Hansard

The debate has been interesting. It is clear that the bill is required and that it has the potential to save lives, so we need to get it right. The bill has unanimous support, but members from all parties have expressed concerns about how it has been drafted and how it will work in practice.

John Finnie asked whether the bill fills a gap. Sadly, there is a gap that needs to be filled. Victims are often forced to leave their home and become homeless because they have suffered abuse. Many will return home because they are unable to cope with homelessness, and the abuse then continues—if anything, it gets worse, because the perpetrator knows that their victim has no other option. As Shona Robison said, many victims stay simply because they cannot face the homelessness that they would experience if they decided to leave.

A number of members talked about the evidential threshold for the use of a DAPN or a DAPO, and asked how people would know when those measures should be used and whether the test should be one of significant harm. I believe that that would set the bar far too high; I agree with Rona Mackay’s call for caution in setting such a bar. How would we define “significant harm”? I believe that if there is a reason to suspect that domestic abuse has occurred or will occur, a notice must be put in place. As Pauline McNeill pointed out, the notices cover coercive control as well, and any threshold that is put in place needs to take that into account.

Like others, I welcome the announcement that an implementation board will be set up to work through the concerns. That needs to happen before stage 2, but it should have happened earlier; I agree with Liam Kerr that it should have been done well in advance of the bill’s introduction.

A number of members raised issues that have to be dealt with regarding the implementation of the bill. There are things that simply do not work. Liam Kerr highlighted police concerns about the lack of partnership working and the question of who can apply for an extension. The proposal that a DAPN can be issued by an inspector or someone above that rank caused concern, because it was pointed out that an inspector would very seldom attend a report of domestic abuse. However, perhaps that would provide for checks and balances in the system, because a constable who attended a domestic abuse complaint would have to go back to the inspector and persuade them that a notice needed to be put in place as they suspected that there would otherwise be a risk to the victim of domestic abuse.

Those things have not been made clear in the bill, and people are left wondering how it will work in practice. The implementation board must deal with such issues quickly, so that we can ensure that the bill is fit for purpose and does what it is intended to do.

A number of speakers talked about how the views of children, and not only those of the victim, should be sought before a notice or order is put in place. That would be almost impossible with notices, which are to be used in emergency situations. The sheriff should certainly seek children’s views, as well as those of the victim, before an order is put in place. That must be done in a way that does not further traumatise the child. I am glad that the cabinet secretary is looking at that.

Pauline McNeill and Liam McArthur talked about the NSPCC’s findings on the need for protection for children. During the pandemic, there has been a frightening increase in the number of children seeking help due to domestic abuse. We must put protection in place for them—they should be protected in their own right by the bill.

A number of speakers mentioned human rights. Adam Tomkins asked whether the bill’s provisions are in keeping with human rights. I believe that they are; they are certainly in keeping with the Istanbul convention, which the Scottish Government has signed up to. The court will have judicial oversight of domestic abuse protection orders, and the subject of such an order can also make representations to the court. Their human rights are in no way infringed.

There were concerns that the length of time for which the notices and orders will apply could lead to human rights violations. Notices will go to court very quickly; indeed, the police expressed concerns about how quickly that will happen. Given that there is no judicial oversight of the notice, the sooner that it is in court, the better. The order, however, must apply for long enough to allow the victim to find protection in their own right and to have that put in place.

Pauline McNeill also talked about whether removing someone from their own home affects their human rights and whether they have to be rehoused. We must remember that the bill exists because women and children are being forced out of their homes every day by domestic abuse. Redressing the balance to ensure that it is the perpetrator who leaves is the right thing to do. However, at stage 2, we must consider whether the police have a responsibility to ensure that the perpetrator is not made homeless.

We support the general principles of the bill and will vote for it at decision time.