Feminist politics and framing contests: Domestic violence policy in Scotland and Wales

Abstract

Devolution in the UK in the 1990s resulted in newly gendered political opportunity structures for feminists seeking to influence the political agenda and pursue ‘women-friendly’ policy outcomes. There is, however, little work that compares jurisdictions across the UK. This paper provides a preliminary comparison of the politics of a classic feminist issue – domestic violence – in Scotland and Wales. We examine how, and with what effect, devolution has opened up opportunities to promote feminist frames and policy preferences. Despite some key similarities in Scotland and Wales, notably, high numbers of female parliamentarians, well-established refuge movement organizations and opportunities presented by aspirations for a new and more open politics, there are significant differences with respect to timing, framing and policy approaches in each place. In particular, we argue that asymmetric devolution has created different ‘devolution effects’ which in turn shape and constrain framing contests with different outcomes for feminist politics and for women.

Keywords

domestic abuse strategy domestic violence feminist politics gender political opportunity structure refuge movement

Devolution in the UK in the 1990s led to the creation of new political spaces, including a Scottish parliament and a National Assembly for Wales, which offered new and differently gendered political opportunity structures for those seeking to influence policy development. The most visible sign of this was the high numbers of women elected to the new institutions (Mackay, 2006). In the first elections in 1999, women comprised 37.2% of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) and 40% of Assembly Members (AMs) in the National Assembly for Wales. In the second elections these proportions rose to 39.5% of MSPs and a remarkable 50% of AMs; many of the new female politicians had been active in the feminist movement of the 1970s and several had links to the refuge movement and wider violence against women sector (Chaney et al., 2007; Charles, 2010). In the third and fourth elections to devolved legislatures (in 2007 and 2011) the proportion of women dropped but here our focus is on the first two terms of the devolved legislatures. Opportunities for participation and consultation were also created by the adoption of a more inclusive and consultative style of politics. These developments reflected demands for new, more responsive political institutions (Brown, 1999; Chaney et al., 2007; Mackay et al., 2002, 2003) as well as a commitment to inclusive government (Jones et al., 2009) and provided a contrast with UK-level government.

Taking a gendered lens and focussing on feminist politics, we begin to develop a comparative approach to understanding developments in the different jurisdictions which now exist within the UK. We explore the engagement of the refuge movement with the new political institutions, their involvement in the policy-making process and the part played by feminist political representatives in the development of domestic violence policies. We bring out critical differences between Scotland and Wales at a moment when a modernizing and, arguably, feminizing government was in power in Scotland, Wales and the UK (Annesley et al., 2007). Our focus is on the political opportunity structure and its gendering; the differential incorporation of refuge movement organizations into processes of policy formation; and framing contests. We define feminist organizations as those that emerged from the feminist movement and challenged gendered power relations (Goertz and Mazur, 2008). Similarly political representatives are feminist if they are ‘influenced by the mobilising ideas of second wave feminism’ (Lovecy, 2007: 68). During the course of our argument we make it clear that different framings of domestic violence have emerged from the refuge movement at different times and places. It is important to explore these developments because it expands knowledge about the gendering of policy processes and the opportunities for feminist policy development in different jurisdictions and because it contributes to a comparative analysis of social policy and debates about convergence and divergence (Chaney, 2011; Keating, 2003; Lohde, 2005; Williams and Mooney, 2008).

Before moving to a discussion of how domestic violence policies and politics have developed in Scotland and Wales we need to clarify the concepts that we use. Political opportunity structure refers to the broad political environment facing social movement organizations (McAdam et al., 1996: 3, see also Ball and Charles, 2006) while framing refers to the process of constructing meaning in which social movements engage (Benford, 1993; Benford and Snow, 2000; Lovecy, 2007). Framing operates within a discursive opportunity structure consisting of dominant discourses which are linked to relations of power and anchored in key political institutions (Ferree, 2003). The policy-making process can be seen as a contest over ideas and meanings, control over the interpretation of policy problems (diagnosis) and the framing of solutions (prognosis) (Bacchi, 1999; Krizsán et al., 2007). Moreover, the way issues are framed has significant consequences for policy outcomes in terms of distribution of resources and cultural recognition (Charles, 2010; Fraser, 2003).

In what follows we explore the framing contests that have accompanied the incorporation of domestic violence into the mainstream political agenda and their consequences for policy development. We compare political and policy developments relating to domestic violence, examining how, and with what effect, devolution has opened up opportunities to promote feminist frames and policy preferences in Scotland and Wales. We argue that there are key differences between Scotland and Wales in terms of timing, framing and policy development and that these relate to the different devolution settlements in the two jurisdictions, the different ways in which feminist political actors have been incorporated into the machinery of governance, and differences in the outcomes of ongoing framing contests.

Organizing against domestic violence: The background

The exposure and elimination of domestic violence was a key demand of the second wave feminist movement in the UK as it was in the US and elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s (Charles, 2000; Weldon, 2002). In the UK, the refuge movement has organized on a territorial basis since its inception in the 1970s, with autonomous organizations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland supporting the work of a network of local member groups (McMillan, 2007). In Scotland, the first refuges opened in Edinburgh and Glasgow in 1973 and the umbrella organization, Scottish Women’s Aid, was started in 1973 and received its first state funding from the Scottish Office in 1975 (Cuthbert and Irving, 2001). Cardiff Women’s Aid set up the first refuge in Wales in 1975 and Welsh Women’s Aid was formed in 1978; it was also in that year that its funding from the Welsh Office began.

