Hansard

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I start by putting on record my thanks to all the organisations that have provided us with briefings. My eyes are not that great, but I can see in the public gallery Dr Marsha Scott and Lily Greenan, both of whom have devoted much of their life’s work to getting to the point of the legislation that we have before us today. They should be incredibly proud of their achievements. In all my dealings with them, I have been struck by their passion for the fundamental principle of addressing domestic abuse and violence and their grasp of the detail. We see both the passion for the principle and the masterful grasp of the detail in the bill that we are considering this afternoon.

Too often, women’s organisations still have to justify their existence. Every time that there is a funding round, they must talk about the good work that they do. However, before us today is a bill that is the living, breathing reality of why their work matters, why we still need it and the difference that it can make. It is a good week for them and it is a good week for women, with this bill following on from the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Bill, which we considered on Tuesday.

I agree with Rona Mackay that this is a very good bill. It is ambitious; it is ground breaking, and it does many things of note. I will quickly address its four key aspects. First of all, it removes the ability of a perpetrator of domestic abuse to conduct his own defence. Let us stop and think about what that means for the victim of domestic abuse who is considering whether to come forward and report what they have experienced. The idea that they might have to face a cross-examination by the very person who perpetrated the abuse does not bear thinking about, and this bill ensures that that will no longer happen.

Secondly, as has been discussed, the bill makes coercion a crime. I was particularly struck when the cabinet secretary first talked about the issue in the media, because he immediately understood that the training of police officers and all those on the front line is absolutely critical if the bill is to have any impact in that area. He said at the time—I am sure that everyone in the chamber will hold him to account for it—that he would provide the necessary resources to ensure that police officers and all front-line workers are fully briefed on the new offence and how best to deal with it.

Thirdly, we have had a little bit of a discussion about the importance of non-harassment orders. There is no doubt that Justice Committee members made a huge amount of progress in that area at stage 2, and I commend them for that.

It was not until today that I became aware of the fourth bit of this bill, which I am particularly fond of: the measures on bail restrictions. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its briefing on the matter. There is usually a presumption in favour of bail in criminal proceedings, with the exception of those involving drugs offences, violent offences or sexual offences, where the presumption is against bail. One thing that the bill does that we have perhaps not talked about enough is to add domestic abuse to the list of presumptions against bail. That is a very important development, not least given the case of a particular constituent of mine, whom I have talked about in the chamber before. I do not have time to repeat her entire history but, on 1 December 2016, I talked at great length about her experience of reporting domestic abuse. The perpetrator was facing many charges in court but those were whittled down, and the perpetrator absconded not once but twice while on bail. The difference that this measure could make to individuals who have experienced what my constituent experienced is profound.

I have said a lot of positive things about this bill. I am immensely proud of it and, given that it is a gender take on violence itself—and the roots are there from the equally safe strategy—we should be immensely proud of it. However, a by-product is the unfinished business of how we deal with children who are the victims of domestic abuse. Rhoda Grant covered much of that ground. I would be very grateful to the cabinet secretary if, in his closing remarks, he would comment on the other legislative opportunities that there might be to find symmetry between the civil and criminal legal systems and to consider their relationship with the child protection system in general. As I say, there is unfinished business there, but in no way does that take away from the success of all the parties involved in getting us to where we are today.

Earlier today, Liam Kerr mentioned the importance of housing and the position that many women find themselves in when it comes to refuges. When I visited Edinburgh Women’s Aid, I met one woman who was stuck in the refuge because of the lack of affordable housing to enable her to get out of that situation. That shows us just how important resources are not only for quality social housing, but for funding domestic abuse and violence against women services.

Can we please—once and for all—recognise that to do their job, organisations that deal with women who are affected by violence need long-term, sustainable funding? If this bill means anything—if the work of the people in the gallery means anything—we must give them the definitive commitment that that money will always be there.