Hansard

I, too, thank the Government for introducing this legislation, everyone who has participated in the discussions, colleagues on the Justice Committee for the work that they have done and the staff and various other people for their briefings. Most of all, I thank the people who gave us private testimony. The cabinet secretary used the word “harrowing”. That testimony certainly was harrowing, but it was compelling, and it gave us an insight into areas that many of us are, fortunately, unfamiliar with.

There is a gentleman on Twitter who takes great exception to a phrase that I use. I will upset him again in mentioning the role of inequality and gender-based violence, which underpins the whole pernicious issue of domestic violence.

The Scottish Women’s Aid briefing talks about the organisation’s gratitude for the cross-party support that there has been. That has been the basis for progress. There has been progress over the years, and no role for party politics. For those who may have heard some differences earlier and who are unfamiliar with our procedures, that debate was in our mutual quest to try to make things as good as possible, certainly in relation to domestic abuse courts.

Kezia Dugdale talked about the relationship between civil and criminal proceedings and the conflict that there can be there. Other members have talked about issues relating to contact and the distress that it causes—and not only to the individual involved; on previous occasions, I have talked about grandparents becoming involved and the abuse that continues in that way.

The committee’s stage 1 report used the phrase “compelling and persuasive evidence”. The evidence certainly was that, for which credit goes to the people who came forward.

Over the past week, although not for the first time, we have spoken in the chamber about filling a gap in the law. A gap in the law required to be filled. People readily understand the physical evidence. Years of psychological abuse can take a real toll, and that toll is visited on children as well.

I understand that people have reservations about the bill. People have said that it is not easy to legislate in the field of human relationships. Things are difficult to prove. However, there is ample evidence from Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and in the excellent work that has been done on serial perpetrators and historic abuse that there can be such legislation if we have the will and the resources. After all that we have heard, we would be failing if we did not legislate.

The stage 1 report said:

“the new offence may give rise to questions in relation to interpretation and enforcement”.

That is the law. Whoever gets the first bit of information—whether they are a police officer, a social worker or someone from the third sector—they will make judgments on it. The police officers who investigate make judgments, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service makes judgments on whether something is in the complainer’s interest or in the public interest and whether there is sufficiency of evidence, and the judge ultimately makes a judgment. Therefore, there is nothing new in the approach. We are adding something else into the equation, and it is worth while doing so.

I mention in particular Linda Fabiani’s amendments and her work. Her commitment to that work has been evidenced over the years, and a presumption in relation to non-harassment orders is a real boost to the bill.

Michelle Ballantyne and others have talked about education, awareness and proper resources. We need increases in refuge provision; increases in visiting support for women, children and young people living in the community; an increase in contact time for individual women and children; a decrease in waiting lists for refuges; an increase in counselling services; an increase in therapeutic activities and support for children; more on-call hours and drop-in support; and an increase in the provision of training for other agencies. Scottish Women’s Aid told us about all those things in its briefing, which says that

“The Elephant in the Room”

is

“Funding for Local Services”.

Those services are at risk.

It would be wrong to get embroiled in funding issues on a day on which an important bill is being passed. However, if there is genuinely a commitment across the public sector to address the matter, funding should not be an issue.

Finally, I want to talk about children and the addition of the aggravator. Although that addition is extremely welcome, Children 1st retains a concern. It has said that

“there is a need to ensure Scots Law recognises a child as a victim of domestic abuse in their own right”.

That is important. Again, the issue of contact comes in.

Children 1st has also talked about the

“need to consider ways to ensure the rights of children who give evidence are protected, including by the development of a Scottish model of the Children’s House (‘Barnahus’).”

I know that the cabinet secretary is looking at ways of doing that.

The Scottish Green Party will support the bill, which we warmly welcome.