Feminist activists took the issue of domestic violence inside political institutions such as political parties and trade unions in the 1980s and 1990s; part of a growing engagement with the state by feminist movement organizations across Britain (Charles, 2000; Perrigo, 1986). This trend broadly mirrored those in other advanced industrial democracies. In particular, feminist activists within the Labour Party at central-UK as well as those operating in Scottish and Welsh Labour structures took advantage of successive rounds of internal party modernization (Lovecy, 2007). These reform processes – during the party’s long years out of office – provided important carrying structures for women’s issues and enabled activists to develop and incorporate women’s policy on to the party agenda, including policy on domestic violence (Lovenduski, 2005). This resulted in a political commitment to tackling domestic violence when the Labour Party was returned to power at Westminster in 1997 and in the new devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales in 1999 (Charles, 2000, 2004; Mackay, 2010).

Key developments Scotland

A National Strategy to tackle domestic violence was launched in the Scottish parliament in 2000. The strategy was drawn up by the multi-agency Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse (SPDA), established by the Scottish Office in 1998, in anticipation of devolution. A National Group to Address Domestic Abuse was established in 2000 as a successor to SPDA. Chaired by a cabinet minister and thereby given symbolic significance and political authority, it was charged with coordinating implementation. A number of working groups were established to draw up detailed recommendations and strategies in the areas of legislation, refuge provision and prevention. The Strategy set out specific actions and goals, with progress to be reported every three years. Local multi-agency partnerships, involving statutory and voluntary agencies, were established in each of the 32 local authority areas in order to deliver on the Strategy’s objectives at grassroots level.

The strategy was built around the ‘3 Ps’ of Provision, Protection and Prevention. Provision centred on initiatives to improve services for women and children affected by domestic violence, including a refuge building and refurbishment programme, the funding of specialist children’s workers in refuges, the establishment of a ring-fenced domestic abuse funding stream and the establishment of a domestic abuse helpline; Protection has been enhanced through, for example, improved access to civil and criminal legal remedies for victims of domestic violence, more proactive policing and the establishment of a pilot specialist Domestic Abuse Court; the Prevention strand of work includes public awareness campaigns, outreach work in schools and improved support for ongoing work with perpetrating men. Between 2000 and 2006, the Scottish government (known then as the Scottish Executive) committed around £32 million to supporting the strategy. From 2002, work was widened to include other forms of violence, such as rape and sexual assault. Table 1 sets out in more detail the chronology of developments between 1998 and 2007. In addition, a specialist Cross-Party Parliamentary Group on Men’s Violence Against Women was set up in the first parliament as an internal lobby and agenda-setting group.

Table 1.

Domestic abuse policy timeline and selected key policy achievements, Scotland.

1998	• Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse (originally Domestic Violence)
First Scottish Parliament (1999–2003)
1999	First parliamentary debate on DV/VAW (latterly timed to coincide with the Sixteen Days of Action) All Scottish police forces begin recording and collating DA incidents according to an agreed definition Scottish Parliament Cross-Party Group on Men’s Violence Against Women established SPDA Work Programme approved Scottish Executive media public awareness campaign runs as annual event
2000	National Strategy on Domestic Violence and Action Plan published Second parliamentary debate on DV/VAW Domestic Abuse Service Development Fund (DASDF): first national fund in Scotland (or UK) to tackle domestic violence. Provides grants for local authorities and their partners (such as Women’s Aid) to implement the goals of the National Strategy National free domestic abuse telephone helpline launched
2001	National Group established, chaired by feminist minister, to oversee implementation of the National Strategy Secondment of Women’s Aid worker to Scottish Executive (SE) First of SE annual seminars to report progress Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act becomes law First centrally-funded programme in Scotland (or UK) to build and refurbish refuge accommodation Establishment of DA Team (later VAW Team) in the Scottish Executive
2002	National Group changes name and remit to National Group to Address Violence Against Women Second annual progress seminar Parliamentary debate on DA/VAW established as annual event Research published on men as victims of domestic abuse which concludes no evidence to suggest need for specific services for men
2003	Publication of National Prevention Strategy, first of its kind in the UK With the opening of a refuge on the Orkney Isles off the northernmost coast of Scotland, every local authority area now has at least one refuge All local authorities now have a multi-agency forum in place Announcement of Violence Against Women Service Development Fund (VAWSDF), first of its kind in the UK
Second Scottish Parliament (2003–2007)
2003	Third annual progress seminar Annual parliamentary debate Publication of National Prevention Strategy
2004	Pilot specialist domestic abuse courts initiated in Glasgow (2004–2006) Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act Publication of National Training Strategy (NTS) to run 2005–08 with funding of £70,000 per annum 15 multi-agency local training consortia established across Scotland. Two NTS Coordinators appointed to facilitate and monitor implementation, including one based at Scottish Women’s Aid
2006	• Family Law (Scotland Act) includes provisions that require courts take account of DV in relation to court ordered child contact

Sources: Scottish Executive, 1999, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Scottish Executive Violence Against Women Team, 2005; SPICe, 2000.

Key developments Wales

In 2002, during the first National Assembly, the Working Group on Domestic Violence and Violence against Women in Wales was set up. It was chaired by a senior civil servant and involved statutory agencies such as the police and voluntary organizations. In 2003, Welsh Assembly Government funding for domestic violence projects was increased and the Supporting People programme was launched which had the effect of putting Women’s Aid refuges on a more secure financial footing. It was not until 2005, however, that the Welsh Assembly Government launched its strategy. In the same year a network of domestic abuse coordinators was established and, in 2006, the Assembly guaranteed recurring funding to all Community Safety Partnerships for domestic abuse coordinators. Community Safety Partnerships at local level are charged with implementing the strategy in consultation with Domestic Abuse Fora (Charles and Jones, 2010).

