Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to speak to my amendments. Lodged after discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid, they are probing amendments that aim to strengthen the requirement under proposed new section 56A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, as inserted by section 45 of the bill, for social housing providers to take account of a domestic abuse policy; to enable a review of women’s refuge provision; and to enable the public debt of domestic abuse survivors—for example, rent arrears—to be written off.

The minister was kind enough to meet me last week to discuss my amendments, and I understand that his general approach is that the level of detail outlined in my amendments should be in regulation. That brings us back to the wider debate about framework bills, enabling legislation and the scrutiny of regulations and guidance, to which a number of members referred last week.

I would argue that it is important for some of these provisions to be in the bill. My amendments relate to the protection of victims of domestic abuse and the housing instability that so often arises in such situations. We need robust, codified support for people who face homelessness as a result of abuse.

Amendment 1061 requires relevant bodies to ask individuals whom they might have reason to believe might be

“homeless or threatened with homelessness”

whether their situation arose as a consequence of either past or on-going experience of abuse.

Amendment 1062 defines “abuse” within a whole and broad understanding of harm or risk of harm, for the purposes of the duties to ask whether a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness; to act if a person might be homeless; and to act if a person might be threatened with homelessness. Abuse is acknowledged as encompassing cases of abusive behaviour from a partner or ex-partner within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021.

Amendment 1063 requires that,

“If the relevant body is informed that the person is homeless as a consequence of ... having experienced or experiencing abuse”,

it

“must provide the person with details of such support that may be available to the person”.

Amendment 1064 expands that for individuals whom relevant bodies have reason to believe might be “threatened with homelessness” due to the threatening or abusive behaviour of others.

Amendment 1088 calls on

“Scottish Ministers”

to

“carry out a review of temporary housing provided for persons who have left their homes as a result of domestic abuse”

within one year of royal assent. The review

“must consider ... whether”

the temporary housing

“is compliant with international standards in respect of”

a number of matters, including provisions under the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. The review would consider

“the availability of specialist provision”

and the suitability of funding for such housing.

The amendment also requires Scottish ministers to

“consult ... organisations providing such housing”,

such as

“local authorities”

and

“other persons as they consider appropriate”

as part of that review. It asks Scottish ministers to

“prepare and publish a report of the review”,

which would

“set out any action the Scottish Ministers plan to take”.

Amendment 1089 relates to the issue of public debt and the scope of domestic abuse policies to enable steps to be taken to mitigate such a situation, particularly in relation to rent arrears for tenants for whom an application for housing benefit has not yet been determined but is likely to be paid, at a level that allows the tenant to satisfy outstanding rent or other financial obligations of tenancy. The action would include

“the whole or any part of the rent arrears”

to enable those to be, in effect, written off in certain circumstances.

I am just coming to an end, but I will.

I would expect it to mean in practice that all the circumstances would be taken into account. Obviously, the amendment relates to situations in which someone is a survivor of or is experiencing domestic abuse, and it would enable all the factors to be taken into account and for the council—the housing officer, in particular—to make a decision based on the full facts as presented to them.

This is an enabling piece of legislation, but it requires local authorities to consider all those matters. I am sure that all of us, as representatives, will be aware of circumstances in which we feel that such action would be appropriate, because individuals are in a situation where substantial rent arrears have been accrued in circumstances in which we would believe, as a matter of public policy, that it would be appropriate for those arrears to be effectively written off.

As I have said, it is not my intention to push any of the amendments to a vote today, but I would like to hear the Government’s response before stage 3 and, indeed, to any contributions from other members, if there is a view that there needs to be a tightening of the drafting before stage 3.

The international standards are the obligations set out under international treaties, such as the Istanbul convention. Whether or not the United Kingdom has officially signed up to those treaties, reference would be made to the kinds of standards and obligations that are presented at an international level. The review would look at the extent to which Scotland was complying with the highest standards, rather than the lower standards that might exist in some countries. The work has been done to set out criteria and guidelines for how victims of domestic abuse and violence against women should be treated in such situations. That is very much the thinking behind the amendment.

As I have said, I am happy to consider any representations on making the definition tighter, although I should point out that the amendment was drafted by the clerks in this Parliament. I am happy to reflect on the drafting; the intention is for the standards to be those in the Istanbul convention in particular, but would include any other international standards that have been worked on, debated and agreed as appropriate in terms of the kinds of standards that states should be addressing.

I look forward to the minister's contribution on the amendments.

