Hansard

The Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support any attempt to improve protection for those at risk of domestic abuse, particularly when they are living with the perpetrator of that abuse. In that context, we will be happy to support the principles of the bill at decision time, not least because they broadly reflect the policy adopted by the Scottish Liberal Democrats back in 2019.

That said, and as others have mentioned, it is clear that work is needed to address the practical concerns raised by various witnesses at stage 1, not least Police Scotland. However, I will start, as others have done, by thanking all those who have helped the committee to get to this point, notably the witnesses who gave both written and oral evidence, our clerks and SPICe. They and we have not been helped by the truncated timeframe for scrutiny, which the convener referred to. Given the nature and the complexity of the issues raised by the bill, that is far from ideal.

However, the principles of the bill are sound. They reflect those of the Istanbul convention, which is already in place in countries such as the Netherlands, Austria, Germany and Spain as well as in England and Wales, all of which have introduced short-term protective orders aimed at tackling domestic abuse.

In Scotland, as the cabinet secretary reminded us, current civil measures place the onus on the victim to apply for orders. Under the bill, the police would be able to impose a protection notice and thereafter apply to the court for a protection order, which could place requirements and prohibitions on a suspected perpetrator of domestic abuse. Those include removing a suspected perpetrator from a home shared with the person at risk of abuse and prohibiting them from contacting or otherwise abusing the person who is at risk while the order is in effect.

As well as protecting those at risk of domestic abuse, we need to improve outcomes for victims in relation to housing. Creating a new ground on which a social landlord can apply to the court to end the tenancy of a perpetrator of abusive behaviour, with a view to transferring the tenancy to the victim, is another welcome step. It matters—we know that over 60,000 domestic abuse instances were recorded by Police Scotland in 2018-19. At the same time, around 4,500 homelessness applications were made due to a

“violent or abusive dispute within a household”.

The vast majority of those applications were from women, half of whom had children. Domestic abuse is the single biggest reason for a homelessness application by women.

Those alarming numbers were on the increase before Covid, and nobody seriously expects that trend to have been reversed during the pandemic; indeed, the situation is quite the reverse, as the NSPCC reported earlier this month.

Therefore, the provisions of the bill are welcome and timely. Nevertheless, in a practical sense, as the committee heard repeatedly, the bill as drafted lacks clarity. The Law Society said that there is a risk of

“a proliferation of potentially overlapping measures”.

Indeed, the Government acknowledged the existing criminal and civil law provisions that could be used to remove a suspected perpetrator of abuse.

The thresholds for DAPNs also give rise to concerns for the Law Society, relating to the evidential basis that will be required for the police to take such a step. That needs to be proportionate if it is to be consistent with an individual’s ECHR rights. A DAPN can be imposed only by a senior police officer at the rank of inspector or above, but how would that work in practice?

There was also some disquiet about the threshold for taking action, as the phrase “reasonable grounds for believing” is at odds with the existing threshold, which opens up the potential for confusion. Although witnesses did not expect the power to be used extensively, greater clarity is essential.

The committee heard mixed views on the question of what the maximum duration of a DAPO should be. The Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and Scottish Women’s Aid argued that the proposed three-month period is too short, but concerns were also expressed about the ECHR implications of going beyond that, and my committee colleagues and I certainly understood and empathised with that.

Seeking the consent of those who are deemed at risk before implementing a DAPN or DAPO might be problematic, but the committee heard compelling evidence about the need to ensure that women’s voices are heard and reflected in the process, and the bill will need to find a way of achieving that. Although an automatic referral to support organisations might be a step too far, a presumption or even an opt-out provision as proposed by Scottish Women’s Aid does not seem unreasonable. Police Scotland assured the committee that such referrals routinely take place, but placing such a provision in the bill might offer further reassurance.

The point that the Shetland domestic abuse partnership made about the age threshold deserves further consideration. A perpetrator need not be 18 or over and can be as young as 16, so the bill needs to reflect that fact. That is also a reminder that, sadly, domestic abuse blights every community across Scotland. In my constituency, the campaign “Tak A Stand Orkney. It Does Happen Here” effectively says it all. I commend those behind the campaign for the work that they do in encouraging the reporting of abuse.

The bill is important; it can deliver real improvements for those who are affected by domestic abuse. However, changes are needed at stage 2 to give it the clarity, certainty and scope that it requires to be effective. I look forward to working with committee colleagues to achieve that goal. In the meantime, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will of course support the bill at decision time.