 Welcome to the Justice Committee's 23rd meeting of 2017. We have apologies from Mary Fee. Agenda item 1 is our fifth evidence session on domestic abuse Scotland bill, and I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerks, and paper 2, which is a private paper. I welcome our panel of witnesses this morning, Dr Ruth Friskney, research and policy officer, Bernardo Scotland, Chloe Riddle, policy manager, children first, Megan Far, policy officer, children and young people's commissioner, Scotland, and Brandi Rhee, Lough, Dinell, policy and research manager, LGBTQ Scotland. I thank all the witnesses for providing written submissions, which is extremely helpful to the committee. I now invite questions from members, starting with John Finnie. Good morning, panel, and thank you for your contributions. I wonder if you can outline if you feel there's a gap in the existing legislation regarding domestic abuse and whether that legislation folds that gap, please. Thank you very much for inviting us on to the panel today. The main gap is about the pattern about coercion. At the moment, things like stalking and harassment can be convicted or reported, but the actual pattern of what we know domestic abuse is really a pattern of control, it's controlling behaviour, it's coercive. It's those things that reduce people's liberty and make them feel threatened or fearful or limit their activities in order to not provoke further coercion. That's where the gap is and that's our work with LGBT people. We know that that is a major gap in relation to what they are able to report. I'll just leave it at that. I think we'd really just echo what Brandi Rhee said there. We'd like to be clear that the evidence that the children first are providing today seeks to strengthen the bill, but that we absolutely unequivocally support the bill and the need and recognise the need for it. In terms of the people that we support, nearly one in three of the children and young people that we work with, the parents and carers are in some way affected by domestic abuse. We think that there's a need for a strong legislative framework to address the gap in the current law, in particular with respect to what coercive control looks like, but also, as we've highlighted in our previous evidence, the gap around children and young people and the experiences that children and young people have as victims, which we recognise has been included with respect to the aggravator, but we still think that there's a significant gap in terms of the way that children and young people are recognised as victims in their own right. I think similarly we'd echo one of the things that women and children tell us about their experiences of domestic abuse is that they experience it as a whole environment, as a whole sort of course of behaviour, and the gap that the bill fills is to recognise that course of behaviour and not to look at just domestic abuse as individual incidents. The work that the commission's office has done over the last few years and we did some research in 2013, and more recently we did a participation project with children and young people who had experienced domestic abuse, and that showed exactly the same sorts of things that the other panellists have talked about, where it's patterns of behaviour, where it's the cumulative effect of things that might not have looked at on an incident by incident basis constitute abuse, but cumulatively they do, and that's what the children and young people have told us in their work that we have done. Thank you all for that. Chloe, in relation to the response from children first, I quote here, you say, would have preferred a parallel criminal offence of domestic abuse against children to be included in the face of the bill. Then you go on to say, and I found this concerning, but you went on to say, we remain concerned that failing to recognise children as victims of coercive and controlling behaviour within the proposed offence will make children less visible to services. Can you expand on that, please? I mean, I think, as I mentioned initially, we welcome the aggravation that's been included, but we remain concerned that the full impact of domestic abuse is not reflected in the bill, and we think that if it were to be fully reflected that children would be more visible, that there would be more of a culture change and there would be more of a clear understanding about exactly what the impact of domestic abuse is on a child. The focus that we're looking for in terms of parallel offences is around the perpetrator's behaviour. We know from our services, we provide relational support and trauma recovery services to children and families, but there are far-reaching, long-term impact, psychological impacts as well as physical impacts of domestic abuse on children. We know from the research that tells us about adverse childhood experiences of which domestic abuse is one, that there are significant impacts both on a child and then if they don't receive the appropriate trauma recovery services at an early stage, the impact that it can then have on their adult lives. In terms of the impact that we know about on a child, we know that there are people who are living in a permanent fight-or-flight kind of a mode. We know that the women in particular, the women that we work with, I know that there are also men that experience domestic abuse, but the women that we work with are living with intense levels of fear. One of our support workers specifically said to me, how can we expect somebody who's living with that neurological response permanently to think about a nutritious meal for their child or getting them to school and all of these issues? We know that one of the support groups that we have six, six-year-olds, and every single one of them is called 999 at least once in their lives and they're six years old. In those cases, we think that the bill, as it stands, doesn't recognise that significant impact and the perpetrator's behaviour, the way that the perpetrator perpetrates domestic abuse, and that's a significant gap, which would mean that if it was there that it would make the child more visible to the services because there would be a clear recognition that the child was a victim. It would also allow some of the services that perhaps don't fully understand the impact of coercive control on a child to look in a different way. As all of the others have highlighted, we think that there's a real clear need for access to services, access to trauma recovery services and access to family support services for all the families that we know are affected by this. Does that answer your question? Is it not sufficient that there's an aggravation of a child involved? I think that for us it's not a case of either or. We would like both. We think that they provide a totally different perspective. The aggravator recognises when a child's in the household and the effect of the perpetrator's behaviour, but the parallel offence recognises a child as a victim in their own right. I think that the best way of putting it is reading out something that Scra said in their response, where they talk specifically about the offence against an adult victim can be established with evidence of abusive behaviour directed towards a child through section 2, 2B, but it seems anomalous for this to be the case without recognising the child's experience of abusive behaviour as a separate offence. The child can be recognised within the adult offence, but there isn't any provision at the moment for an offence against a child. That seems to us an anomaly that we would agree with Scra. You are saying that it's about children accessing services, but the Children and Young People's Act at section 9 says that children's services plan to be prepared, that children's services in the area are provided in a way that best safeguard supports, promotes the wellbeing of children in the area concerned, ensures any action to meet their needs as taken at the early...etc. You'll be familiar with that. How does the introduction of an offence create a better way that children are supported that is beyond what's actually in the Children and Young People's Act? I don't understand the linkage between the offence, which I think I'll acknowledge a case can be made for her, but children are not going to access to services. It seems, at least prima facie, that the legislation already makes adequate provision. For us, it's not simply about access to services, that's an element of it. There are other reasons, as you said, for including this within the bill. In terms specifically of access to services, it's for us a clear recognition that a child is a victim often makes it easier for the services to be available, for the visibility of the services to be there. We know that the dynamics of domestic abuse and the way that it works, that often people don't recognise themselves as victims, that often services don't recognise people as victims, and that if a child is specifically recognised in this way, their visibility increases. I think it's not a case of saying it's just in the Children and Young People Act. We're not asking for anything around services to be included within this bill. The point that I think that children first were making is that the visibility of this will facilitate a culture change, the recognition that the worst of control is this pattern of behaviour, and that it impacts not just on women or not just on the person who's been abused, but on children and young people. It's important that there is that access to services, the recovery services that we know that they require. The Children and Young People Act is not fully implemented and I accept that straight away. Are you saying that there are barriers to exist and children are not getting access because there isn't an offence? No. If you're not saying that, why do we need an offence to give children access? I'm recognising, convener, that the commissioner also wants to say something, but perhaps first... I think that the others can answer fairly well as well. For us, it's absolutely not linking the need for an offence with the need for services. What we're saying is that if there is an offence in the legislation, it will, by way of the nature of the way it works, it will mean that children are more visible to services. We're not saying that the offence itself will mean that more services are available. In fact, we've repeatedly said that our services have got waiting lists. There are not enough services for children, but we want to make sure that the children that require help get it as quickly as possible, get it as early as possible, and that the effects of the domestic abuse on children are able to be worked with, that there's family support services available. That doesn't mean that an offence is created and therefore there are more services. That's not how it follows. I think that the point that we're trying to make is that by making sure that there is better training, by making sure that there is a clear sense of a child as a victim, that they will be more visible in terms of services. Perhaps the others might want to come in. I think that the main benefit of a separate offence against children, and I want to be really clear what the ask is. I think that it's a collective ask from a group of women and children's organisations. That's to have an offence that recognises the harm that's done to children when there is domestic abuse, either regarding their parent or within the environment that they're living in. I think that this has been misread a couple of times. It's not a defence of coercive control of children. It's the harm that's done to the children when there is coercive control in the environment in which they live. The benefit of that is that increasing the visibility of children in these cases has a number of knock-on benefits. One