Given that the criminal justice framework was already in place, the focus of the Assembly’s strategy to combat domestic violence was of necessity on its social policy dimensions and ‘its impacts on the health and well being of people’ (WAG, 2005: 7). The principles underlying the strategy are equality, which threads through all Welsh Assembly Government policy development (Chaney, 2011), ‘protection and support for victims, perpetrator accountability’ and ‘prevention’ (WAG, 2005: 3). Prevention includes perpetrator programmes and outreach work in schools. In terms of protection and support for ‘victims’, Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) have been established as have Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs), Independent Domestic Violence Advisers and Sexual Abuse Referral Centres. Cardiff Women’s Safety Unit developed the prototype for MARACs which was subsequently taken up by the UK government and one of the pilot SDVCs was located in Caerphilly. These initiatives are all part of the criminal justice agenda and are spearheaded by the UK government at Westminster; their implementation in Wales is in cooperation with the Welsh Assembly Government. Table 2 sets out the chronology of developments between 1999 and 2007.

Table 2.

Domestic violence policy timeline and selected key policy achievements, Wales.

First National Assembly for Wales 1999–2003
1999	• Assembly support for Break the Chain Campaign
2001	• Domestic violence manual for health care professionals launched
2002	Homeless Persons (Priority Need) Wales Order (2001) came into force Working Group on Domestic Violence and Violence against Women in Wales set up
Second National Assembly for Wales 2003–2007
2003	Supporting People programme launched First director of Welsh Women’s Aid appointed Domestic abuse funding stream established – Assembly funding increased from £450,000 to £1.17M, Assembly supports 11 domestic violence projects across Wales
2004	Telephone helpline, 12 hours a day, launched, run by Welsh Women’s Aid Gwent Criminal Justice Board funds pilot scheme, SDVC in Caerphilly Good Practice on Domestic Abuse guidance booklet for schools launched Perpetrators’ programmes initiatives Workplace policy on domestic violence launched by Wales TUC Women’s Committee, supported by Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration, part of ‘16 Days of Activism’ Assembly funding of £1.28M to 10 domestic violence projects in Wales
2005	Tackling Domestic Abuse: All Wales National Strategy launched Working group’s terms of reference revised and name changed to Working Group on Domestic Abuse All-Wales network of domestic abuse coordinators set up All-Wales pathway training pack for use in all NHS Trusts produced Assembly funding of £1.9M to 11 domestic violence and 8 capital projects The Dyn Project for male victims of domestic violence set up
2006	Assembly guarantees recurring funding for all Community Safety Partnerships in Wales for domestic abuse coordinators Refuge for men opened in Montgomeryshire All-Wales schools programme has module on domestic abuse – 97% of primary and secondary schools are covered New SDVC and Sexual Assault Referral Centres announced Assembly funding for domestic abuse raised to £3.8M
2007	• All-Wales 24-hour helpline launched, run by Welsh Women’s Aid

Sources: Minutes of the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee (National Assembly for Wales, 2006, 2007); The Record (2002, 2004a, 2004b); various WAG press releases.

These two tables show that there are many similarities in terms of policies but there are also some key differences particularly with regards to timing, framing and approach.

Timing

Despite early indications that domestic violence would be a priority of incoming Labour administrations at the UK centre and in Wales, there has been a significant time lag in both places as compared with Scotland. The Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse was established in 1998, shortly before devolution was put in place whereas it was not until four years later, in 2002, that a working group was set up to develop domestic violence policy in the National Assembly for Wales. Over the course of the first Scottish parliament (1999–2003), the National Strategy was launched (2000), the national helpline was set up, the pioneering Domestic Abuse Service Development Fund and the Violence Against Women Service Development Fund were established and a Violence Against Women Team created in the Scottish Executive. In addition, whilst it was decided that major new umbrella legislation was not required, key legislative reforms were enacted (Protection from Abuse Act 2001, Family Law Scotland Act 2006) and refuge provision was extended to cover the whole of Scotland.

In Wales, in contrast, momentum did not begin to build until the second term of the National Assembly (2003–2007) with the strategy launched in 2005 along with a commitment to fund a national network of domestic abuse coordinators. Refuge provision already covered the whole of Wales. Prior to the finalizing of the strategy, a domestic abuse funding stream had been created and a national telephone helpline set up. New legislation applying to Wales was passed by the UK government in 2004; this was the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (covering England and Wales) and was the first major legislation concerning domestic violence in almost 30 years. In it domestic violence was defined as a crime to be tackled by the police and courts. The funding of refuge provision in Wales remained largely a matter for local authorities although, in 2003, the Welsh Assembly Government increased its funding to various domestic violence projects. There is no equivalent in Wales of the Scottish Development Funds, and Welsh Women’s Aid, during the first Assembly, was disappointed that the Welsh Assembly Government did not accept its proposals for a central funding strategy for the organization and its network of refuges (Charles, 2004).

The lag in the development of domestic violence policy between Scotland and Wales has to be seen both in the context of the relationship between Wales and the UK government and in relation to the differential incorporation of feminist activists into the policy-making process. In Wales domestic violence is defined as predominantly an issue of criminal justice and crime prevention (Phipps, 2010). This means that much policy is deemed to fall outwith the jurisdiction of the Welsh Assembly Government as, unlike in Scotland, in Wales criminal justice policy is controlled by the UK Home Office. The pace of domestic violence policy development in Wales is, to some extent, dictated by developments in England; we call this phenomenon the Westminster ‘drag’.

Framing

As well as differences in timing, there are also significant differences in the framing of domestic violence particularly whether it is defined in gendered terms. In 1977, when legislation to remedy domestic violence was first put on the statute books by a Labour government, it was framed as a housing issue (Charles, 2004). Subsequently, largely due to the strategic framing adopted by the Women’s Aid Federations, it was re-framed as a criminal justice issue. This framing predominates in England and Wales while in Scotland the predominant framing links domestic violence to gender equality and human rights. These different framings also incorporate definitions of domestic violence which are differently gendered. In the Scottish National Strategy, domestic violence is defined as a gender-based crime.

