Hansard

When I was first elected to the Parliament, in 2003, one of the first debates in which I spoke was on domestic abuse. I referred to a song by Charlie Rich that was written in 1973, which contained certain lyrics that neatly sum up the problematic and complex nature of domestic abuse—namely that

“no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.”

That song was written 43 years ago but, sadly, the problem is very much still with us today, although progress has undoubtedly been made.

That progress has included Police Scotland focusing on domestic abuse as a priority and adopting a proactive approach to tackling it. That makes sense on two levels. First, it sends out an uncompromising message about the gravity of the crime, to deter perpetrators. Secondly, on a practical level, reducing instances of domestic abuse by adopting early intervention has proved to be effective preventative spend, as it cuts the—on average—approximately 6 hours that it takes officers to deal with such cases.

In addition, the establishment of a specialised domestic abuse unit within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has helped to ensure that more prosecutions can be secured. However, the union that represents procurators fiscal has noted during the past two years’ budget scrutiny that the complexity of domestic abuse cases is having a subsequent adverse knock-on effect in the courts and in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Another welcome measure is Clare’s law, which was introduced in Scotland on 1 October 2015. It allows people who have doubts or reservations about their new partner’s behaviour to apply to the police to find out whether that person has a history of domestic abuse. It makes sense that the Government continues to make victims and potential victims aware of Clare’s law, which—crucially—could be a preventative measure,

The Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in March, introduced a statutory aggravator that allows judges to take into account any domestic abuse circumstances in deciding on an appropriate sentence, which could result in the perpetrators of domestic abuse receiving tougher sentences. The Law Society of Scotland expressed reservations, which I shared, about the aggravator applying to a first offence as opposed to second and/or subsequent offences for behaviour that is categorised as reckless. Only time will tell whether the statutory aggravator will result in secure prosecutions in cases of recklessness.

As many members have said, domestic abuse manifests itself in many forms, the most tangible being violent behaviour resulting in physical abuse. The women and children who do not come to organisations such as Women’s Aid need not only emotional support: assistance with practical issues such as housing, safety planning, finance and legal protection are all vital and often present barriers to women who are seeking to move away from an abusive situation. Leaving an abusive partner can have many implications for women; many lose their homes, are forced to move around, are alienated from support networks and friends, lose access to childcare, are forced to disrupt their children’s routines and education and often incur financial hardship—to name only a few implications.

More elusive and difficult to establish is verbal abuse, which is often coupled with financial and/or emotional manipulation and control. That latter aspect—the psychological aspect of abuse—is often the most insidious. The proposal to create a specific domestic abuse offence seeks to address that. It is a laudable objective and one that we on this side of the chamber support, in principle.

However, as has been evidenced by the responses to the Scottish Government’s two consultations on the draft offence dealing specifically with psychological abuse and engaging in coercive and controlling behaviour, the devil is in the detail. For example, there were in the consultation conflicting views on a number of provisions, including the following: the reasonableness test and whether it is open to manipulation; prosecution of a course of behaviour as opposed to a single event; providing the defence of intent being well intentioned; how to evidence harm caused; the definition itself being non-exhaustive; the 10-year penalty being sufficient to reflect the seriousness of a charge that has been brought on indictment; and, which has already been referred to by the cabinet secretary, the absence of any reference to the impact on children. The list goes on.

Suffice it to say that there is a concern that the draft offence would not be robust enough to provide legal certainty of prosecution and criminalisation. That concern is coupled with questions about the sufficiency of resources to ensure effective prosecution. Clearly, there is much to be done before there is confidence that the new offence will be fit for purpose to deal with that insidious aspect of domestic abuse.

In the meantime, I urge the cabinet secretary to address any potential problems and to raise awareness about the ways in which victims of domestic abuse can protect their anonymity and identity when registering to vote. That fundamental freedom is often denied to victims because they fear that their whereabouts will become known. I will be grateful if the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs addresses that specific point in her closing remarks.