of the important ones is the effect it has on decisions that are made in the civil courts. We hear evidence from children and young people and their parents, mostly mothers but not just mothers, who contact our office that sometimes there can be a conviction with regard to the mother, but because there is no conviction regarding the child, contact continues to be ordered. The children feel very, very clearly that there is not safe. They do not feel safe. Any rights regarding contact with the perpetrator, because if they've been convicted that's what they are, are contingent on that child being safe. I think that the creation of a separate defence relating to children in the specific context of domestic abuse is one way of making sure that children have the same protection as adults in terms of this act. The aggravator is also important, partly because they're complementary, partly because of the way that sentencing works in terms of an aggravator will be reflected in sentencing. Two convictions concurrently won't necessarily. Partly because it's a useful tool for prosecutors to also have, it gives them options depending on the situation, the age of the child, factors like that. That's why we think it's really important that both the aggravator be strengthened and we've talked about that in our evidence collectively, but also that there is a separate defence relation to children in this context. Very briefly, section 6 of the bill that's before us, which is about presumption of relationship, I'm hearing something that suggests that you might draw it wider than simply where there is a presumption of a relationship that's an intimate one, which is in essence what the bill says, between the perpetrator of the abuse and a parent or someone having parental responsibilities for the child. Are you trying to draw it wider than that? Because if you aren't, you know, kind of we're discriminating against some children and including some and not others. In other words, what I'm saying is, you know, at this stage of the process we appear to be opening up something really quite wide and I'm just wondering if that's how you see it. No, not at all. We're very comfortable with and we agree very strongly with the definition of domestic abuse that's in this bill. I think the language I used was to reflect that families are more complex, unfit for act, have always been complex. And if we are too narrow in our definition of children, we could ignore, for example, a child who was in kinship care. So it wasn't biologically the child of that household, either parent, but was still a member of the household unaffected by it. If we just talk about household, the risk is that we exclude a child who's no longer living at home, who's living with a grandparent because of the abuse. But I think the bill does this quite well in that it talks about a child of B, but it also talks about any other person, I'd like it to specifically say any other child or person, particularly in terms of the bits that are about children, but that keeps the focus on the immediate impact, but also reflects that the family may not be mum, dad, two children all biologically related to both mum and dad, it could include kinship care in formal fostering. Two further supplementaries. Are there small saplings around twins? That was supposed to be a small one. I know. Sorry. Thanks, convener. Is it currently standing under if there's a domestic instant in a household of children if they're present or witness that are referred to the children's reporter? Do you know of hand if that is likely to be happening? I couldn't see anything under this bill. Do you think that that might alleviate some of the concerns that you've got? So if somebody's convicted or not convicted, if somebody's charged with one of these offences under the new legislation that there's an automatic referral to the reporter for any children in the household, probably, because the conveners asked about time just for one answer, probably from yourself or whoever? I mean, I think that I'm going to come at your question possibly slightly sideways. So what we are looking for in terms of a parallel offence is a recognition that when a person chooses to abuse their partner or ex-partner and that there is a child, they are also committing an offence against the child. There are obvious impacts on the child in terms of welfare, but what we're also seeking to do is hold the perpetrator to account for how their behaviours are harming a child. And I think one of the things that we know from what children and young people say about their experiences at the moment is that they don't feel that they're recognised, they don't feel that they're acknowledged as victims of an offence. And I think that you have heard evidence in other sessions about one of the hopes for this bill being that if it does reflect women's and children's experiences of domestic abuse better by capturing that course of course, if control much better, that women and children might be more likely to feel confident in the system or more likely to seek help. We might have more opportunities to intervene, both in terms of providing them with support and in terms of tackling the perpetrator's behaviour. So I think I just want to focus on the reason, one of the reasons for seeking a parallel offence being about holding the perpetrator to account, and that's not the same thing as supports that are put in place for a child. Is that it? Yes, that's a really good answer, thanks. Yeah, a supplementary, Oliver. Just wonder when you talk about a parallel offence, this parallel offence would only be in relation to the coercive control that's in this bill. If you're talking about the wrong that's done to children and young people as a result of domestic abuse, surely that would want to go much wider and take into account physical domestic abuse and that could cause just as much harm. So if you're wanting to create a catch-all offence for children, I just wonder whether this legislation is the right place or whether there should be parallel legislation that creates a wider offence that covers that. Sorry, I think that we're all quite clear that this is absolutely the best place for a parallel offence because it needs to be seen within the context of the partner-ex-partner relationship and when we're certainly, as Magansup, we're not asking for an offence that is in this bill in the absence of that existing relationship and it's important that the whole context is seen because of the way that we know that domestic abuse works and that the course of control works. We know that it's important that the perpetrator is held to account both for the abuse that may be occurring within the relationship but also the abuse that may be perpetrated on the child. I think that for us, the best place to put it is within a domestic abuse bill because we're talking about that very specific offence against a child that's within the context of the other relationship. We're not talking about anything wider than that around. I know that the child protection improvement programme will be looking at some of those other issues and updating the section 12 offence, the 1937 act. What we're talking about here is coercive control and physical abuse as domestic abuse within the context of that relationship that's set out in this bill. Megan. Just to add to what has been said, the bill and it's one of the strengths of the bill in the way that it's written in. I think that it contrasts to the experience in England and Wales. It does include physical incidents as part of the course of behaviour. It will include the instance that you were referring to. Thank you. Mary. It was just to tease out some of the evidence that has been given by some of the members here today. Particularly the children first. You highlighted in your evidence that greater consideration needed to be given to how the offence would apply to partner violence between children and young people and you highlighted how often you've worked with young people who have been coerced into performing sexual acts against their will and the normalisation of certain sexual behaviours among young people and how that creates a pressure to conform. Will the bill be able to address that? Or what more should be added and what more work needs to be done in that respect? Thanks for the question. I think that for us there was a particular concern about 16 and 17-year-olds. We know that there are issues about abusive relationships among children. Given that there are no age restrictions in the bill, we have specifically asked for particular consideration of how children and young people who are accused of domestic abuse will be treated in relation to any new offence created. For us, it's thinking a little bit about children who are going through the criminal justice system and making sure that there are particular considerations of perhaps without excusing any behaviour or any abusive behaviour, making sure that the criminal procedures are going as they should be, but that there is some element of child protection concerns particularly for children who have been coerced into a particular type of behaviour. Where the interaction with child protection procedures are for children who are in abusive relationships. I don't think that there's anything that we specifically think needs to go into the bill, but it's perhaps an issue around training, it's perhaps an issue for guidance. We know, for example, that some of the younger people that we work with have got numerous adverse childhood experiences themselves and sometimes that can impact on their behaviour. One of the things that we've been talking about is the importance of relationship, sexual health and parenthood education. We've been talking about the need to, through Equally Safe and the delivery programme, to challenge some of the gender stereotypes to highlight preventative programmes that look at gender equality. For us that issue is, I think, a prevention issue as well as an issue around how children who are accused of abuse can be supported so that there's a behavioural change and also what their experiences through the justice system themselves because they will be children and not convicted as adults. So it's more of the work around that then rather than actually through the bill itself. I just wonder if anybody else would like to comment on that as well. Yes, there's a lot of work going on at the moment. There's a particular gap around 16 and 17-year-olds in the children's hearing system, but I understand it's being dealt with separately. I think that's probably the right place for that to be looked at. But we would very much hope that any... Well, we would argue strongly that anyone who is under the age of 18 is treated as a child and in an appropriate way. I think just generally in terms of the work that goes on around, I think we would question whether there is enough recognition of coercive control in teenage relationships, whether that really gets picked up and identified, and whether, when it is identified, if then young people have access to services that they can really identify with as young people experiencing coercive control, we have a couple of services specifically for young women and for young men as perpetrators and trying to find a service that they can identify with and really find a home that they can find to work through their experiences. I think Chloe also mentioned the importance of relationships, sexual health and parenthood education, and I think one of the things we'd emphasise in relation to that of the importance of that being accessible to young men as well as young women, including that there are messages that are really accessible to young men about what it's like to be a parent, to be a father. We talk a lot about having equivalently high standards for fathers as parents, as