Chamber
Plenary, 24 Jan 2001
24 Jan 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Proposed Protection from Abuse Bill
The committee first accepted my proposal way back in September 1999. In retrospect, it is a bit like a soldier going off to the first world war—I thought that it would all be over by Christmas. Here we are, 18 months later, and we have got the matter into the chamber at last.
I wish to speak about the importance of the proposed legislation and the difference that I believe it will make to the lives of the many people who are being abused and intimidated, and have no real redress. Today's proposal could save lives.
The Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, which was widely welcomed by those who worked with women who had experienced domestic violence, was landmark legislation because it gave abused women the power to have a violent husband excluded from the matrimonial home. The power of arrest that was attached to the interdict gave teeth to the exclusion.
Why, then, are not all abused partners sitting safe in the family home while the abuser is kept at bay by the law? Unfortunately, the act did not anticipate that, in the course of time, many couples would choose to cohabit rather than marry. The last thing that couples think about in that situation is their occupancy rights to the home in which they live. Because at present occupancy rights determine whether a person can have the full protection of the law, both parties must have occupancy rights to activate an interdict with powers of arrest.
Too many people who do not have occupancy rights find themselves abused. Divorcees find that their abusive partner, who no longer has a right to live in the former marital home, can continue to harass, but cannot be arrested for breach of interdict. That time is one of the most dangerous for a woman who has divorced an abusive husband, because she has no sanction to keep her ex-partner away. Unfortunately, there are cases where women have lost their lives in such circumstances. The police can make an arrest only once a crime is committed, but that crime is too often serious assault or even murder. As Lyndsay McIntosh said, the police made it clear in their evidence that they would welcome an extension of powers of arrest to keep women safe.
Abused women, married or not, often leave home as the result of a crisis, sometimes running for their lives. They do not want to return to the marital home. They want protection from abuse, not occupancy rights. That is also a dangerous time for them.
It is not, by the way, my experience that the abusive partner will harass a woman at a women's refuge. Rather, he will seek her out at the local shops, outside the school or wherever she is rehoused, and that can go on for years. We need legislation that will protect women in those situations.
I am well aware that it is not always men who are the abusers and women who are abused, nor do I think that abuse occurs only in a married or cohabiting situation. A woman can abuse a male partner. A woman can abuse her mother. A partner in a same-sex relationship can be abusive. A grandson can abuse his grandfather. A couple who do not live under the same roof, each having their own home, can contain an abuser. The permutations might be infinite. We need legislation to cover all such situations.
I thank the clerks, who have given me enormous support in my role as reporter. I also thank the bodies and individuals that gave evidence to the committee and to me, and helped me through the legal maze. I am proud to have played a part in this first committee bill, and I thank the other members of the committee, past and present, for their support. I commend the proposal to Parliament.
I wish to speak about the importance of the proposed legislation and the difference that I believe it will make to the lives of the many people who are being abused and intimidated, and have no real redress. Today's proposal could save lives.
The Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, which was widely welcomed by those who worked with women who had experienced domestic violence, was landmark legislation because it gave abused women the power to have a violent husband excluded from the matrimonial home. The power of arrest that was attached to the interdict gave teeth to the exclusion.
Why, then, are not all abused partners sitting safe in the family home while the abuser is kept at bay by the law? Unfortunately, the act did not anticipate that, in the course of time, many couples would choose to cohabit rather than marry. The last thing that couples think about in that situation is their occupancy rights to the home in which they live. Because at present occupancy rights determine whether a person can have the full protection of the law, both parties must have occupancy rights to activate an interdict with powers of arrest.
Too many people who do not have occupancy rights find themselves abused. Divorcees find that their abusive partner, who no longer has a right to live in the former marital home, can continue to harass, but cannot be arrested for breach of interdict. That time is one of the most dangerous for a woman who has divorced an abusive husband, because she has no sanction to keep her ex-partner away. Unfortunately, there are cases where women have lost their lives in such circumstances. The police can make an arrest only once a crime is committed, but that crime is too often serious assault or even murder. As Lyndsay McIntosh said, the police made it clear in their evidence that they would welcome an extension of powers of arrest to keep women safe.
Abused women, married or not, often leave home as the result of a crisis, sometimes running for their lives. They do not want to return to the marital home. They want protection from abuse, not occupancy rights. That is also a dangerous time for them.
