts to determine what is domestic abuse for the purposes of section 8A. However, the key point is that amendment 5 in my name will provide the clarity that is needed on exactly when a breach of an interdict is to be criminalised.On that basis, we support amendments 3 and 8, as well as amendments 1 and 2.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 08 February 2011

In the same item of business