for mothers as parents, because I think we have somewhere that goes on in polemnt with young offenders, and one of the things that has actually come up in that is young men worrying that they're not being a good enough father and asking for more information, not feeling that they had enough input around that. I think that's a really important piece of the puzzle in terms of challenging the gender stereotypes of the structural inequalities in society that contribute to domestic abuse, to coercive control in young people as well as older relationships. If you want to comment on that. I would absolutely echo everything my colleagues are saying. One thing to highlight for RSHPE and any kind of preventative work is to absolutely ensure that it is questioning gender inequality and it is recognising domestic abuse as a form of gender-based violence, but there needs to be a recognition that the messages that men receive are not only about perpetration and the messages that women receive are not only about potentially experiencing domestic abuse. We know that gay, bisexual and trans men, particularly gay and bisexual men, the research shows that they're less likely than their peers to recognise abuse in their first... Sorry, more likely to experience abuse in their first relationships than their peers, but then also less likely to recognise it because they don't see the public story of who experiences domestic abuse as women, so gay, bi and trans men are not seeing themselves, so there are barriers to even recognising it, let alone knowing where to access support, so that needs to be gender-aware, but also gender-inclusive RSHPE. Thank you, and you've raised a couple of important points that I know colleagues are going to touch on later. It was just to come back to a point that you made and it was about the support that's there for that coercive and controlling behaviour that is between young people. Do you think that that is something that is recognised at the moment? Or is there much recognition and support for that, or is that something that has to be developed alongside this? I think that I would certainly question whether it's always recognised. I remember a young woman who was a teenager in a third relationship and had an expectation of abuse because that was the expectation that had been established from the previous relationship, so that clearly hadn't been picked up in previous relationships before she'd sort of got to that point. So, are we identifying coercive control when it happens in teenage relationships or is our image of coercive control that it happens in those older relationships? I think that goes back to the point that you were asking about services, about that recognition of what's happening within these relationships and the impact that an act can have, that if these children are, or if there's a clear recognition of what coercive control looks like across Scotland and that there's a clear recognition of the behaviour, it means that children and young people will be more visible and it means that there will be more understanding of what that looks like so that the services that are available will be able to be meet, to be able to respond better to the children because we know who they are. Thank you. I wanted to ask you about your concerns over section 4, 2b, which is about where a child sees, hears or is present. Barnardo's said that it sends a message that a child's express requires to witness domestic abuse in order to be harmed by that abuse and it's incident-specific. Can you flesh out a bit more of your concerns on that? It's worth saying that the bill has progressed enormously and the fact that an aggravation is in there is a really positive step. We don't think that it's really quite capturing the different ways in which women and children experience abuse together and I'm sure that colleagues will have other perspectives as well. For example, one concern is that potentially as the aggravator is currently drafted, it actually penalises the efforts that women put in to protect their children from abuse. I was in training yesterday and one of the examples that came up was a woman who was experiencing domestic abuse including quite severe physical abuse and she was being strangled and what she reported thinking at the time when she was being strangled was how important it was that she didn't scream because if she screamed then her child would become aware of the abuse and to do was protect her child from that awareness of the abuse and if you think about that in relation to how the aggravator is currently drafted the more of that work she does and we know that women do a lot of that kind of work that child then might not be recognised not only is that child not recognised but that element of how the woman is experiencing the abuse is not recognised so that's one concern I might see if colleagues would like to add further concerns. Chloe? I would really just echo really what Ruth has said we clearly recognise the work that's gone into this and how far we've come and our recommendations are to strengthen the aggravator rather than to criticise it we think that the further clarification that's required is particularly around whether a child sees he is or is present because as Ruth says often a lot of work goes into making sure that a child is actually not present we had questions specifically and I think we heard from Scottish Women's Aid about if a child is out of the country or if a child is out of sleep or if a child is not specifically in the house but there's incidents occurring there was a UNICEF report into the impact of domestic abuse on children that found that those who are not direct victims have some of the same behavioural and psychological problems as children who themselves are physically abused or emotionally abused and I think that it's really important to recognise that the sum of this as it stands is down to interpretation about whether a child is there if a baby is there and also I think if it's financial control what does that look like if a child is not physically there so there's some work to be done there's some language around whether or not the perpetrator is reckless as to whether a child sees or hears there's perhaps some better language but it's definitely an area that we're concerned about Megan We'd really like to see that the aggravator reflects as close as possible the sort of language that's used when talking about the harm done to the non-abusing parent we feel that using phrases like sees, hear or as present far too much focused on an incident that's what this bill has done such a long a lot to move away from the aggravator we really welcome the aggravator we think it's a really vital tool that prosecutors will have we think it does a lot to recognise the harm that's done to children in the context of domestic abuse but it seems to be a little bit too focused on a child being present for an incident as others have said there is lots of different ways that children can be affected whilst being unaware of the abuse because their mother is doing her very best to protect them I'd also been thinking in terms of just the general tension in the house if a child lives with that every day and there's really good body there's a really good body of evidence now that says that where there is those stresses in a household that children are psychologically harmed that they do have long-term impacts but there's also issues like controlling resources controlling what you do socially the child may not know the child may be a tiny baby and not know that it's missing out on things because its mother is shielding it but it's still being harmed I think the example that we used in our evidence was where financial control is being exerted where mother doesn't have enough money to meet the child's needs so the other thing about why it's important to be in here and not in the context of child protection is that this bill does an excellent job at keeping the focus on the perpetrator and when that focus goes away from the perpetrator the real risk is we end up looking at issues like that where a mother is shielded her child but the child still suffers harm we end up looking at has the mother done a good enough job when really she has done absolutely the best job she possibly could in horrendous situations so that's why I think that aggravator needs to more closely reflect the language of the main offence Ruth Sorry, I was just going to expand on some of the examples because I think one of the things that we quite often see in terms of domestic abuses is that the actions and the behaviour of the perpetrator around the woman in terms of controlling her time in terms of inordinate amount of energy she then has to put in to trying to manage that relationship to keep things as safe as possible the child then experiences as a lack the mother doesn't have as much energy as she might want to have to cuddle and play with her child she doesn't have the time because she has to be doing certain things for the abusers at particular times she doesn't have the time to help the child with homework and I think the question is would that be picked up by the current aggravator Okay, that's helpful, thank you Would that be difficult to evidence? So I think it's quite interesting some of the ways that we end up talking about domestic abuse we quite often seem to end up talking about a sort of environment of domestic abuse and I think it's important that we always bring that back to that as an environment of domestic abuse that has been created by the perpetrator carrying out specific behaviours and actions we're actually just at the moment in the process of training a lot of our staff in Safe and Together which is a model around domestic abuse approaches to child welfare and one of the things that comes through in that model is the importance of actually really evidencing those behaviours of a perpetrator and then identifying how that has adversely impact on a child and I think it is to be honest it's quite a mind shift to go from describing he's doing a course of coercive control to he stops her leaving the house with both children at once so they never get to play together all of the different things in detail you look at it together and it really is quite powerful so I think that is something that possibly we are trying to develop doing that much better and being much clearer about evidencing those behaviours and what he's doing and how it impacts on the child I think if you can give for examples it helps tremendously otherwise that is a kind of eerie concept that is difficult to find down but when you give an example then it becomes pretty crystal clear Chloe I think the question about evidence is important I think some of these things are hard to prove we have examples for example in our in our family support services where the abusing parent the perpetrator may for example take the car seat work which seems like an innocuous task but what it's actually doing is preventing the child and the mother from leaving the house but the thing that I think we're clear about is just because it might be difficult that it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be ambitious that we shouldn't be far reaching and that there aren't ways to do it one of the things that we have highlighted in our evidence is the importance of child witnesses and the work that needs to be done to make sure that the court system is not retraumatising for child witnesses and that wider reform is needed but that actually children will potentially be required to give evidence to corroborate some of the things that have been said and so that we're really mindful that if children are going to be giving evidence more frequently or just in general that wider reform is needed for example through piloting a Scottish version of the Scandinavian Barn