Hansard

I start, like others, by thanking all those who have helped us to get to this stage, including those who provided invaluable evidence, particularly the powerful and harrowing testimony that we heard from survivors. I also thank parliamentary staff, committee colleagues and indeed the cabinet secretary and his officials. John Finnie made a fair point about the cross-party collaboration that there has been on the issue over the years and in relation to the bill, as well as the constructive challenge that is necessary in the scrutiny of any legislation.

I confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support the efforts in the bill to tackle controlling and coercive domestic abuse and we look forward to voting in support of the bill very shortly, albeit recognising, as others have done, that more must be done to change both attitudes and behaviour more widely.

As we heard time and again during our scrutiny of the bill—most powerfully from survivors of domestic abuse themselves—psychological abuse can be every bit as damaging and every bit as traumatising as physical abuse, and potentially even more long lasting in its effects on the victim.

Currently, the law does not provide anything like the protection that is needed. As I said during the stage 1 debate, where psychological abuse is difficult to prosecute, that in turn makes it difficult to reinforce messages about how unacceptable such controlling and coercive behaviour is, and it then becomes difficult to persuade victims of the value of coming forward.

The bill, which I believe has been strengthened and improved through the scrutiny process, provides much needed added protection. It also offers more clarity and certainty for those who are affected—they are predominantly women—by such abuse that what they have suffered will be recognised and action will be taken against the perpetrators.

Of course, the impact that such abuse can have extends beyond the immediate victim. One of the areas where I think that the committee has worked most effectively with the Government in strengthening the bill relates to protections around children.

Although the bill originally established a specific aggravation where children are involved, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary accepted that that needed to apply beyond simply instances where a child sees, hears or is present in the house during a particular incident. A child’s experience is invariably interwoven with that of their abused parent, and the amendments made at stage 2 better reflect that fact.

The other area that we focused on, on which Mairi Gougeon and I lodged similar amendments, was that of non-harassment orders and how they would be applied, including the protection that they would afford to children. It is absolutely right that the bill requires courts to consider such orders in any domestic abuse case. Like John Finnie and others, I warmly welcome Linda Fabiani’s success earlier this afternoon in introducing a presumption in favour of those orders.

I am also pleased that at stage 2 the cabinet secretary responded positively to the proposals that I and Mairi Gougeon put forward so that, where the statutory aggravation is applied, the court should also be required to consider an order covering any children involved.

On the question of using emergency barring orders in more serious cases, the evidence that the committee took at stage 2 was helpful. I know that the Government continues to work with the third sector on proposals in that area and I look forward to seeing what emerges from that work in due course.

Perhaps the area where there continues to be a bit of an impasse is around the potential for more standalone domestic abuse courts. I entirely understand and recognise the rationale behind the calls for more such courts. Indeed, there is absolutely a need for specialist knowledge in taking forward domestic abuse cases, particularly when it comes to psychological abuse, which we are striking at through the bill.

There have already been steps in that direction within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and I, too, firmly believe that training in the area should be more of a requirement across the piece for fiscals, sheriffs and staff. However—I said this during stage 2—I have a concern about how such a specialist court system might operate in some parts of the country, including the one that I represent. Local access to justice is critically important as well, and I would have quite serious concerns if cases had to be heard some distance from where those involved live and work, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I accept that we will keep the issue under review. I think that the three-yearly reports will allow us to do that in a more informed fashion.

For now, I again thank all those who have helped us to get to this stage. As I have said before, the coercive and controlling behaviour that the bill strikes at can have a devastating impact on a victim, undermining their sense of self and hollowing them out slowly but surely over time. It has no place whatsoever in 21st century Scotland. Although the bill will not end domestic abuse, I am delighted that today we will close a gap in the criminal law in Scotland that will help to crack down on this abhorrent behaviour.