Chamber
Plenary, 02 Dec 2009
02 Dec 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Violence Against Women
I want to make progress before I take another intervention.
Thirdly, I am consulting on non-harassment orders, which are currently available and which provide more protection for the victim. They can be requested by a procurator fiscal during a disposal, or the victim can apply for them themselves through the civil courts. Breaching a non-harassment order carries a prison sentence of up to five years, and they are therefore a much better deterrent. However, to get a non-harassment order it is necessary to show a course of conduct; the perpetrator needs to have been convicted of a crime of harassment twice before a non-harassment order can be applied for. The very nature of domestic abuse means that, in reality, those orders are out of the reach of many victims. Corroboration is needed to secure a conviction but, because the crimes are committed behind closed doors, it is difficult to find such corroboration once, far less twice.
The nature of domestic abuse is such that the victim often tries to hide the crime, which makes detection and prosecution even more difficult. When a victim finds the strength to come forward, the state needs to respond with high levels of protection.
It is not clear to me why non-harassment orders require a higher level of proof than a conviction for an offence. A non-harassment order is not a conviction. If someone does not breach it, there is no crime and no conviction. It is a vehicle to prevent future abuse, not to punish past abuse.
If a victim can assert that they reasonably suspect that someone might abuse them in the future, they should be granted a non-harassment order. That is the case in Australia, where the courts work on the balance of probability rather than a conviction. Because of the restrictions of members' bills, I cannot include such a provision in my bill, because it is difficult for a member to propose such legislation.
While we look at protecting victims, we need to look at protecting the children who are affected by such crimes. In this country, we underestimate the damage caused to children; in countries such as New Zealand, access to the children is not given to parents who are found to have committed domestic violence or are suspected of it. My postbag is full of correspondence about cases in which the justice system has been used as a lever for further abuse when a couple have split up. When an abusive partner gets access to the children, they use that lever to continue to abuse their victim.
I have acknowledged that the bill that I am proposing is limited, but that is due to the nature of members' bills—there is a difficulty in progressing complex issues in that way. However, I believe that the bill is a step in the right direction, and I ask members to respond to my consultation and support the process in order that we have better protection for those who suffer abuse.
Thirdly, I am consulting on non-harassment orders, which are currently available and which provide more protection for the victim. They can be requested by a procurator fiscal during a disposal, or the victim can apply for them themselves through the civil courts. Breaching a non-harassment order carries a prison sentence of up to five years, and they are therefore a much better deterrent. However, to get a non-harassment order it is necessary to show a course of conduct; the perpetrator needs to have been convicted of a crime of harassment twice before a non-harassment order can be applied for. The very nature of domestic abuse means that, in reality, those orders are out of the reach of many victims. Corroboration is needed to secure a conviction but, because the crimes are committed behind closed doors, it is difficult to find such corroboration once, far less twice.
The nature of domestic abuse is such that the victim often tries to hide the crime, which makes detection and prosecution even more difficult. When a victim finds the strength to come forward, the state needs to respond with high levels of protection.
It is not clear to me why non-harassment orders require a higher level of proof than a conviction for an offence. A non-harassment order is not a conviction. If someone does not breach it, there is no crime and no conviction. It is a vehicle to prevent future abuse, not to punish past abuse.
If a victim can assert that they reasonably suspect that someone might abuse them in the future, they should be granted a non-harassment order. That is the case in Australia, where the courts work on the balance of probability rather than a conviction. Because of the restrictions of members' bills, I cannot include such a provision in my bill, because it is difficult for a member to propose such legislation.
While we look at protecting victims, we need to look at protecting the children who are affected by such crimes. In this country, we underestimate the damage caused to children; in countries such as New Zealand, access to the children is not given to parents who are found to have committed domestic violence or are suspected of it. My postbag is full of correspondence about cases in which the justice system has been used as a lever for further abuse when a couple have split up. When an abusive partner gets access to the children, they use that lever to continue to abuse their victim.