House model for child victims we're mindful of some of the things that have been going on around for example not being cross examined but there are some steps that need to be taken to make sure that we get the best possible evidence and that witnesses are able to provide the best possible evidence to get that conviction but doing it in a way that we're going to be retraumatising for the children so I think that recognising the role of child witnesses and the steps that need to be taken is really important within the context of this bill In terms of the car seat example you get then would that be followed through maybe with mensria and the recklessness when you actually question where you're not aware of the implication and then working backwards to that to then get into the impact on the child without actually having to interview the child that could be the mensria behind the locks I think that there are some ways that that can happen but there are also some we know that some children do witness some things overtly we're working in particular with some children who witness sexual abuse for example and I think that there might be a case where they would need to be a witness but I think that the important thing also to mention when we're talking about children is the impact of witnessing some of this abuse and it goes back to what Megan is talking about about the perpetrator and this is the whole bill's provision around keeping the focus on the perpetrator's behaviour and it's a deliberate choice if a child is witnessing something and how we can establish that within the bill that the aggravator is enough to do that Megan one of the reasons that we support the inclusion of a really strong aggravator and we're pleased to have the one we have but we have specific requests about improving it as well as a specific offence why we think the two complement each other is particularly around the evidencing in that an aggravator doesn't require corroboration so that gives another tool to prosecutors where particularly with very young children with children who might not be able to give evidence the aggravator could still be used to recognise the harm so that's one of the reasons why our askers has been all along to have both of those as tools available to prosecutors that's helpful Liam, you're just supplementary and then it will bring Ben in because I should have brought you in earlier in your opinion thank you convener and thank you for your evidence so far listening to what's been described convener says to have specific illustrations of the sorts of behaviours and the interlinkage between those behaviours you'll be aware though that the committee's also heard evidence from some witnesses about in the context of expanding the definition which I think there's pretty much universal agreement on there have been concerns expressed around the thresholds and there are set the mention was made of distress the fact that harm or serious harm would not necessarily have had to be proven but the risk of that demonstrated what to your mind would be the safeguards within the legislation to ensure that we all understand at the extreme end what we're talking about the difficulty may come in areas where the level of abuse is more difficult to to evidence and where tensions unpleasant atmospheres perhaps over a long period in a household don't necessarily constitute an abuse by one individual against another albeit that there's certainly a situation that needs to be addressed not least in the interests of any child or children present in the household what to your mind would be the safeguards of criminalising bad or poor behaviour but not necessarily criminal behaviour in terms of this I'd reflect on the existing difficulty of prosecuting even physical violence so I think that the likelihood of that becoming an issue is probably quite small but as Anne-Marie Hicks said and her evidence to you a couple of weeks ago there are quite strong safeguards in the bill in terms of the three three requirements which I have lost on my notes I'm afraid the three conditions regarding the fact that there was a course of behaviour that was abusive that a reasonable person and that reasonable person test is a concept that's quite well established it's quite well understood by the courts and I think is a major protection there against over criminalising behaviour that may not constitute abuse and then the third condition which is around intending to cause harm or recklessness about that I think those three and particularly I'm reassured by the evidence that Anne-Marie Hicks gave to you two weeks ago that the bill has those protections and that that's unlikely to be that the sort of issues that you've described are unlikely to pass those tests so are unlikely to be prosecuted let alone convicted and would you see that as being something that would be understood by those who may be viewing the passage of this bill as opening up an opportunity to bring forward cases otherwise have not been heard was there a clarity and understanding about the scope and extent of this bill the thresholds that need to be come in order to bring a successful prosecution the bill's still at stage one I think that's a process that's going on I think the conversations that are being had here over the few weeks where you've been taking evidence and the rest of the bill's passage will do a lot to hopefully reassure those people hopefully also emphasise how vitally important having this bill in place will be to protect victims of domestic abuse but I'm aware that Scottish Government have said that they are planning to do there'll be additional guidance there'll also be awareness raising and training around professionals and I think that'll address a lot of those concerns as well so at this stage I think there is concern and it's right that people can express that but I hope they'll be reassured over the course of the bill's progress through Parliament I just echo what Megan said about training we've consistently highlighted the importance as I think other people who've given evidence have other organisations that it will be essential that there is training around what coercive control looks like what survivor strategies are what the dynamics of domestic abuse is how the courts are used to perpetrate abuse for example and that we know we've highlighted the need for example for clear jury directions so I think it's not as with all bills it's not just a case of sending of creating an axe and then leaving it like that there will be a course of a need for a course of training a need for awareness raising and other things that hopefully will be taken forward just to echo absolutely thanks the threshold is set at the right place and it's not likely that someone who wants to be vindictive because they're angry at a partner at the moment is likely to pass the tests in terms of course of behaviour or in terms of reasonable person so just want to put that out there but then also in terms of campaign awareness raising and training one thing that we would ask for in relation to and I know that this is a practice and implementation question rather than a legislative issue but one thing that's really crucial to consider as the bill hopefully progresses is to make sure all training and guidance is fully inclusive of all protected characteristics the previous Shakti women's aid spoke about BME women and while it was particularly really gendered additional experiences that may appear reasonable on the from the outside that's also the case for LGBT people some examples are threatening to out someone it might not appear as threatening to out if a perpetrator says I can't wait I'm going to tell everyone about our relationship but actually the person that's experiencing abuse is not out and that could threaten their social networks and their stability etc and that could be seen as a threat whereas to someone that has not been trained on the dynamics of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia they may think that that's reasonable another issue is continually using the wrong pronoun to address trans people or to undermine someone's gender identity or their sexual orientation those are some of the things that will need to be picked up in guidance and training that leads neatly on I think to Ben's final question thank you convener Brandi you've touched on some of the points that I was going to raise but I'll maybe just give you an opportunity to expand further there are more things you want to say because as you suggested including from your own organisation the committee has received evidence indicating that particular types of controlling coercive behaviour may affect certain victim groups and particularly in today's evidence session looking at the lgbti individuals from the lgbti community would the way in which the domestic abuse offences set out in the bill to ensure the specific aspects of types of controlling coercive behaviour in your view and do the police and other criminal justice professionals have a sufficient understanding of the issues at hand and his effort needed to make sure that that wider knowledge is expanded okay we would absolutely agree that the offence as written would be inclusive of lgbti people it is yeah so it includes the coercive behaviour and we know that that's an issue that lgbti people experience there are particular barriers that then go to implementation and then kind of are to do with public awareness and there are issues in terms of reporting and in relation to practice through the criminal justice system so I don't know if you would have seen in our evidence lgbti people can be reluctant to report domestic abuse because domestic abuse cases are seen in open courts and if someone's not out or if they don't feel comfortable talking about the relationship or what's happened that can entirely put them off from reporting so we don't know how this will play out from this legislation but this bill the way that the domestic abuse offence is written absolutely would cover lgbti people but how do we reduce those barriers I would say in terms of police Scotland and the Crown Office they have done a lot of work they are constantly working to be reflective and constantly learning about how to make their services more accessible and we've recently met with we've met with the Crown Office and we'll assist to approach the Crown Office and we've met with the Government around the issue of reporting and barriers and how can we change that practice so that lgbti people can more often report the domestic abuse they're experiencing does that answer your question I'm reassured that you feel that the way the legislation is currently drafted will cover the particular area that you focused on absolutely all mindful that the transition of this bill and if passed as the will of Parliament will require a wider awareness training across many different dimensions and that brings me on to another question that I'd like to ask a convener which if you could perhaps expand brandy from the lgbti community's perspective first but I'd be interested to hear from the whole panel because it's actually detailed in children first's evidence where you said we hope this bill is beginning of a wider cultural shift and driven by a widespread public awareness campaign and broad-raising professional training about the dynamics and impact of domestic abuse. I'd be interested to hear more on that and how you all see the potential effect of this bill in terms of raising greater awareness and having an effect on social change as well as legislative development so my initial response is that it will more appropriately reflect what domestic abuse is by recognizing the patterns of control within intimate relationships so that in itself in terms of recognizing what takes place that will greatly increase understanding of what