Hansard

I make it clear to the committee that I fully intend to include so-called honour killings in the review model. However, there is on-going work that needs to be concluded before that can be achieved. I am referring to work that is currently being undertaken by the Scottish Government and stakeholders to develop a policy definition of what so-called honour abuse means in a Scottish context. That will lay the foundation of how we then look to define such deaths for review purposes.

Although I share Ms Dowey’s ambition to bring so-called honour killings into the scope of the review model, I cannot support amendments 60 to 76 or amendments 78 to 91, for a number of reasons. I acknowledge Ms Dowey’s remarks about her intentions, but I will go through the reasons anyway, because it is helpful to put them on the record—it will, I hope, help us as we work together.

The first reason why I cannot support the amendments is that, at present, neither familial homicide nor honour killings is defined in a Scottish context. Although I recognise that amendment 67 includes time for a definition of familial homicide to be developed, there is no such work under way. My understanding is that there is not sufficient appetite to include familial homicide without an honour context in the model, although there is a strong desire to see so-called honour killings included.

I turn from the regulation-making power to the amendments that would include the extra category of death in the model with immediate effect. Those amendments look to define so-called honour killings in fairly broad terms in order to capture the wider set of relationships that such abuse and deaths include. However, the consequences of broadening the scope in such a way are that it would significantly expand the model and create delivery risks.

The broadening of the scope to include familial homicide would also cover circumstances in which there is no domestic abuse link or so-called honour killing link. Such deaths go outwith the focus of the proposed review model and would risk overwhelming it if they were to be included from the outset.

The amendments make no reference to the important context of perceived—I emphasise that it is perceived—dishonour and shame that a victim is said to have brought upon their family, extended family and community. At the same time, I am concerned that the definition is too narrow in the context of so-called honour killings, as it captures only close family members and does not cover the full range of possible perpetrators. Therefore, although the definition is, on the one hand, too broad and would bring a wider range of deaths into the model scope, it is, at the same time, likely too narrow and would cut across the work that is being undertaken by stakeholders to define what so-called honour abuse means in a Scottish context.

For similar reasons, I cannot support amendment 67, which would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations in relation to both familial homicide and honour killings. The coverage—which includes familial homicide, not just honour killings—is too broad. However, I give my commitment that reviews will be extended to include so-called honour killings. In the event that there is a desire in the future to include broader familial homicide, the bill already contains powers to extend the scope of the model with the necessary flexibility.

Therefore, I cannot support the amendments, but I reiterate my absolute commitment to ensure that the review model extends to so-called honour killings at the appropriate time and when the crucial preparatory work to which I have referred has been undertaken. I would be happy to discuss the issue further with Ms Dowey ahead of stage 3 to set out the detail of the work that is already happening in that regard. I therefore ask Ms Dowey not to press those amendments, and she has intimated that she will not do so.

Amendment 16 would amend the regulation-making power in section 10 of the bill. That power will enable Scottish ministers to expand the review model to include further types of death arising from abusive behaviour, and it will be used to add so-called honour killings to the review model. Amendment 16 would allow adjustments to be made to the considerations to be weighed by the review oversight committee at the sift stage, so that the sift can be altered when the scope of the review model is being adjusted.

Amendment 16 has been prompted by the need that we identified to adjust the sift criteria at stage 2, in light of my amendment 14, in the next group, which relates to anchoring reviewable deaths in a domestic abuse context. It has been shown that it will not necessarily always be possible to alter the scope of the review sufficiently through a change to the definition alone, and it might be necessary to combine definition changes with changes to the sift mechanism to get the correct result. The same may well apply when the scope of reviews is widened under section 10 in future. So-called honour killings are a salient example of where there will be a need to adjust the sift criteria.

Amendment 16 is therefore an important amendment that will help to future proof the model in the event of changes in social and cultural circumstances that may lead to modification of the types of deaths and events that the model may look to review in time. It also demonstrates my commitment to include so-called honour abuse in the model and ensures that that inclusion will be able to take place in the way that I believe that we all want.

I therefore ask committee members to support my amendment 16. I reiterate my offer to discuss so-called honour killings further with Ms Dowey and ask that she does not press her amendments in this group.