Domestic abuse (as gender-based abuse), can be perpetrated by partners or ex-partners and can include physical abuse (assault and physical attack involving a range of behaviour), sexual abuse (acts which degrade and humiliate women and are perpetrated against their will, including rape) and mental and emotional abuse (such as threats, verbal abuse, racial abuse, withholding money and other types of controlling behaviour such as isolation from family or friends). (SPDA, 2000: 5)

The National Strategy makes explicit the gender-based nature of domestic abuse and its place in the continuum of violence: ‘Domestic Abuse is associated with broader inequalities in society [and] is part of a range of behaviours constituting male abuse of power and is linked to other forms of violence such as rape and child abuse’ (SPDA, 2000: 5). Furthermore the Strategy recognizes domestic violence to be an issue of human rights, clearly reflecting the diffusion of international norms and the links with the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its statement that ‘Any work relating to domestic abuse is part of the promotion of human rights in society and the elimination of all forms of discrimination’ (SPDA, 2000: 5). Domestic violence is therefore framed both as a crime and also in terms of gender equality and human rights.

In contrast, the definition employed in the all-Wales strategy is set out in gender-neutral terms and domestic violence is framed as a criminal justice issue:

Domestic abuse is the use of physical and/or emotional abuse or violence, including undermining of self confidence, sexual violence or the threat of violence, by a person who is or has been in a close relationship. (WAG, 2005: 6)

In addition, the strategy states that ‘the great majority of domestic abuse is perpetrated against women and their children’ (WAG, 2005: 7). The coexistence of a gender-neutral definition with the recognition that domestic violence is gendered is symptomatic of an ongoing framing contest. However, unlike the Scottish strategy, the Welsh strategy neither links domestic violence to gender-based inequalities nor sees it as a human rights issue. Indeed the definition is so wide that it does not relate specifically to male violence against women and includes any form of assault or abuse that takes place in and around the domestic sphere (see Charles and Jones, 2010).

These differences can be understood in terms of an equal rights framing which predominates in Wales and a more radical feminist framing in Scotland (cf. Ferree, 2003). The Scottish strategy recognizes that gender-based inequalities underpin domestic violence and requires remedies that meet the specific needs of women; the Welsh definition, while accepting that women are more likely than men to experience domestic violence, is framed in gender-neutral terms requiring remedies that do not discriminate between women and men.

Policy

These different frames have resulted in different policy approaches and priorities and are an outcome of the greater incorporation of refuge movement activists in policy-making processes in Scotland when compared with Wales. In Scotland, the frame reflects refuge movement preferences and understandings in its holistic and comprehensive approach covering the key aspects of protection, prevention and provision; the links made between domestic violence and other manifestations of violence against women; and the positioning of domestic violence as an issue of human rights, gender inequalities and social justice. The Scottish policy approach gives recognition to refuge movement expertise, for example, in the secondment of a Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) policy worker into government to take forward implementation of the strategy. The success of the SWA Safe Contact campaign, which lobbied for provisions in The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, to require that courts take account of domestic violence in relation to court ordered child contact, provides further evidence of the sector’s relative influence on policy and legislation, as compared to the less successful outcomes for their English and Welsh counterparts. Furthermore, there was a particular emphasis in providing secure ring-fenced funding for the specialist services provided by the refuge and End Violence Against Women (EVAW) movement organizations.

In Wales, as noted earlier, the primary approach is one of crime reduction. On the one hand, this can be seen as a means of ensuring that the state takes domestic violence seriously. In this respect, it has clearly been successful; domestic violence is now a central part of the crime reduction strategy in Wales as it is in England. On the other hand, this integration of domestic violence into the mainstream crime reduction agenda has come at a price and that price is that it is not understood as relating to gender-based inequalities. This courts the danger that policy makers will be constrained from making connections between domestic violence and other forms of violence against women, from understanding the issue in terms of structural power inequalities and wider cultural factors, or from framing the issue in terms of gender inequality and social justice. For example, the gendered definition and feminist analysis of domestic violence in Scotland provide the motivation for a specific prevention work programme, which recognizes the need to challenge existing gender norms and social hierarchies, placing domestic violence and perpetrating men within context, rather than portraying them as deviant and beyond social norms (Scottish Executive, 2001a, 2001b). In Wales, as in England, the focus on crime reduction deflects attention and resources from prevention which is prioritized only in so far as it contributes to crime reduction (see Phipps, 2010).

The criminal justice and gender-neutral framing also means that Welsh Women’s Aid (and other EVAW organizations) is just one actor amongst many, and its expertise is not given a special status in contrast to the expert status accorded to its Scottish counterparts. So although Welsh Women’s Aid contributes to policy development and participates in the Welsh Assembly Government’s Working Group on Domestic Abuse, it has not been given a key strategic role in the development of domestic violence policies as has been the case in Scotland.

Another key distinction that arises from the gender-neutral definition employed in Wales is that domestic violence is seen as something that can affect anyone – men as well as women. This, together with the use (until mid-2009) of statistics generated by the British Crime Survey which suggest that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men experience domestic violence (see below), has had implications both in terms of framing and on outcomes such as resource distribution. It legitimates the argument that the ‘problem’ of domestic violence for men is equivalent to the ‘problem’ for women and that resources should be deployed to support male victims of domestic violence, perhaps not equally but to a much greater extent than is the case at present. Furthermore, the gender-neutral definition together with the publicity given to the statistics from the British Crime Survey led to some local authorities exerting pressure on women’s refuges to open their doors to men in the name of ‘equality’ (see Charles and Jones, 2010).

In Scotland, as noted earlier, the primary definition and framing is as a gender-based crime directed at women. However, official documents and policies do acknowledge different sorts of intimate violence and the possibility that men can also experience domestic violence as well as persons in same sex relationships (Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse, 2000). There are parliamentarians and others who seek, for a variety of reasons, to promote a gender-neutral definition, as is the case in Wales. As in Wales the apparent findings of the 1999 British Crime Survey seemed to provide fuel for opponents of gender specific framings. Whilst these issues remain in contest in both jurisdictions, a strategic intervention in 2001 by the feminist minister responsible for the domestic violence strategy in Scotland strengthened the case for a gendered definition. She commissioned follow-up research into men who had reported experiencing domestic violence to the British Crime Survey. The study demonstrated that some of the men had reported being assaulted when they had in fact been the instigators of the violent incident, others had included non-domestic assaults and a quarter had not experienced domestic violence at all (Gadd et al., 2002). The political outcome was confirmation that the definition stood, and an acknowledgement that resources needed primarily to be directed to services for women. Alongside this, long-established perpetrator programmes (based around a gendered power analysis) continue to be supported in Scotland (Dobash et al., 2000).