people are able to report what they are able to get support around we've seen in previous evidence sessions where people approach women's aids and other domestic abuse support services where they say I don't know if I can get support on this I don't know if it's abuse there was an LGBT domestic abuse helpline their previous posters showed someone at the bottom of the stairs having fallen down and that continued to perpetuate this understanding that domestic abuse is about physical harm rather than a pattern of behaviors that may include physical but actually are very emotionally and psychologically manipulative so my initial personal response is that it will just raise awareness of what domestic abuse is as a pattern of controlling behavior between intimate partners rather than the stereotypes of physical abuse and that will greatly increase people's understanding Do you think that in the LGBTI community that will encourage more victims of domestic abuse to come forward and set justice within the system? I would caveat that slightly by saying that there are still barriers to the reporting due to the open courts but that's something that we are going to continue to try and push on and try and change because that's practice related but in terms of having legislation that fully supports people's experiences and their ability to take something forward and report it, that is a very positive step Thank you We would agree as we said in our evidence that the clear recognition within the bill that abuse can be both physical and non-physical and that it's part of a pattern that the perpetrator's behavior is part of this pattern and it can be emotional and psychological as an important part of the culture change that we think is required For us it's also about making sure that children's right to be safe from harm children's right to recovery is clearly recognized that it's some as Brandy Lee was saying that people who are in these relationships in these circumstances are recognizing that what we're talking about is abuse and that there is help and support and services out there there is a clear statement within the UNCRC that children have a right to recovery and I think that part of that is it must be recognizing when abuse is taking place and some of the more subtle types of abuse, as we mentioned before things like withholding money for nappies or the car seat example that I gave before as well as some of the more dramatic types of coercive control and behavior that can come together to form a pattern and I think that recognition throughout the bill and an awareness campaign and training will help people to understand what coercive control looks like for friends and neighbors and the community to speak up in ways perhaps that they hadn't recognized before. I think I'd echo that and we sort of said at the beginning that what we see in this bill is a much more effective recognition of the lived experiences of women and children in terms of domestic abuse and I think it also goes back to the question that we talked about earlier which is about why we're seeking with their mothers much more visible and so for example one of the things we see a lot is children coming into our services and they're referred for a reason that has nothing to do with domestic abuse so children comes in because of problems with attendance at school and it's really important that you're able to look at what's going on from a domestic abuse informed perspective and take that step back in particular example of where a child is so afraid of what the perpetrator does to the non-abusing parent when he's at school that the child doesn't want to go to school the child wants to stay at home and protect mum and if your approach to that child is to put burdens on mum and try and make her do more to get the child to school that's not going to support the child's wellbeing but if we can take a step back and look at it and understand the domestic abuse that's going on and how that's impacting on what's happening to the child we've got a much better chance of actually achieving change you should then impact on that kind of cultural change as well legislation is used as a way of raising awareness as well as of prosecuting people we've done that in a number of ways and I think this bill will go a long way to raising the awareness of domestic abuse across society amongst professionals but one of the pieces of work that the commissioners office together with Scottish Women's Aid have been doing recently of the civil court system and particularly around contact I mentioned earlier that the invisibility of the harm done to children by domestic abuse and the effects that that can have and I think that that's another important thing where the bill will not just hold perpetrators to account and that's vitally important that we do but also raise awareness of that harm across society and improve the protection of children and I think that's one of the reasons why we need the stronger aggravator why it's important to have a parallel offence relating to children but it's also one of the issues that could be covered by the non-harassment orders which are included in the bill at present the non-harassment orders don't mention children what we'd like to see is if the aggravator is applied or if there's a parallel offence but particularly the aggravator is an excellent opportunity that the same condition be put on the court to consider an NHO in relation to the child because children can continue to be involved in the abuse when they're not with the non-abusing parent by the perpetrators and as it stands the section regarding non-harassment orders doesn't give children the same protection it gives adults and in some conditions it may give children less protection after the abusing parent the perpetrator has been convicted then they had when he was on bail so I'd really like to see children given the same protection in terms of non-harassment orders as the partner does within the bill Can I ask a little bit about contact centres that's been raised from the very first evidence that we took informally on the bill and the fact that they can be used by next partner to abuse or undermine the other parent and now I think following on from your evidence Megan perhaps harm the child I think with contact centres what we hear and we hear it from professionals is that sometimes the understanding of the purpose of a contact centre isn't well understood even within the court system but in terms of the type of domestic abuse the way we now understand domestic abuse and the way that's understood in this bill contact centres can't necessarily prevent the sorts of behaviour which involve children and abuse talking about undermining the parenting of the other parent using the child to spy on the non-abusing parent is quite difficult to address through a contact centre particularly since in a lot of cases it's not supervised contact so the perpetrator could potentially be alone with the parent sorry with the perpetrator I think there is a use for them in terms of the risk but the other thing about contact centres is they themselves organisations that run them have said to us that they're intended as a short term solution not a long term answer to an abusive partner and I think there's real issues about them potentially being used of that both children and their parents have rights around contact safe environment children's right to be safe must be the first consideration when contact is considered and if there isn't a safe environment and in terms of the sorts of ways children are involved in domestic abuse that are addressed by this bill I'm not sure they can always provide that and in any case they're only ever intended as a short term solution perhaps the other panel members might comment on the non-harassment order provisions generally I think we have some particular evidence on that was it social work yes as we said in our evidence children first would like to see a mandatory duty on the court to consider whether to impose a non-harassment order that includes a child in all cases where the statutory aggravation in relation to a child is applied as Megan said we know that there are complex issues around contact and we know that there are issues around the civil courts and whether or not the civil courts would uphold the non-harassment orders I think some of the other evidence that has been heard talked about whether or not children are more effective and we think that that's something that does need to be addressed but it shouldn't prevent us from putting something within this bill to ensure that children are given the same protections as adults in terms of harassment orders I think that in terms of the on-going question about contact it's really important not to shy away from the fact that perpetrators may continue through contact and the consideration of a non-harassment order is part of the tools that that abuse may be prevented for us post-trial protections are absolutely critical for victim safety we think that, as I mentioned when I was talking about child witnesses a lot of the systems actually re-victimize I was really shocked to read one of the evidence submissions from a victim who said that she would rather be abused again than go through that court system and I think that if you think about that with respect to children and the impact that some of that court processes have on children it's really traumatising we don't want there to be things in place that will prevent women from talking or people who've been abused from talking about abuse because they're concerned about the court system and for us the protection of a non-harassment order that can be extended to a child in all cases where the aggravations applied would be an essential part of protection for a child who's been a victim of abuse I think we'd very much echo that we really see that it would be entirely appropriate particularly where the aggravation in relation to a child has been evidenced that the non-harassment order should protect the child as well as protect the mother and we all know that we can't equate the perpetrator no longer being there with safety and we know that perpetrators are capable of abusing women and children for example when they're in prison so it's really important that non-harassment orders are put in place that cover women and children so that the perpetrator doesn't find a way around go through the children to carry on continuing that abuse Stuart, did you have anything else to say? Yes, fairly briefly I think section 5, defence and the grounds of reasonableness I think this strikes the right balance I'll say that straight away but presumably in invoking the behaviour was reasonable in drafting terms we're avoiding giving a list of the behaviours we thought might be reasonable because of course the circumstances are very we really just want nodding heads almost to say that you're content with the section and we're getting them thank you I think that concludes our line of questioning and I thank the witnesses very much for what's been a very valuable evidence session and certainly put some different perspectives that we haven't covered so far so thank you all very much for attending we'll now suspend briefly to allow for a change of witnesses okay I welcome our second panel of witnesses Peter Edinburgh Services manager, safeguarding communities reducing offending SACRO and Catherine Sharp doesn't look like, yes it is member of the criminal justice standing committee social work Scotland who's intending in place of Jane Martin as originally notified on our agenda you're both very welcome and thank you very much for your written submissions and with that we'll move to questions asking SACRO about the Fearless project and what that's on there so Fearless is a domestic abuse support service for hard to reach victims