It is not, by the way, my experience that the abusive partner will harass a woman at a women's refuge. Rather, he will seek her out at the local shops, outside the school or wherever she is rehoused, and that can go on for years. We need legislation that will protect women in those situations.
I am well aware that it is not always men who are the abusers and women who are abused, nor do I think that abuse occurs only in a married or cohabiting situation. A woman can abuse a male partner. A woman can abuse her mother. A partner in a same-sex relationship can be abusive. A grandson can abuse his grandfather. A couple who do not live under the same roof, each having their own home, can contain an abuser. The permutations might be infinite. We need legislation to cover all such situations.
I thank the clerks, who have given me enormous support in my role as reporter. I also thank the bodies and individuals that gave evidence to the committee and to me, and helped me through the legal maze. I am proud to have played a part in this first committee bill, and I thank the other members of the committee, past and present, for their support. I commend the proposal to Parliament.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
The next item of business is the committee debate on motion S1M-1392, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee, on its proposals ...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is necessary to make the point that, although six members were disappointed in the previous debate, one political ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
As always, your point is noted, Mr Sheridan. I try to be fair most of the time and I think that you will find that you are called to speak more often than mo...
Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP):
SNP
Presiding Officer, I am sorry to have to speak to you from this position in the corner of the chamber and I assure you that that has no bearing on the import...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Iain Gray):
Lab
I am delighted to be able to give the Executive's support to this important proposal from the Justice 1 Committee for a protection from abuse bill.This debat...
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I, too, welcome this afternoon's debate—a debate that is historical in the short history of this Parliament. The Justice 1 Committee is the first of the Parl...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
I call Phil Gallie to open for the Conservatives.Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) indicated disagreement.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I am sorry. There has been a change. I call Lyndsay McIntosh to open for the Conservatives.
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
Thank you, Presiding Officer, and my apologies for the confusion.Although the proposal for a protection from abuse bill was the brainchild of Maureen Macmill...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
It is empty today.
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
No, there are two people up there.Why is the press gallery so empty? Is something happening elsewhere? Are we touching a raw nerve or invading the comfort zo...
Dr Winnie Ewing (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
On the question of legal aid, of which I had a lot of experience at one time, when the Scottish Legal Aid Board came before the Justice and Home Affairs Comm...
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
No, I do not believe that that question was asked, but I am sure that others would wish to consider it.Our police officers usually are first on the scene at ...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
Today's debate is a milestone for the Scottish Parliament, because it is the first occasion on which the chamber has discussed a proposal for a committee bil...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I am interested in the statistic that half the women who have been murdered in Scotland have died at the hands of a close acquaintance. Can Mr Robson say wha...
Euan Robson:
LD
I do not have that figure to hand. I was simply alluding to the fact that of female homicides, almost half were committed by a close relative. I see that Mr ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The earlier statement ran on by 15 minutes; we have to conclude the open part of the debate by 16:29, so speeches must be under four minutes.
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
The committee first accepted my proposal way back in September 1999. In retrospect, it is a bit like a soldier going off to the first world war—I thought tha...
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Like every member in the chamber today, I welcome the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and Maureen Macmillan's and the Executive's persistence...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
Congratulations are due to the architects of the committee structure on creating standing orders that allow the committees of the Parliament to initiate legi...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
There are two general approaches to dealing with the problem. One is criminal, the other civil. It is worth pointing out that if the criminal justice system ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Power of arrest being attached is a serious thing. Perhaps, in the interests of justice, the new bill should allow the defender, through his agent, an opport...
Bill Aitken:
Con
I am just coming to that. At present the system provides for two hearings: first, an application on an ex parte basis for the granting of a general order. Th...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
As has been pointed out, this is the first formal proposal for a committee bill to come before the Scottish Parliament. It is fitting that the measure aims i...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I am sorry that Mr Rumbles has got that flavour from the report. If I may say something for my happy old committee, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee di...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
I do not want to get into the detail, but paragraphs 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 24—and I could go on—contain such language. I am not making a debating poi...
Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab):
Lab
I, too, welcome this first committee bill. I hope—and I am sure—that it will not be the last.I speak not as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committe...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
We have two minutes left in this part of the debate. If Sandra White wants them, she can have them.
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Thank you kindly, Presiding Officer; I will do my best to keep to two minutes.I congratulate Maureen Macmillan on her tenacity and the committee on listening...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
That ends the period of open debate. I apologise to Elaine Thomson, for whom time ran out, and I call Nora Radcliffe to close for the Liberal Democrats.