Explaining differences: Institutions and actors

On the face of it, there are key similarities in Scotland and Wales, notably, high numbers of female parliamentarians, well-established refuge movement organizations, and new, re-gendered political opportunity structures, including institutional blueprints and machinery, and aspirations for a new and more open politics. However, whereas in Scotland, feminist ministers, parliamentarians and refuge movement actors have succeeded in transplanting gendered frames into government policy and official definitions, in Wales feminist influence is more constrained and outcomes more contested and ambiguous.

Feminist actors, both as political representatives and as activists, operate in distinctive political opportunity structures which shape and constrain capacities and action. While in Scotland and Wales, the new political institutions are similarly gendered, key reasons for the differing policy trajectories can be found in the differential incorporation of refuge movement actors into processes of governance and the specific devolution settlements and dynamics which gave the Scottish parliament greater powers than the National Assembly for Wales (NAW). These factors combine to provide an explanation for the differences between the two jurisdictions in relation to domestic violence policy and feminist politics.

Certain powers and responsibilities formally vested in the Westminster parliament were transferred to these new bodies within the devolution settlements. The overall outcome is highly asymmetric: each settlement differs in respect of size and composition of legislature, extent of powers, range of responsibilities and system of government (Hazell and Rawlings, 2005). Scotland has the more powerful settlement. The 129-seat Scottish parliament, elected under a new, more proportional electoral system (a form of Mixed Member Proportionality) has the widest range of responsibilities and extensive powers of primary legislation over most matters of domestic policy. These include most areas significant for tackling domestic violence including education, health, housing, civil and criminal law, policing and local government. Wales has the weakest settlement: the 60-seat National Assembly for Wales, also elected using a form of MMP, has only secondary powers of legislation (although powers have been strengthened since 2007). This means that Westminster leads in several areas pertinent to tackling domestic violence, most importantly in the area of criminal justice and crime prevention. Whereas the Scottish parliament and government is free to follow its own policy trajectory, Westminster exerts a powerful ‘drag’ on Welsh policy developments. The legal and policy framework for the development of domestic violence policies is laid down by Westminster and responsibility for criminal justice remains with the Home Office. The Welsh Assembly Government is constrained to implement policy made elsewhere although there is some room for manoeuvre in areas that fall outwith the criminal justice system. Given these constraints, the focus of the National Assembly’s strategy to combat domestic violence is of necessity on its social policy dimensions and ‘its impacts on the health and well being of people’ (WAG, 2005: 7).

There are, therefore, different policy frameworks associated with these different institutional settlements and the subordinate position of Wales in relation to England. These differences can be conceptualized in terms of differences in the political opportunity structure within which actors find themselves in Scotland and Wales. In addition, we argue that there are powerful legacies relating to pre-devolution institutional contexts that continue to have a differential impact upon the capacity of feminist movement actors to take advantage of the opportunities presented by devolution and, of particular relevance here, the relative strength of feminist organizations in the two jurisdictions.

Prior to devolution, Scotland enjoyed greater administrative autonomy than Wales as well as distinctive institutions of local government, education, church and law, which had survived the 1707 Union of the Scottish and English parliaments (Paterson, 1994). In contrast, English legal, education and governance systems are shared by Wales. One outcome of these different institutional legacies was the under-development of Welsh civil society in comparison to its Scottish counterpart (Drakeford, 2007; Paterson and Wyn Jones, 1999). The absence of a thriving policy community centred on policy making in the Welsh Office denied civil society organizations the opportunity and experience to mobilize in order to shape policy and provided little incentive to build the coordinating and mobilizing structures so evident in Scottish civil society. According to a recent study, Welsh feminist organizations were ‘ill suited to operating at a coordinated all-Wales locus of political action’ (Chaney et al., 2007: 49–50). In Scotland such organizations were strong, well coordinated and well-used to operating at an all-Scotland level, as well as in multi-agency local partnerships with statutory and other voluntary sector organizations (Breitenbach and Mackay, 2001; Christianson and Greenan, 2001; Cuthbert and Irving, 2001; Mackay, 2010).

Furthermore, whilst it is clear that devolution created new opportunities for feminist politics, the circumstances were less advantageous for activists in Wales than in Scotland until relatively late in the process. The latest campaign for Scottish home rule was drawn out over twenty years and involved a broad-based grassroots movement of civil society actors and groups as well as political parties and multiple spaces for debate, dialogue and participation. The Scottish domestic violence movement and other feminist organizations were key players in the cross-party and civil society devolution forums of the 1980s and 1990s. As established actors in the ‘winning coalition’, they were well placed to exert influence on initial priorities (Mackay, 2010).

In Wales, in contrast, fewer opportunities were presented by devolution debates, which were hesitant, low key and failed to mobilize civil society until the final stages of the process. Although feminist and equality organizations were involved in these reform processes, their participation was less pronounced in Wales than in Scotland. Instead, ‘an elite cadre of “strategic women” – “leaders without a movement” had capitalized upon the opportunities presented by devolution in a top-down process that mirrored the predominantly top-down nature of Welsh devolution as a whole’ (Chaney et al., 2007: 27; Mackay et al., 2002). This was reflected in the fact that it was two women ministers, one of whom had been active in the refuge movement, who were key in prioritizing domestic violence and in ensuring that Wales developed its own strategy rather than relying on the Home Office strategy for England.

