Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 16 March 2011
16 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We believe that it covers boyfriend and girlfriend situations. We accept that the wording that we have come up with covers a wide variety of relationships. Ultimately, we have accepted the advice of the Scottish Government legal department to use the wording in this way, because we believe that that best covers the need to protect those who are in a relationship that is not a husband-and-wife relationship or a civil-partnership relationship—in other words, one that is a boyfriend-and-girlfriend relationship. Sadly, that non-formalised relationship is a type of relationship in which there are not just hundreds or a few thousand but, perhaps, more than 10,000 instances a year in which there is a need for interdict and protection. I hope that that is clear.
I can confirm that, as I have already said, family members are not covered by the amendment. I hope that that clarification is welcomed by members of the committee, who, I appreciate, put a great deal of time and effort into carefully considering these matters.
When interpreting the provision on boyfriends and girlfriends, I expect that the courts will follow the principle of interpretation, whereby words that have a wide meaning but which are associated in the text with words that have a more limited meaning are taken to be restricted, by implication, to matters of the same character. That formal principle of interpretation will, I believe, help matters when it comes to the task that judges will have with regard to interpreting these provisions.
The reference in amendment 4 to “personal” is designed to exclude business partners, workmates and other relationships that are professional and social, as opposed to personal. Any abuse between, for example, business partners and workmates may well be shocking and disgraceful, but it would not be regarded as domestic abuse.
For the breach of an interdict to be a criminal offence, a number of factors must be in place. The interdict must be granted on or after the point at which section 3 comes into force; there must be a determination that the interdict is a domestic abuse interdict; there must be an extant power of arrest; and the power of arrest and the determination must have been served on the interdicted person. On boyfriends and girlfriends, we consider that the amendment achieves the objective of protecting boyfriends and girlfriends without casting the net too widely. We have had the opportunity in this debate to pin down that matter and, I hope, answer the concerns that were expressed by Mr Brown and Mr Aitken. Therefore, the Government supports the amendments.
I can confirm that, as I have already said, family members are not covered by the amendment. I hope that that clarification is welcomed by members of the committee, who, I appreciate, put a great deal of time and effort into carefully considering these matters.
When interpreting the provision on boyfriends and girlfriends, I expect that the courts will follow the principle of interpretation, whereby words that have a wide meaning but which are associated in the text with words that have a more limited meaning are taken to be restricted, by implication, to matters of the same character. That formal principle of interpretation will, I believe, help matters when it comes to the task that judges will have with regard to interpreting these provisions.
The reference in amendment 4 to “personal” is designed to exclude business partners, workmates and other relationships that are professional and social, as opposed to personal. Any abuse between, for example, business partners and workmates may well be shocking and disgraceful, but it would not be regarded as domestic abuse.
For the breach of an interdict to be a criminal offence, a number of factors must be in place. The interdict must be granted on or after the point at which section 3 comes into force; there must be a determination that the interdict is a domestic abuse interdict; there must be an extant power of arrest; and the power of arrest and the determination must have been served on the interdicted person. On boyfriends and girlfriends, we consider that the amendment achieves the objective of protecting boyfriends and girlfriends without casting the net too widely. We have had the opportunity in this debate to pin down that matter and, I hope, answer the concerns that were expressed by Mr Brown and Mr Aitken. Therefore, the Government supports the amendments.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson)
NPA
We move to the next item of business. While members are changing places, I inform them that they should have before them the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill a...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is in a group on its own.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
Before I speak to amendment 1, I thank the minister and his civil servants for their help in lodging the amendments. It was very much appreciated and I hope ...
The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing)
SNP
I express my gratitude for the way in which Rhoda Grant has approached the necessary amendments to the bill from stage 2. We appreciate that, and our officia...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Amendment 2, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 3 and 4.
Rhoda Grant
Lab
Amendment 2 will amend section 3(1)(za), so that it refers to the determination being granted under the new section that will be inserted by amendment 4. The...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con)
Con
There were always going to be definitional difficulties. There is no doubt that when we sat down to establish whether a route forward was ascertainable, it w...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
I agree with much of what Bill Aitken said. It seems to me that proposed new subsection (2)(d) in particular has distinct difficulties. First, despite Rhoda ...
Fergus Ewing
SNP
These are important amendments. Following stage 2, two main issues were outstanding: the labelling of interdicts and interdicts protecting a girlfriend or bo...
Robert Brown
LD
Would the amendment, therefore, cover relationships between brother and sister or parent and child as well as the other categories that the committee was car...
Fergus Ewing
SNP
That is not our intention in respect of amendment 4. We have framed the wording carefully to cover boyfriends and girlfriends.
Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
The committee was concerned about the problem that could be associated with extending the definition to boyfriends and girlfriends, which Robert Brown has ju...
Fergus Ewing
SNP
As I said, that is not our intention. As members will appreciate, the drafting has been framed carefully by the Scottish Government legal department, with ad...
Robert Brown
LD
The minister said earlier that the wording covered not necessarily sexual relationships but perhaps emotional relationships. I am at somewhat of a loss to un...
Fergus Ewing
SNP
We believe that it covers boyfriend and girlfriend situations. We accept that the wording that we have come up with covers a wide variety of relationships. U...
Rhoda Grant
Lab
I concur with what the minister said. The only thing that I would add concerns what Robert Brown said about latitude in the amendment. We have not defined do...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
That ends consideration of amendments.