I move amendment 1061.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Thank you, convener, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I agree with the cabinet secretary that, when we make changes of this nature, it is important that we get as much consensus as possible, not just in the committee but in the Parliament and across society.

We must strive to ensure that changes are evidence based. At the moment, as has been said, we have no information about how juries vote in Scotland, so we are working with a very limited evidence base. We do not know whether most juries provide a unanimous verdict, as Sharon Dowey’s amendment 92 would require, or whether most juries are split eight to seven, nine to six or, indeed, 10 to five, which is the majority that the cabinet secretary has proposed. We also do not know whether jury splits are very different in different kinds of cases. For example, in assault cases, there might tend to be unanimous verdicts whereas, in rape cases, there might often be very small majorities. We can speculate, but we simply do not know.

It would be very unsafe to make substantial changes to our system without that evidence, given that it would be possible to get it. That is relevant to today’s discussion, because the committee has been looking at the issue for well over a year. We have considered in as much detail as possible all the evidence that the Scottish Government has provided and any other evidence that we have been able to find. We looked at the detail of the mock jury research. I am not criticising the academics who were involved in that work, or the work itself, but it is simply an underwhelming basis on which to make substantial changes to the system. It would simply be unsafe to proceed on the basis of evidence from four cases that were heard by juries, with two of the scenarios being truncated versions that were watched on a television screen.

I know that we will continue the discussion in a debate on a later group of amendments about how research can be conducted. However, on the basis of what we have seen so far, I simply will not be able to support any of the changes to jury majority that are being proposed today. I will, of course, continue to listen to what is said as the bill progresses, but I would argue that, until we have better research and information about what juries do now, it would be unwise for the Parliament to decide changes of this nature.

My amendments 62 and 63 relate to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and seek to remove provisions that currently prevent jury research in Scotland. My amendments were lodged last summer after stage 1 and prior to the cabinet secretary lodging her amendments 152 and 153. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has lodged those Scottish Government amendments and that the committee is considering them today.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication that the Scottish Government intends to undertake further research, particularly on jury splits, which have been a live concern and consideration today. I appreciate that there are those who believe that research of that nature is already possible within the current legal framework. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that it is not possible, and the relevant provisions for England have already been repealed from the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to enable research to take place there. I welcome the fact that there will be legal certainty that, in certain circumstances, it will be possible to undertake research.

The cabinet secretary spoke about some of the mock jury research that has been carried out, and I agree with the important point that she made that certain factors can be researched only with mock jury research. However, the committee has looked at the mock jury research and the meta-analysis that has been provided to us and, as I said earlier, I am concerned that the evidence is not substantial enough to give us an understanding of what might happen to conviction rates or to the proportion of guilty and not guilty verdicts if we proceeded with the proposed legislation that is before us.

I have already referred to the concerns that were raised by the Lord Advocate and many others. We know that the conviction rate for rape and attempted rape remains the lowest of any type of crime in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary said, that is no doubt due to preconceived biases and myths that surround victims and survivors. I hope that we would all agree that we need far greater insight into the breakdown of jury outcomes and the jury split, and an understanding of jury majorities in real-world situations. The committee has already heard how research can be a vital tool in building up a sophisticated evidence base on the factors that might inform how juries reach verdicts. We all accept that the existence of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 has heavily restricted the research that can be, or is being, carried out.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will take part in the discussion on how we take forward the research. We need to look at all categories of cases, but there are specific concerns about particular types of cases. I hope that any research and work that is carried out will focus on that, so that we have a better understanding. I also hope that the cabinet secretary will be willing to engage on some of the issues in the lead-up to stage 3 to ensure that we can build up data and information to allow us to make informed decisions that deliver the Scottish Government’s policy intent, which I believe all members of the committee share.

At the appropriate stage, I will not move my amendments 62 and 63, because the Scottish Government has lodged other amendments on the issue.

I agree with Sharon Dowey that the Scottish Government is coming forward with proposals without what she calls “concrete evidence”—I would call it a lack of evidence—but does she not accept that her proposal to require a unanimous verdict is not evidence based either?

Will the member take an intervention?

I know that Ben Macpherson is aware of how difficult it is to get convictions in rape cases. He is also aware of the Lord Advocate’s view that it will be far more challenging to secure a guilty verdict in the system that is being proposed. Does he agree that, before we change the system, it would be helpful to get information on the jury breakdown in cases such as rape, attempted rape and other serious sexual assaults? It may be that the balance of verdicts is different in juries in those cases from the balance in other types of case.