Scottish Women’s Aid and the wider sector were therefore better placed than their Welsh counterparts and better resourced in terms of mobilizing structures and legacies of networks, contacts and lobbying repertoires. They also seized the new opportunities. Scottish Women’s Aid and other VAW organizations proved to be the most active and strategic women’s bloc in the first two parliaments, making use of the enhanced parliamentary and executive opportunities to press their agenda (Mackay et al., 2005). This involved lobbying parliamentarians, ministers and civil servants, participating in the Cross-Party Group on Men’s Violence Against Women, giving evidence to parliamentary committees, and keeping up pressure through a dense network of personal contacts with influential ministers and parliamentarians many of whom were women who were sympathetic to their goals and some of whom had been active in the refuge movement. Most importantly, Scottish Women’s Aid influenced policy through participation in the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse which drew up the National Strategy.

The outcomes of framing contests can be seen in the shape and content of the final National Strategy where the definition of domestic violence emphasized its gendered nature and its links with other forms of violence against women and with international norms. The SPDA initiative reflected also a new climate of openness and responsiveness by government to external pressures from women’s and feminist organizations in Scotland and the promotion of a cohesive set of priorities which had developed in the context of the UN Platform for Action and devolution campaigns: representation and participation, gendered poverty and violence against women (Mackay, 2010). This can in turn be related to the presence of significant numbers of women MSPs (Mackay et al., 2003). It is also the case that momentum for strategic action on an all-Scotland level had been building up over the 1990s, including the publication of research reports and calls to action by statutory bodies such as the police, voluntary sector groups and the domestic violence movement. Political devolution, which created a differently gendered and more open political opportunity structure, provided the opening for work to be taken forward (Cuthbert and Irving, 2001; Scott, 2005).

In contrast Welsh Women’s Aid was organizationally weak and refuge groups were stretched to the limit by providing crisis accommodation; this left them with little organizational capacity to engage in processes of policy development and struggles over meaning. Moreover Jane Hutt, one of the founder members of Welsh Women’s Aid, was a minister in the first Welsh Assembly Government and Welsh Women’s Aid were hopeful that her presence would ensure that their interests were recognized. As we have seen, it was not until relatively late in the first Assembly that a working group was set up and it was indeed Jane Hutt who was responsible for this. Welsh Women’s Aid participated in the working group, gave evidence to committees and took part in consultation processes and, as Scottish Women’s Aid did in Scotland, they contributed to the development of the all-Wales strategy. The working group, however, adopted a gender-neutral definition of domestic violence in line with the Home Office’s and with arguments put forward by representatives of children’s organizations. This framing emerged from the refuge movement as a means of gaining support for the funding of services for women and children experiencing domestic violence. It has, however, meant that the child has become ‘the legitimate focus for claims’ which has made it easier to adopt the ‘language of gender neutrality’ and to lose sight of the fact that it is overwhelmingly women who experience domestic violence and that it is fundamentally linked to gender inequalities (Williams and Roseneil, 2004: 209). Despite the adoption of a gender-neutral definition, the strategy also recognizes that domestic violence is gendered. Furthermore, feminists within and outside the NAW were able to ensure that Wales developed its own strategy and have managed to shape domestic violence policy in significant ways given the constraints within which they were working. Their influence was, however, less powerful than in Scotland and the framing contest that they were engaged in was lost, at least for a time.

Finally the differently gendered political opportunity structures created by devolution meant not only that there was a relatively high proportion of women political representatives but also that several of those in key ministerial positions were committed to prioritizing domestic violence. As is the case with feminist organizations, the interventions of parliamentarians and ministers in the new institutions were shaped by institutional contexts. It is clear that the issue of domestic violence had a high priority in both Scotland and Wales, in large part because of the commitment of feminist politicians, many of whom had recent or current links with the violence against women sector, and their male allies. In Wales two women ministers were particularly important in ensuring that domestic violence had a high profile both within and outside the National Assembly, to compensate for the relative weakness of Welsh Women’s Aid. In Scotland, four feminist women ministers and one feminist male minister were central over this period to the successful implementation of the National Strategy, including their insistence that an expert from Scottish Women’s Aid be seconded to government. Feminist parliamentarians from the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party were instrumental in the safe passage of the Protection from Abuse legislation (see Table 1), which was also the first Bill proposed by any parliamentary committee in the new parliament. Meanwhile annual parliamentary debates, led by feminist politicians and important male allies, ensure that the issue maintains a high public profile. This suggests that the presence of key actors in the NAW and the Scottish parliament was significant in prioritizing domestic violence while the new structures of governance made it possible for refuge movement organizations to participate in the policy-making process.

Feminist politics and devolution effects

Our comparison of domestic violence policies in Scotland and Wales has highlighted the complexities of policy development in the two jurisdictions and the critical part played by feminist political actors who were able to take advantage of a differently gendered and more open political opportunity structure. Framing contests were a crucial part of these developments. In Scotland domestic violence is recognized as a particular harm that is linked to gender. Indeed the responsiveness of Scottish policy makers to the frames of the refuge movement has been commended by campaigners in the rest of the UK. The End Violence Against Women Coalition said that ‘Scotland should […] be recognised as a benchmark with respect to its strategic approach, its recognition that violence is the cause and consequence of women’s inequality and its commitment to enhancing capacity and diversity of provision’ (Coy et al., 2007: 6). In Wales, in contrast, there has been a shift in policy from the recognition that domestic violence is gendered and that women are disproportionately disadvantaged by domestic violence to a view that domestic violence can affect anyone and therefore is not gendered.

