Hansard

I am most happy to consider the anecdotal evidence and other issues that the member in charge mentioned in relation to the previous group and will also ask SLAB to detail what it is doing to implement the duties that are incumbent on it. That might help both the member in charge and the committee.Amendments 5 and 7, which are in my name, provide crucial clarity on when breach of an interdict is a criminal offence. Amendment 5 adjusts section 3 to define more clearly and limit the circumstances in which it will be a criminal offence to breach an interdict and to make it an offence to breach any future interdict with a live power of arrest that protects a person from abuse by their current or former spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. It retains the need for a power of arrest to be attached under the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 and, in addition, to apply only to interdicts that are granted once section 3 comes into force. Amendment 5 limits the categories of interdict to which section 3 applies by reference to the normally accepted categories of partners—in other words, spouses, civil partners and cohabiting couples. I will come to Rhoda Grant’s point in a moment, but we believe that our amendment 5 provides the required certainty and does not dilute our focus on domestic abuse by casting the net too widely. Amendment 7 clarifies that it is an offence to breach an interdict to which section 3 applies.I am happy to consider further with the member in charge and before stage 3 the issues that she has raised in her amendments. However, we have some concerns, and it would be useful to set them out on the record and for the benefit of members who are taking part in this important debate. Amendments 15 and 16 make it an offence to breach an interdict that protects a person from domestic abuse by a partner in an established relationship of a non-platonic nature and prohibit that partner from entering or remaining in a place, for example the family home. Amendments 15A and 15B offer alternatives, and amendment 15C sets out what a sexual relationship is.Amendment 5A seeks to amend Government amendment 5 by extending it to a partner in an established relationship of a non-platonic nature. I understand what the member in charge of the bill is trying to do. I can see the argument that people in other types of relationships—people who are not married, civil partners or cohabitants—might require to be protected in a similar way. We all probably accept that argument, but the difficulty lies in establishing what distinguishes people in those other types of relationships from people who are not in them. The fact that Rhoda Grant has offered drafting alternatives shows that there are difficulties in that area.What is “non-platonic”? What is “established”? Indeed, what is “a sexual relationship”? We all know—especially the lawyers among us—that litigation is made of the interpretation of such phrases. Phrases such as “non-platonic” and “a sexual relationship” leave much scope for complicated arguments to be made by defence lawyers in criminal proceedings, in which all of us—including non-lawyers—know that matters of definition are key.In Government, we wrestled with concepts such as intimate relationships and boyfriends and girlfriends, and concluded that it was difficult to go down that route because of the need for clarity on when a breach of an interdict becomes a criminal offence and because adopting a wider approach would, as I have said, reduce the focus on domestic abuse. In domestic abuse, the vulnerability of the victim might result from emotional, financial or physical dependency; a devotion to protect others, for example children; or a variety of those factors. Such aspects may feature more strongly in the context of relationships in which individuals are living or have lived together.We have other concerns about the amendments. Subsection (1) of the new section that amendment 15 proposes to insert would apply only to an interdict that was granted on the application of the person who sought to be protected, but it is possible that an interdict would be sought on their behalf. Subsection (2)(a) of the new section refers to interdicts that are granted for the purpose of protecting against domestic abuse, but it may not be clear what is covered by that. In addition, an interdict that was granted for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) of the new section would not necessarily protect against domestic abuse.It appears from amendment 16 that the intention is that a breach of an interdict to which section 3 applies will be a criminal offence, regardless of whether a power of arrest was attached to it, but amendment 18 provides that notifications of powers of arrest will have to include“a statement that, while the power of arrest is in effect, breach of the interdict is an offence”.Therefore, it appears that amendments 16 and 18 are contradictory. However, I share Rhoda Grant’s policy aim in amendment 18 of providing as much clarity as early as possible on when a breach of an interdict is a criminal offence. I emphasise that, as I have said, my officials and I are happy to discuss further with her how we can provide such clarity. Amendment 18 contains many useful ideas, which I wish to follow up with her.To sum up, I ask the committee to note that I will discuss further with the member in charge of the bill the issues relating to abuse of people who are not married, are in a civil partnership or are cohabiting, and the ideas behind amendment 18 on how to provide clarity at an early stage on when breach of an interdict will be a criminal offence. On that basis, I invite the committee to reject amendments 15, 15A to 15C, 16, 5A, 17 and 18, and to agree to Government amendments 5 and 7.