Hansard

As Carolyn Leckie said, this has been a good debate and it has been largely consensual. Perhaps uncharacteristically, I will not seek to break that consensus. I think that we all agree that this is a serious issue. Although one may joke from time to time about how women perhaps have their moments, it would be naive of me to suggest other than that the main problem of violence is men perpetrating it against women. That must be accepted.

I have heard Maureen Macmillan speak on this subject before. She obviously feels strongly about it and has a degree of pride in what has been achieved in the Highlands. That is natural and understandable. We should all congratulate the people she mentioned in the Highlands who have done so much to ease what was clearly a real difficulty.

The debate has been consensual and we intend to vote with the Executive at its conclusion. It is perhaps a little bit unfortunate—although I understand why it is the case—that two amendments, which we do not feel we can support, have been proposed.

Carolyn Leckie's amendment deals with the low conviction rates for rape and sexual offences and expresses justifiable concern about the issue. A report is expected from the Scottish Law Commission on the law of rape. We will have to wait and see what happens when that report is received.

I have to flag up an issue that I regard as a problem. Rape is a crime for which there is not normally corroboration, as required under Scots law, by means of eye witnesses or other forms of evidence. It is a very difficult crime to prove. The conviction rate is undeniably low, but it is important to remember that, when cases go to court, the conviction rate is almost 50 per cent.

The problem is that many cases do not go to court because there is no corroboration and the case cannot go before a jury. Adjusting the law to resolve that problem while still leaving people with a defence will be difficult. Quite properly, there is a presumption of innocence in Scots law. There are people in the chamber this afternoon who have sons and who would be very concerned indeed if one of their sons was wrongly accused of rape and was restricted in the level of defence that he could present.

Part of Carolyn Leckie's complaint, although justified, is largely historical. I do not think that any judge in the High Court of Scotland would permit any witness to be traduced and tormented by counsel defending an alleged attacker, but that certainly has happened. The situation has improved, in no small measure due to the acts of this Parliament.

Rosemary Byrne rightly mentioned the case of Lindsay Armstrong. In that case, our systems did not work. We subsequently changed the systems to ensure, as far as possible, that something similar could never happen again. Rosemary Byrne was also right to point to the educational element. She said that it would be appropriate for schools to participate much more.

Domestic violence has long been a problem. The problem is particularly acute in our cities, and is not restricted to the Highlands. The domestic violence court in Glasgow has been a success: 1,000 people have been prosecuted successfully—although we must also be depressed that so many cases have had to go before the court.

Domestic violence is a very serious issue, not least because it happens in the home. If someone is in fear of being attacked in a bar, in a certain street or at a football ground, the obvious remedy is not to go there, but people cannot avoid going to their home. Several speakers have said that domestic violence frequently occurs in the presence of young children and that it leaves them traumatised. Domestic violence is straightforward bullying that is totally and utterly unacceptable.

Cathie Craigie said that a shamefully low number of domestic violence cases come to court. Again the question of corroboration comes up. The Lord Advocate was here earlier. The Crown would proceed with a case if there was sufficient evidence, but the law of Scotland naturally requires that the evidence be sufficient to convince a sheriff, magistrate or jury that the assault took place, and it is sometimes difficult to get that corroboration.

In a very thoughtful speech, Shiona Baird raised the international dimension. I am sure that we all agree with what she said about RAWA in Afghanistan. That organisation is clearly doing a very great deal. This country has a reasonable record, but Shiona Baird was right to say that we should be pursuing, through the United Nations and all our international contacts, the issue of women who so often find themselves subjected to vicious and evil attacks. In Africa, for example, rape is often used as a weapon.

Although we cannot be complacent while such issues still arise, the Executive and the Parliament can look back with some pride on what has been achieved since 1999. I refer to what we have done with the rules of evidence, although we may have reached the pivotal moment at which we have gone too far and, in so doing, prejudiced the rights of the accused person. That said, under a number of headings, we have made things easier for the victims of crime.