of domestic abuse specifically men, LGBTI plus and black minority ethnic communities it's a partnership between SACRO LGBTI of Scotland, Shakti Women's Aid and the men's advice line across eight different regions in Scotland providing one-to-one domestic abuse support and the findings so we've been operational for just coming on two years now we're finding in terms of the people access in the service there are indeed barriers because they are hard to reach victims of domestic abuse the majority of the victims are male victims is being probably the biggest group within that demographic of our service about 25% identify as LGBTI plus and about 10-15% come from black minority ethnic communities what we find specifically is that there are different barriers for the different groups that we work with I know that you had some representation last week from abused men in Scotland and Alison Walk talked about specific barriers for men that being specifically ideas around masculinity men don't necessarily relate to domestic abuse or don't see it as something that impacts or affects men for LGBTI communities the public narrative around domestic abuse which we've had over the last 40 years driven forward by the women's services are that something that men do to women and that's very much been the public narrative an unintended consequence of that has been that some other groups don't necessarily identify too readily with domestic abuse so that public narrative LGBTI relationships people don't see themselves in what's portrayed in the media as less likely to recognise domestic abuse when it happens and less likely to access support so there are a lot of challenges in terms of engaging people around that Some of the panel members may have more questions than that later Catherine any comments on that sorry I think as Aaron says that obviously social work Scotland would be very much supportive of the work that's happened around domestic abuse and the gender analysis that we've had we recognise that there are many people across Scotland experiencing domestic abuse and each of those experiences will be unique to those individuals there will be unique barriers to those individuals in terms of reporting and as we move forward it is important that we take an inclusive approach whilst recognising that domestic abuse is a gender based issue in Scotland so we're absolutely supportive of projects my own authority I think works with the Fearless project and that's been helpful for us Thank you Fulton We've heard some evidence from the Scottish Police Federation that suggests that the approach to tackling domestic abuse is based solely on punishment Would you recognise that analysis? I'm just off to the message at the moment with the response being focused on punishment I think that's probably largely due to lack of rehabilitation programmes across the country or where they are provided it's a bit more patchy it's a bit of a postcode lottery in terms of where rehabilitation is available certainly with any type of crime domestic abuse, especially the rehabilitation aspect is really important given the number of repeat offences around domestic abuse so any shift from punishment towards rehabilitation would be a really welcome measure especially to help perpetrators of domestic abuse to understand and address the behaviour and to make positive changes What do you think we could do to enhance interventions in place in my background before becoming an MSP was in the criminal justice social work sector so I'm fully aware of some of the stuff that's been done but I suppose the point I'm asking is what do you think could be done to make these interventions more effective firstly to stop re-offending and secondly to prevent any offending in the first place Importantly, how do we think that we can get the public to have trust and faith in these services that they're working to those aims Can I respond to that? I think in terms of how we move forward in terms of rehabilitation of offenders I read the evidence that was given by the police federation and the focus on punishment and I would necessarily agree with that from a social work perspective I think that we are very clearly focused on rehabilitation and have a clear belief that we should be working with perpetrators of domestic abuse to identify opportunities for change and to support those opportunities for change I think that we have had a lot of focus on perpetrator programmes and we recognise that there are differences in the delivery of those programmes and availability of those programmes across the country and perpetrator programmes in terms of rehabilitation and focus on our broader whole systems approach to perpetrators and I think that the bill is extremely helpful in focusing on the behaviour of perpetrators and encouraging that across our whole system Your witnesses in your previous session this morning spoke about the safe and together approach which is being implemented by a number of local authorities and which encourages practitioners across the whole system to have a very clear focus on perpetrators to see domestic abuse as a parenting choice and to recognise the impact of coercive control and be very clear about that behaviour and its impact on all those that are affected and I think that that brings a focus on perpetrators on early intervention across our whole system not just in social work and children and families social work as well as criminal justice but across all the services we work with including with our name persons so I think that there is much potential for us to think beyond what we are currently doing to build on the foundations we have in terms of perpetrator programmes but to expand our thinking and our attitudes in terms of identifying and working with perpetrators at a much earlier stage and the bill as it's written is very much supportive of that approach Do you think it's so much about identifying and working with perpetrators at an earlier stage or is it perhaps part of that but also what we heard in the last evidence session there it's actually about trying to change cultural attitudes so maybe even for example within schools being more open and talking about it because we all know I think it's generally agreed that domestic abuse is about control and power and it is mainly well not exclusively of course but mainly perpetrated by males and females so do you think that even trying to address it at an even earlier stage than actually trying to identify a possible perpetrator as a possibility and that convener will be my last question on that. Again I absolutely agree a whole systems approach from the earliest intervention is absolutely appropriate in terms of both general public awareness raising and again I think the bill offers opportunities to raise the profile of domestic abuse as a pattern of coercion and control rather than a single instance of physical violence which has been although that narrative in Scotland has been changing for a number of years there is still public attitude surveys would still in support the fact that the majority of members of the public still believe that domestic abuse is focused on physical violence or see that certainly is more serious than other forms of abuse and absolutely a commitment from social work as well as from other local partners to the earliest intervention in terms of relationship education in schools focusing on respect and equality and working with young people to support them to identify those who are at risk of harm at the earliest possible stage and to intervene appropriately and to support young people within the context of our GERFEC agenda as well. Sorry, Erin. In addition to that more voluntary programmes for people who are either perpetrators or identified at risk of being perpetrators of abuse, at the moment the Caledonian system is a court mandated programme and I think Edinburgh City Council is one of the few areas where there is actually a voluntary programme for people who are abusive so more programmes I think where people will access that support at an earlier stage rather than waiting for it to go through the criminal justice system and have a court mandate that they attend a court programme. Interestingly, following the first section just when we broke into to suspend for a minute or to a lady who had been listening in the gallery suggested she was from India and she suggested early intervention in schools in terms of anger management would that be something that would make sense? In terms of domestic abuse I think it's broadly recognised by agencies, social work and agencies working with women, children, young people as well as our criminal justice partners that anger management is not necessarily an appropriate response in certainly the vast majority of cases of domestic abuse. We understand that domestic abuse is not caused by anger and an inability to control anger in fact many perpetrators display excellent ability to control anger in particular circumstances when it best suits their needs and agenda. We understand in Scotland that domestic abuse is a function of gender inequality and other structural inequalities such as poverty and that our focus needs to be on raising awareness of that reality and of challenging those issues so certainly a focus with young people would be around respect and equality how to manage conflict within relationships because we absolutely acknowledge that relationships will include conflict but how to do that helpfully and with respect and without resorting to managing that in abusive ways whether that's physical violence or around psychological and emotional abuse. I think she was thinking about children just managing their behaviour just generally. I don't know if you have any comments on that. It's a difficult one. Work early on is going to be more effective and it's in line with equally safe strategy in terms of early interventions. As Catherine said perpetrators of abuse are very controlled and they can control that anger when it suits them and I suppose there may be a distinction between more situational violence where someone has a burst of anger in response in a way that might not necessarily be underpinned by that pattern of coercion and controlling behaviour so I think that any interventions need to make that distinction. That's helpful. Liam, was that supplementary? We haven't talked an awful lot about rehabilitation. I'd be curious about the success rate of rehabilitation programmes recognising that it's going to be a continuum of people from probably the more modern attend in terms of behaviour patterns through to those who are very challenging and where the outcomes have perhaps less prospect of success. What is the general experience of the success of rehabilitation programmes generally in this country? That's a hugely contested area unfortunately I probably don't have a straight forward answer for you. The Caledonian programme which has delivered across 13 local authorities in Scotland was evaluated and that report was published at the end of last year and it did show some positive impact so the participants in the programme whether that be perpetrators of domestic abuse and these are all men who have been convicted and are mandated to attend the programme as part of their community sentence the staff who participate and also the women partners or ex-partners of those men who are mandated to the programme did rate the programme highly women reported feeling safer men were assessed by their criminal justice social workers as posing a lower risk to women and children by the end of the programme however the evaluation is also extremely clear that it can't conclusively demonstrate an impact of the programme and some of the psychometric analysis testing and analysis that was done as part of the report offered a more mixed picture in terms of women's views