The fact that a gendered definition had been abandoned within Wales and at Westminster represents a change in the way domestic violence is understood and framed. Instead of being seen as an aspect of gendered power relations and inequalities, it has come to include a wide range of family-based abusive behaviour which is not explicitly related to gender. This widening of the definition is significant when we consider that the definition of domestic violence as gendered was put on the political agenda by second wave feminism. We suggest that what has happened is a process of issue perversion with gendered definitions of domestic violence being replaced by one which sees it as a criminal justice issue on a par with any other type of violence occurring within the domestic sphere. This has gone hand in hand with the engagement of feminist activists with political parties and the incorporation of many of the movement’s demands into government policy; this is often understood in terms of state feminism (see for example Annesley et al., 2007; Goertz and Mazur, 2008).

These framing contests are ongoing and, while the domestic violence sector within Wales has, for now, accepted the gender-neutral definition of domestic violence, in Scotland a gendered definition and a feminist framing are still an integral part of the National Strategy.

We have argued that these different framings and associated policy trajectories can be linked to the different devolution settlements and resulting institutional contexts in Scotland and Wales and to the differential incorporation of feminist activists into processes of governance. These are important dimensions of the political opportunity structures which, although being gendered differently as a result of devolution and the election of significant numbers of women representatives, are not equally open. There have been more opportunities for the incorporation of feminist organizations into the making of criminal justice policy in Scotland while in Wales these opportunities are not so available as the development of criminal justice policy is centralized in Westminster; this constitutes a Westminster drag which slows down the development of feminist policy in Wales. In addition the Scottish parliament has more powers than the National Assembly to develop independent policies. So even though feminists are involved in policy development in both jurisdictions, inside and outside the legislatures, the different powers of the devolved legislatures have consequences for the abilities of feminist activists to influence policy development. Finally the differences between Scotland and Wales also relate to the strength of feminist organizations and their differential incorporation into processes of governance. Thus asymmetric devolution has created different political opportunity structures or ‘devolution effects’; these shape and constrain feminist politics and framing contests and, importantly, result in different outcomes for services for women and children escaping domestic abuse.

Footnotes

Funding

This paper draws on research findings from an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded project, Gender and Political Processes in the Context of Devolution (grant number RES 000231185). The research team consisted of Nickie Charles (Principal Investigator), University of Warwick, Charlotte Aull Davies and Stephanie Jones (Co-Investigators), Swansea University and Fiona Mackay, University of Edinburgh, who was consultant to the project.

Author biographies

Nickie Charles is Professor and Director of the Centre for the Study of Women and Gender in the Sociology Department at the University of Warwick. She has published widely on many aspects of gender including feminist social movements, the gendered division of paid and unpaid work and the refuge movement. Recently she has collaborated with colleagues at Swansea University to research gender and political processes in the context of devolution. Her books include Gender and Social Justice in Wales (edited with Charlotte Aull Davies; University of Wales Press, 2010), Families in Transition (with Charlotte Aull Davies and Chris Harris; Policy Press, 2008), Gender in Modern Britain (Oxford University Press, 2002), Feminism, the State and Social Policy (Macmillan, 2000), Gender Divisions and Social Change (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993) and Women, Food and Families (with Marion Kerr; Manchester University Press, 1988).

Fiona Mackay is Professor in Politics and International Relations at the University of Edinburgh. Her research interests include political representation, feminist politics, feminist institutionalism and constitutional change in the UK. Fiona directed the Gender and Constitutional Change Project from 2001 to 2003, funded under the UK ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Programme. She co-directs the Feminism and Institutionalism International Network (). She is co-author (with Paul Chaney and Laura McAllister) of Women, Politics and Constitutional Change (University of Wales Press, 2007), and author of Love and Politics: Women Politicians and the Ethics of Care (Continuum, 2001). She has also co-edited The Changing Politics of Gender Equality in Britain (Palgrave, 2002) and Women and Contemporary Scottish Politics (Polygon, 2001).

References

Annesley

Gains

Rummery

(2007) (eds) Women and New Labour: Engendering Politics and Policy? Bristol: Policy Press.

Bacchi

(1999) Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: SAGE.

Ball

Charles

(2006) ‘Feminist Social Movements and Policy Change: Devolution, Childcare and Domestic Violence Policies in Wales’, Women’s Studies International Forum 29: 172–183.

Benford

(1993) ‘Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement’, Social Forces 71: 677–701.

Benford

Snow

(2000) ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview’, Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.

Breitenbach

Mackay

(2001) ‘Introduction: Women and Contemporary Scottish Politics’, pp. 1–24 in Breitenbach

Mackay

(eds) Women and Contemporary Scottish Politics. Edinburgh: Polygon at Edinburgh.

Brown

(1999) ‘Taking their Place in the New House: Women and the Scottish Parliament’, Scottish Affairs 28 (Summer): 44–50.

Chaney

(2011) ‘Education, Equality and Human Rights: Exploring the Impact of Devolution in the UK’, Critical Social Policy 31: 431–453.

Chaney

Mackay

McAllister

(2007) Women, Politics and Constitutional Change. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

10.

Charles

(2000) Feminism, the State and Social Policy. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

11.

Charles

(2004) ‘Feminist Politics and Devolution: A Preliminary Analysis’, Social Politics 11(2): 297–311.

12.

Charles

(2010) ‘Setting the Scene: Devolution, Gender Politics and Social Justice Strategy’, pp. 1–28 in Charles

Davies

(eds) Gender and Social Justice in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

13.

Charles

Jones

(2010) ‘Developing a Domestic Abuse Strategy’, pp. 105–134 in Charles

Davies

(eds) Gender and Social Justice in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

14.

Christianson

Greenan

(2001) ‘Rape Crisis Movement in Scotland, 1977–2000’, pp. 69–76 in Breitenbach

Mackay

(eds) Women and Contemporary Scottish Politics. Edinburgh: Polygon at Edinburgh.

15.

Coy

Kelly

Foord

(2007) Map of Gaps: The Postcode Lottery of Violence Against Women Support Services. London: End Violence Against Women and Equality and Human Rights Commission. [www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk], accessed 29 November 2008.

16.

