Hansard

It is clear from members’ speeches that there is total consensus in the chamber and across all the parties in the Parliament for the introduction of legislation to create a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct against a partner or ex-partner.

The current law focuses on individual incidents of physical violence or threatening behaviour that causes fear and alarm. However, the evidence from witnesses during the scrutiny of the bill established that there is a gap in the law in addressing abuse that is not restricted to physical abuse but that is controlling, coercive and psychological in nature. Put simply, there do not have to be black and blue bruises for an individual to have been the victim of domestic abuse.

As John Finnie and Liam McArthur confirmed, that was vividly brought home to committee members when they heard the harrowing and compelling private testimony of survivors who had been the victims of such abusive behaviour, which can leave psychological scars that endure many years after physical scars have healed. It took immense courage for those survivors to talk about their experiences, and the committee owes them a huge debt of gratitude.

Stage 2 amendments included a welcome provision for a statutory aggravation to cover a situation in which a child sees, hears or is present during an incident of partner abuse. The committee recommends that the disconnect between criminal and civil courts when deciding whether to grant child contact orders should be considered in the review of the law relating to children and key adults in their lives. I hope that Liam Kerr’s suggestion of one-family, one-sheriff domestic abuse hearings will also be considered.

Further evidence was taken at stage 2 on emergency barring orders, which would exclude an abuser from a victim’s home immediately. As the cabinet secretary stated, there are complexities here, and I therefore welcome his commitment to formally consult on the introduction of new powers in this area.

A minority of witnesses—including legal experts and Calum Steele from the Scottish Police Federation—expressed a concern that the new offence could inadvertently criminalise behaviour that, rather than being abusive, is nothing more than a normal heated exchange or disagreement. However, on balance, the committee was persuaded that, with the reasonableness test, and if the context and course of behaviour are taken into account, the threshold for criminalisation will not be too low.

Context is crucial, which is why I lodged a stage 2 amendment to include the idea of context in the bill. However, I did not press that amendment, because the cabinet secretary and, after reflecting on the point, Scottish Women’s Aid, considered it unnecessary and believed that the offence as drafted is the best form of words to achieve the purpose of the bill. I sincerely hope that they are both proved to be correct.

Linda Fabiani’s stage 3 amendment, which was agreed to today, introduces an assumption that a non-harassment order will be granted, and I commend her for her commitment to the issue.

The bill’s schedule makes welcome and long-overdue criminal law procedural reforms in an effort to ensure that the victim is not re-victimised by the criminal justice process. The reforms therefore prohibit the accused in domestic abuse cases from conducting their own defence or directly precognoscing the victim.

If the bill is to give the victims of psychological abuse the justice that they desperately seek, it is essential that sufficient resources are made available to adequately support victims and witnesses and that the new offence is the subject of a publicity campaign to encourage victims to come forward. I ask the cabinet secretary again to confirm that that will be the case, so that the bill will be legislation that the Parliament can be proud to have passed.