about perpetrators' change in behaviour as well so there has also been some multi-site studies done across the UK by Project Mirabal in 2015 which were all around respect accredited programmes and again some encouraging results in terms of the impact so that most men stop using violence and reduce most other forms of abuse most partners said that they felt safer and were safer and it was recognised that programmes made a unique contribution to helping perpetrators to make steps towards change and also in terms of forming part of a local co-ordinated community response to domestic abuse but again acknowledging that overall there was absolutely a continuum of change for men so some men may have made very little behaviour and some may have made very significant changes. For what you were describing there it almost suggests that the focus of those programmes has generally been on instances where there may been physical violence as opposed to the kind of coercive controlling behaviour that we're talking about in the context of this bill. Is that a fair assessment or has it been cast more broadly? I think that programmes and certainly respect accredited programmes that are designed to take in the entirety of that behaviour. The conviction for which the perpetrator has been mandated to the programme is more likely to be related to a physical incident, one-off incident as we've heard already, that's where our legislation is currently focused. The likelihood is that a conviction would relate to that type of incident-based domestic abuse but the programme, and I know from work with my criminal justice social work colleagues locally but across Scotland that those social workers are extremely skilled in supporting men to look at their behaviour in terms of that in terms of looking at coercive control and controlling behaviour and that the respect accredited programmes absolutely encourage that response. One brief final question. Do you see the bill and the way that the bill is cast increasing the likelihood of referrals to those sorts of programmes or less likely because the focus is I suppose on identifying the actions of perpetrators and putting in place safeguards for those both largely women but also children in the household who are suffering as a result of this? What would be your impression of the way that the bill is cast and is there anything that you should be looking at in terms of the bill's provisions that may heighten the opportunity around rehabilitation where that is appropriate? I think our view of social work Scotland would very much be that the bill as it is cast at the moment we notice in the financial memorandum that there are some estimates in terms of the likely increase in reporting prosecution and conviction and likely increases in community sentences where a community sentence is imposed there is a process of assessment so not all perpetrators will be suitable to come on to a mandated programme there needs to be some acknowledgement of the offence and some acknowledgement of the need for change and motivation to do that and that will not be the case for all perpetrators so we would expect in the natural course of things as the bill is implemented that we will see more reporting that we will eventually result in more convictions and therefore there will be more men who are mandated on to the programmes and we would absolutely welcome that as a widening access for the opportunity for change for men and in terms of impact that will have for victims and for children there is a lot in the bill that absolutely aligns with the approach that is taken within programmes so a focus on the behaviour a focus on the impact on the victim and accountability for that behaviour and its impact so I think the bill absolutely supports in the way that it's framed supports the work that criminal justice social workers already do within programmes but also in their one to one work with perpetrators as well The intention of the bill is to require the court to consider more often whether or not to impose a non-harassment order and we've heard that some of the children's organisations in fact all of them say that they thought that should be applied specifically to children as well I just wonder if you want to comment Catherine particularly on what you think the implications of that might be on the resources and workload of the social work system The Glasgow Bar Association have raised some concerns that this might create extra pressure on other personnel if prosecutors aren't expected to provide the background information I think in the social work Scotland's submission this point was raised in terms of the moment that the bill is silent on the sources of information that the court might take into account although I think we were encouraged to see that in Anne-Marie Hicks's evidence a few weeks ago that her clarification that from her perspective you wouldn't need to the expectation would be that that burden if you like in the first instance would fall on the Crown Office and also having reviewed the protocol that's in place currently between the Crown Office and Police Scotland we're assured that that is already well embedded in guidance and in practice although Social Work Scotland would absolutely be supportive of providing information in addition to that that's available through the Police and through the Crown Office we recognise that it's probably appropriate in most cases that the current practice is followed and that the primary source of information is from those agencies with criminal justice social work able to provide that through reports when requested by the court so we don't see that that would have a hugely significant impact if practice continues as it currently is in the framing of the bill as it is at the moment What's your view on the non-harassment orders being extended to children as well as to the victim Social Work Scotland is supportive of the views of children women and children's agencies that if the aggravation recognises the child as a victim of harm that it's therefore a logical fall-on that the non-harassment orders should also be extended to cover children we do recognise the practice issues that have been raised particularly where there is conflicting orders in place so there may be a non-harassment order in place for the adult victim of the abuse generally the mother and then there are contact orders put in place in the conflict between that and that can cause obviously huge issues for the women and their children but also in terms of the management of that between criminal justice, social work and children and family services as well so we can see that that will strengthen the protection of children and the principle that children should be equally protected is absolutely important, I'm very much in agreement with that Arryn, would you like to comment? The same as what Catherine's been saying we support the consideration of non-harassment orders and the extension to children as well covering old ground but again the same issues around the non-abusive parents getting protection but if the children aren't in the complications that can come from that so sacro supportive of those provisions That's great, thank you very much Fulton In the last panel we talked a wee bit about aggravation I'm just wondering if both of you think that the proposed aggravation in relation to the child for this law is sufficient or if you think like colleagues in the previous panel did that it should be wider and I asked the previous panel as well so I'll just double this up on my question what role do you think the children's healing system can have in relation to the ease offences and do you think they'll be similar to the role that it can have in the current legislation In terms of the aggrairator I think that Social Work Scotland again absolutely welcomes the provisions within the bill as a really important step to further recognise the experiences of children and young people and the impact that domestic abuse has the very serious harm that it can cause for the children and young people but we also like other witnesses agree that that might the provision may not be perfect we certainly would welcome some clarity regarding the terms in the bill in terms of that children might be present and what that actually means does that mean present in the room does that mean in the household what does that mean in terms of an unborn child and all the research that we know is there about the very significant risk that women face during pregnancy and the immediate period after that What do you think it should be I think that we would like it to be as inclusive as possible for all of the reasons that were all again the evidence from this morning but that we absolutely recognise that a child does not need to be present in a room in order for them to be significantly impacted by domestic abuse just the fact that they live in a household where there is an ongoing pattern of control and abuse can have very significant impacts and I think that people referred this morning to the tension in that home and all the many ways in which children are impacted on a day and daily basis by that experience so we would support a broad and inclusive aggravator which recognises all of the different situations in which children find themselves in terms of domestic abuse Again, the impact that it has on children who are not just present but members of the family the overall impact on children whenever they aren't in the next room they don't witness it but the impact on them supportive of the aggravator but I'm conscious that as the bill was initially drafted that aggravator wasn't there in the initial stages and I don't know if separate parallel legislation might be required to fully embody the experiences of children and offer further protection there but I think as a first step broadening the aggravator just by acknowledging children in the family would be a positive step I was covered extensively in the first session of your view as well Ben, followed by John Thank you, convener I just want to pick up a few points on your evidence, written evidence Thank you for that You, like LGBTI Youth Scotland you also pick up on the LGBTI community specifically and various fears and concerns and barriers that face that community at present when it comes to domestic abuse You speak about the need for a concentrated publicity campaign should this bill become the will of parliament I wondered if you could just expand on the importance of that as you see it Sure The bill overall we're very supportive of it and it's a really positive step forward but the main concern that I would have is that for the bill to be effective the implementation is key and for it to be properly implemented and to protect everyone that it has the potential of protecting there needs to be a concerted publicity campaign around broadening the public understanding of what domestic abuse is beyond the physical violence beyond men's violence to women that actually it is a pattern of coercion and controlling behaviour that it does affect people regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity and it transcends different identities The biggest bar for LGBTI people might be recognising domestic abuse when it's happening they don't relate to the public narrative they don't see themselves as victims of domestic abuse and when you don't recognise it you can't reach out for support, you can't report it and then if there is a recognition that what you're experiencing is domestic abuse anxieties around reporting it to the police going through a very public court system which you know Brandi Lee touched on from LGBT Scotland if someone's not out to their friends or family that's going to be a massive barrier they're not going to report that and they're not going to be able to get the support that they