Cuthbert

Irving

(2001) ‘Women’s Aid in Scotland: Purity versus Pragmatism?’, pp. 55–68 in Breitenbach

Mackay

(eds) Women and Contemporary Scottish Politics. Edinburgh: Polygon at Edinburgh.

17.

Dobash

Lewis

Cavanagh

(2000) Changing Violent Men. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

18.

Drakeford

(2007) ‘Social Justice in a Devolved Wales’, Benefits 15(2): 171–178.

19.

Ferree

(2003) ‘Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing of Abortion in the United States and Germany’, American Journal of Sociology 109(2): 304–344.

20.

Fraser

(2003) ‘Social Justice in an Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation’, pp. 7–109 in Fraser

Honneth

, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.

21.

Gadd

Farrall

Dallimore

Lombard

(2002) Domestic Abuse Against Men in Scotland. Research finding no. 61/2002 [www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/09/15160/9339], accessed 18 September 2008.

22.

Goertz

Mazur

(2008) Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Hazell

Rawlings

(eds) (2005) Devolution, Law Making and the Constitution. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic.

24.

Jones

Charles

Davies

(2009) ‘Transforming Masculinist Political Cultures? Doing Politics in New Political Institutions’, Sociological Research Online 14(2/3) [http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/2/1.html].

25.

Keating

(2003) ‘Social Inclusion, Devolution and Policy Divergence’, The Political Quarterly 74(4): 428–438.

26.

Krizsán

Paantjens

van Lamoer

(2007) ‘Domestic Violence: A Public Matter’, pp. 141–169 in Verloo

(ed.) Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality: A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Politics in Europe. Budapest: Central European University.

27.

Lohde

(2005) ‘Child Poverty and Devolution’, in Adams

Schmueker

(eds) Devolution in Practice 2006. Newcastle: Institute of Public Policy Research North. [ http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/devolution2006_executive_sum.pdf]

28.

Lovecy

(2007) ‘Framing Claims for Women: From “Old” to “New” Labour’, pp. 63–92 in Annesley

Gains

Rummery

(eds) Women and New Labour: Engendering Politics and Policy? Bristol: Policy Press.

29.

Lovenduski

(2005) Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

30.

Mackay

(2006) ‘Descriptive and Substantive Representation in New Parliamentary Spaces: The Case of Scotland’, pp. 171–187 in Sawer

Tremblay

Trimble

(eds) Representing Women in Parliament: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.

31.

Mackay

(2010) ‘Gendering Constitutional Change and Policy Outcomes: Substantive Representation and Domestic Violence Policy in Scotland’, Policy and Politics 38(3): 369–388.

32.

Mackay

Meehan

Donaghy

Brown

(2002) ‘Women and Constitutional Change in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’, Australasian Parliamentary Review 17(2): 35–54.

33.

Mackay

Myers

Brown

(2003) ‘Towards a New Politics? Women and the Constitutional Change in Scotland’, pp. 84–98 in Dobrowolsky

Hart

(eds) Women Making Constitutions: New Politics and Comparative Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

34.

Mackay

Kenny

Pollot-Thomson

(2005) Access, Voice…and Influence? Women’s Organisations in Post-devolution Scotland. Gradus Case Study 2. Edinburgh: Engender.

35.

McAdam

McCarthy

Zald

(1996) (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

McMillan

(2007) Feminists Organising Against Gendered Violence. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

37.

National Assembly for Wales (2006) Minutes of the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee, 12 January.

38.

National Assembly for Wales (2007) Minutes of the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee, 22 March.

39.

Paterson

(1994) The Autonomy of Modern Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

40.

Paterson

WynJones

(1999) ‘Does Civil Society Drive Constitutional Change?’, pp. 169–197 in Taylor

Thompson

(eds) Scotland and Wales: Nations Again? Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

41.

Perrigo

(1986) ‘Socialism, Feminism and the Labour Party: Some Experiences in Leeds’, Feminist Review 23: 101–108.

42.

Phipps

(2010) ‘Violent and Victimized Bodies: Sexual Violence Policy in England and Wales’, Critical Social Policy 30: 359–383.

43.

Scott

(2005) ‘Partnership, Power and Policy: A Case Study of the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse’, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.

44.

Scottish Executive (1999) ‘£8 Million Package to Tackle Domestic Abuse’, Press release, 27 October [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/1999/10/se1056.asp].

45.

Scottish Executive (2001a) Implementation of the National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland: Progress Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

46.

Scottish Executive (2001b) Preventing Violence Against Women: Action Across the Scottish Executive. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

47.

Scottish Executive (2002) Implementation of the National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland: Progress Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

48.

Scottish Executive (2003a) Implementation of the National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland: Progress Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

49.

Scottish Executive (2003b) A Partnership for a Better Scotland: Partnership Agreement. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

50.

Scottish Executive (2004) Domestic Abuse: A National Training Strategy. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

51.

Scottish Executive Violence Against Women Team (2005) Conference Report: National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland, April 2004. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

52.

SPDA (Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse) (2000) National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

53.

SPICe (Scottish Parliament Information Centre) (2000) Domestic Abuse in Scotland: Research Note. RN 00/101. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

54.

The Record (2002) Official Record of National Assembly plenary sessions, 18 April.

55.

The Record (2004a) Official Record of National Assembly plenary sessions, 21 January.

56.

The Record (2004b) Official Record of National Assembly plenary sessions, 4 February.

57.

WAG (2005) Tackling Domestic Abuse: The All-Wales National Strategy. A Joint-agency Approach. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.

58.

Weldon

(2002) Protest, Policy and the Problem of Violence Against Women. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

59.

Williams

Mooney

(2008) ‘Decentring Social Policy? Devolution and the Discipline of Social Policy. A Commentary’, Journal of Social Policy 37(3): 489–507.

60.

Williams

Roseneil

(2004) ‘Public Values of Partnering and Parenting: Voluntary Organizations and Welfare Politics in New Labour’s Britain’, Social Politics 11(2): 181–246.