I have acknowledged that the bill that I am proposing is limited, but that is due to the nature of members' bills—there is a difficulty in progressing complex issues in that way. However, I believe that the bill is a step in the right direction, and I ask members to respond to my consultation and support the process in order that we have better protection for those who suffer abuse.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
Our next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5307, in the name of Alex Neil, on safer lives: changed lives—working together to end violence against wo...
The Minister for Housing and Communities (Alex Neil):
SNP
I have much pleasure in introducing—for the first time as minister—this afternoon's annual debate on an extremely worthy subject. This year, the debate is be...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Does the minister acknowledge that the greatest increase in incidents of domestic abuse over the past nine years has been in cases of women committing violen...
Alex Neil:
SNP
Yes, in percentage terms, that is right. Overall, the statistics show an 8 per cent increase in incidents over the previous year. Of course, it is not just w...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
It is absolutely right to get on the record our support for having this debate—I fully support having it—but will the minister enlighten members about the Go...
Alex Neil:
SNP
As a result of an approach that an informal cross-party group of members made to me about domestic violence against men, I have initiated work in my departme...
Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the answers that the minister has given and the fact that he has gone back to the subject of today's debate, which is violence against women. Will ...
Alex Neil:
SNP
I am happy to reiterate the importance of that. Violence against women is by far the most predominant problem, and it must be treated separately. It is in so...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister take careful cognisance of the fact that there can be difficulties with refuge accommodation in rural areas such as the Scottish Borders? I...
Alex Neil:
SNP
I totally agree with Christine Grahame. Indeed, I heard of a case in which a phone call was made to a rape crisis centre by someone who lived in a rural area...
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
I come to the issue from a slightly different perspective from that of Christine Grahame, as I represent an area in one of our bigger cities. The minister wi...
Alex Neil:
SNP
Partly as a result of representations from Margaret Curran and other stakeholders, during this year both Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, ...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
It has been a mark of this Parliament that, since its establishment, it has sought to build an understanding of the causes and consequences of male violence ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Surely, in certain cases, the term "domestic abuse" is the wrong one to use. The offence is purely and simply a criminal assault, and should be dealt with in...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
In the 10 years that we have been debating the issue, we have argued precisely the opposite. We have argued that we need to understand domestic abuse and vio...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
As the minister commented, at the weekend officials at league and cup football matches in Scotland wore white ribbons in support of a campaign against domest...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
Does the member agree that statistics and the evidence from testimonies show that some of those young men feel guilt at not being able to protect their mothe...
Bill Aitken:
Con
As I have said on many occasions in this chamber, there is absolutely no excuse for any kind of violence, whatever the background. Johann Lamont is correct t...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am very glad to support the motion and the sentiments that it expresses, and I certainly welcome the inclusive attitude...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I do not want to dance on the head of a pin, and I hope that the member can answer my question. I am hearing the terms "domestic violence" and "domestic abus...
Robert Brown:
LD
I am not sure that there is much substance to Christine Grahame's point. It is valid as far it goes, in that violence is the particularly sharp end of domest...
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
The statistics on domestic violence have already been set out in some detail by colleagues, and there is no need for me to repeat them. Up to a point, they a...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
Given the concerns about single outcome agreements that Scottish Women's Aid identified, does the member agree that it would be helpful if the minister were ...
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
There is not necessarily one simple solution. The lessons that I said need to be learned apply to every aspect of single outcome agreements, especially in re...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Domestic abuse has been taken seriously by this Parliament, but we still have much to do...
Robert Brown:
LD
How would the member's proposal fit in with the existing system of Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 interdicts and orders?
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
My proposal builds on what is in the 1981 act and the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. It would give more teeth to those injunctions and ensure tha...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Rhoda Grant:
Lab
I want to make progress before I take another intervention.Thirdly, I am consulting on non-harassment orders, which are currently available and which provide...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
In due course, I will come to the intervention that I was going to make, which was about interdicts and moving from civil to criminal procedures.As has alrea...