need so publicity around the new offence is very important to help people recognise where it's happening not just for public confidence but also I suppose linked into publicity is the training aspect as well for prosecutors, for the police, for the judiciary when interpreting this legislation and psychological harm and the relevant effects what does that look like LGBT how is coercion used in these relationships what are the intricacies in these relationships and how does that manifest so I think there's a lot of work to be done on the back of this to make it successful thank you and thank you for also touching on the issue of sharing information and a risk a need for a risk management approach around that just very briefly convener in your written evidence from SACRO in reference to the introduction of a standard bail condition prohibiting the accused from personally obtaining recognitions or statements from a complainant in relation to the new offence is an appropriate safeguarding measure wonder if you could just elaborate on that sure I think if the accused was able to obtain recognitions or conduct their own defence that would further revictimize the victim traumatise them it's an opportunity to further control when they're doing their own defence or obtaining recognitions they will be very skilled and manipulative and know what buttons to press how to get under the victim's skin and I think for the criminal justice system to allow that to happen would be a grave mistake because I think the justice system would then be complicit in the abuse of that victim in a manner of speaking so we would support any move to restrict that from happening thank you for that morning panel it's a question for yourself Catherine and it's about the written evidence and the last two sentences if I may quote the intended impact of this ball when implemented is to hold perpetrators to account and secure the safe and secure future of victims and families I know many people listening in this hopefully will understand the rationale for discussions about rehabilitation but it's certainly a view that nothing should be done to facilitate perpetrators once again having access to the opportunities to inflict their damage on families would you agree that that's... absolutely I think Social Work Scotland along with other agencies are absolutely committed to the idea that the bill and all of the system that sits round about it focused on the protection not just of current victims but of any potential future victims as well and all that we do in our local partnerships and community planning is absolutely focused on that public protection element as well as prevention in terms of the elements that we spoke of earlier as well so absolutely agree with that thank you and the very last sentence is it will be important to align the operational impact of the present legislation with the multi-HC work being undertaken to deliver equally safe I'm trying to think of the legislation to pass the practical implications because a lot of our discussion has been around the presumption that it will be the police that will initiate everything the reality is that of course child and family social work teams have regular engagement and will be aware of some of this already would you envisage that that they would be the catalyst for advising the police of this conduct on recognition that it is criminal Catherine? I think that as I think that Lesley Bow and her evidence suggested that the reality is that on the ground are practitioners and the police and social work whether that's in children and family services or in criminal justice social work are very much dealing with the reality that is reflected in the bill on a day-to-day basis. They already deal with coercive and controlling behaviour as a pattern of abuse. They are currently in the position where not all of that behaviour is criminalised but that nonetheless means that they are working with families and are taking forward appropriate interventions so while some of the behaviour may not be criminal it may have an impact on a child or young person that brings that into the concern in terms of wellbeing and gearfec or in terms of reaction responsibilities so we are absolutely working as you say with those families and recognising that and we'd seek to continue certainly in my own authority where we're implementing the safe and together model to be partnering with a non-abusing parent to be supporting them to recognise the perpetrator's pattern of behaviour and the impact on both them and their children and also to recognise the many things that women do on a day-to-day basis to protect their children but to think with them about how we best work together with them to protect them to protect their children and to help them to move on and to recover from that experience so it would be about us working with victims and their families and about intervening in a supportive way but of course there will be times when children and families social work will have to take measures to protect children where that is merited and there will be extra powers to do that as well and of course because of this level of regular engagement it's not necessarily going to be the case that information disclosed which would allow us to pass constitute a crime would necessarily come to light as a result of a joint investigation with police officers indeed perhaps more likely it would come out from day-to-day engagement with social workers are you able to suggest what the tipping point would be for reporting that to the police additional training requirements for their staff because it is clearly a significant burden on them it's very difficult to say obviously that each case would be individual and the circumstances would need to be assessed against the existing legislation and responsibilities in terms of child protection what I would say is that obviously we have very well embedded multi-agency systems for doing that so it wouldn't be necessarily be a decision of social work we are moving much more towards making shared decisions as a multi-agency groups and line with the GERFEC practice model there's no doubt that for all agencies there will be training implications as a number of witnesses have spoken to you about it and that will of course include social work practitioners so yes there will be a need for some training but I would reiterate that this is something that our social work colleagues work with day and daily the reality of domestic abuse is an issue that impacts on many hundreds and thousands of women and children across Scotland many of them are already in contact with our social work services and our practitioners have built up skills around that so we are looking to build on the strength that is there but we absolutely acknowledge that there is always room for further training, awareness and improvement in terms of practice as well thank you very much you talk about multi-agency work being undertaken to deliver the outcomes of equally safe so whether to pass this entirely consistent equally safe are you able to maybe just give a short comment on what equally safe is then please just for the right purpose yes equally safe is Scotland's national approach to tackling violence against women and girls it's I can't remember if it was originally published I think 2014 but it's revised recently to take better account of the impact of various forms of violence against women and children and young people and at the moment the delivery plan that sits alongside that was consulted on last year so it's still in draft I think and to be published at some point this year but it contains a wide range of actions and a very clear shift towards a preventative focus but there are priorities in it that very much relate to occulting perpetrators accountable for their behaviour and ensuring that women, children and young people are protected by justice responses as well so very much in line with the provisions of the bill as they're drafted many thanks indeed for that it was just in relation to some of the other proposed reforms to the criminal procedure evidence and sentencing and we've touched on some of those already today but it was really just to ask both of you if you had any other particular issues would you like to highlight in relation to those or if you were broadly in agreement with some of the other proposed procedures I think from social work Scotland's perspective we are supportive of those changes particularly those that prevent the possibility of a perpetrator further using the justice system to victimise their partner or their ex-partner as Aaron's already said that those are important loopholes to close and I think we've recognised that in the other context of violence against women particularly around sexual violence legislation and it's absolutely appropriate that that's extended to victims of domestic abuse and just as I said before I think the reforms to the procedures are welcome closes the loopholes better protection to victims and prevents retraumatisation so yeah nothing really extra to add on that okay that's great thank you that concludes our line of question can I thank you both very much for attending and giving evidence to the committee today and with that I'll spend briefly to allow witnesses to leave agenda item 2 is feedback from the justice subcommittee on policing on its meeting on 15 June 2017 following the verbal report there will be an opportunity for brief comments from the questions or questions and I refer members to paper 3 which is a note by the clerk as Mary Fee isn't present today I'll provide the following feedback the justice subcommittee on policing met on 15 June when it took evidence on the deployment of police body worn video cameras the subcommittee heard that the evaluations of the use of body worn video cameras by other police forces and in the north east division of police scotland had highlighted a number of benefits and some potential drawbacks now looking at the possibility of a national roll out of body worn video cameras across the police service before doing so improvements will need to be made to police scotland's ICT infrastructure and potentially the ICT of those in the wider criminal justice system and initial and maintenance costs will need to be quantified the subcommittee will next meet on 22 June when it will hear from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland in Scotland Derek Penman on his report on openness and transparency at the Scottish Police Authority Do members have any questions? Liam? Not a question convener, just an additional comment I thought it was a very useful session I think some of what we heard about the findings coming out of the particular in the north east were encouraging across a range of different indicators but I think quite sensibly what we also heard was a recognition from Police Scotland that until they have an ICT infrastructure that will support going down this route and until they have a better handle on the likely costs upfront capital costs and on-going revenue costs I think they were taking a sensibly cautious approach to a national roll out but it's something we'll return to but nevertheless I think in terms of the impact on police safety on the impact on officers I think the impact in terms of early pleas in cases that come forward in a range of different areas that some of those findings were very encouraging Any other comments? I certainly find it useful to actually see the cameras and have an idea of what we were talking about and to hear the evidence of how they've been deployed and the reports back on that so I think it was a very worthwhile session. There being no questions that concludes our 23rd meeting of 2017 our next meeting will be on Tuesday 27th of June when we'll take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill