Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill currently presumes that every child, regardless of their age, is capable of forming a view unless proven otherwise. At stage 1, many parents and education professionals raised concerns that that would place unreasonable pressure on younger children and leave teachers to make difficult judgments about capacity without a clear framework. As drafted, the bill risks creating conflict between pupils and parents and placing schools in a difficult position.

Amendment 5 would remove the automatic presumption and replace it with a more realistic test. It would require schools to be satisfied that a pupil can meaningfully express a view, taking account of their age, stage of development and understanding. That would reduce risk for schools, support teachers and still ensure that children’s views are taken seriously where appropriate.

Amendment 6 would address the concern that, under the bill as drafted, a pupil’s objection would normally determine the outcome of parental requests to withdraw. As the committee has recognised, parents are the primary guardians of their children and have legal responsibility for their upbringing and education. Amendment 6 would not remove the pupil’s voice; it would require schools to take account of the pupil’s views, and it would make it clear that the parent’s request should be given effect unless the school is satisfied, having regard to the pupil’s views, that doing so would be contrary to the pupil’s best interests. That is a balanced and proportionate approach. It would protect children where there is a genuine welfare concern while avoiding a situation in which schools are routinely placed in conflict with parents over sensitive family decisions.

I have some questions for the other witnesses—thank you all for responding to the call for views and coming here today. It is interesting to listen to the feedback, as it helps us to make better legislation.

While putting the bill together, I consulted many survivors who believe that the current system is not working and that perpetrators are simply let out with a slap on the wrist and are allowed to reoffend. We know how high reoffending is: the statistics show that it occurs in more than half of reported cases.

Domestic abuse costs the public purse £7.5 billion in a three-year period, while the estimated cost of the bill is around £23 million, which is less than 0.5 per cent of the justice budget. Do you not believe that, in the long term, the bill could help to save money? What changes would you like to see made at stage 2?

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. The first is for Adam Brown.

At our meeting in August, you indicated that you wanted to provide evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, so it is good to see you here—thank you for coming. I recall that, in that meeting, your colleague DCS Sarah Taylor said that the bill would be “groundbreaking”. She also mentioned that having details in the register such as the perpetrator’s address at the time of the offence would be helpful, especially when the police have to go out looking for the perpetrator. There is a lot of information that you do not have currently, and having such information in the register would help with that issue. Similarly, the Scottish Police Federation signalled that it supports the bill, if it is provided with proper resources.

Domestic abuse costs the public sector billions of pounds each year, and the police have been underfunded by the Scottish Government for years. Therefore, do you agree with the Scottish Police Federation when it says that, with proper resources, the bill could work? Given your expertise, how do you think that we can make the bill work and bring down bureaucracy through amendments at stage 2?

At the meeting that I mentioned, DCS Sarah Taylor said that the bill is “groundbreaking” as it will give you more information about the perpetrator than you currently get. What is your view on that?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister, and good morning to your team.

We heard some concerning evidence about the support that is available to deaf survivors of domestic abuse. A couple of weeks ago, I attended an event that was hosted by East Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid entitled “Empowering deaf women to report domestic abuse”. We were told that words such as “consent” and “coercion” were foreign for many deaf women, with many thinking that domestic abuse is normal behaviour. Unfortunately, we cannot understand the full extent of the problem as data collection is poor. That is why I have put a provision in my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill that places a duty on the police and on charities to collect demographic data on survivors of domestic abuse, such as disability status, which has received strong backing from organisations and survivors. Do you agree that better data collection is key to understanding the full extent of the problem and that better monitoring of offenders will prevent potential victims from becoming victims in the first place?

Thank you. As you have mentioned women’s aid organisations, I will go on to my supplementary and then go back to my other question. Deaf women are entitled to access services in the way that suits them best but, unfortunately, there is a lack of funding across Scotland for women’s aid services to have independent domestic abuse advocates who are skilled in BSL. Staff do not always have those skills and need to rely on having access to an interpreter, which may delay access to appropriate support. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that women’s aid organisations are provided with the funding that they need to hire more independent domestic abuse advocates who are skilled in BSL?

That was actually one of the organisations at the East Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid event. It went through the project that it is doing, so I was going to ask you: what about all the others?

I have also mentioned many times that funding is only for a certain amount of time, but obviously the organisations have to bring in specialists. It is important that we look at multiyear funding so that they can keep the specialists on year after year. I hope that the Deputy First Minister will look at that as well.

I come to my last question. We were told that finding an interpreter is always at the forefront of deaf women’s minds. That can be even more challenging when they are at their most vulnerable after experiencing domestic abuse. Many interpreters do not feel confident taking on domestic abuse cases, and many times deaf survivors feel more comfortable speaking with someone whose first language is BSL. What guidance will be issued to Police Scotland to ensure interpreters are provided when deaf complainers make statements?

That would be really helpful. I ask because, when I started the three years of work on my bill, I came across a survivor who had a speech disability. Her carers were with her, and they told me that they had contacted the police to say that she was being domestically abused but, when the police came to the house, she was not speaking. The man was speaking—the perpetrator—and the police took the perpetrator’s word to say that she was drunk. Basically, because no data was being recorded on disability, the police did not know how to act.

We know that about 64,000 crimes have been reported to Police Scotland. The police have no data on any ethnic background or any disability, and it is very hard for services to be provided if there is no data. Bless them, the women’s aid and other great organisations are doing a great job. They are probably collecting more data than the Scottish Government, and then they have to provide the Scottish Government with evidence to say that there is a service that is needed. It should be the other way round as well—it should go both ways.

That is why I mentioned the issue, because I heard at first hand from somebody who, because of their disability, could not get across that they were being domestically abused. It was no fault of the police, because at that time the police did not know and it was not something they collected. They still do not collect that data, so it is important to highlight the issue for you to take away and to understand where it comes from.

Good morning. I have two questions. The first is a direct question for Marsha Scott, and I then have an open question to the other witnesses.

Marsha, I have spoken to you at three informal meetings and you have responded to two formal consultations. From my recollection—and according to the minutes that I have from our one-to-one meeting in July—you said that my bill is moving in the right direction. You had said that you would be happy to support the creation of the register with the addition of some amendments to address certain things—for example, to add that the register should include information on where the perpetrator works, because we had said that it would include the address where someone lives.

I was therefore really surprised to see your latest written response, given that I have been working with you throughout the process to ensure that we have good legislation. I used the whole summer to speak to a lot of organisations, including 22 Women’s Aid organisations, the majority of which were supportive of my bill. That was also reflected in the consultation responses, with five Women’s Aid organisations indicating their support for the bill and specifically the register—