 I will move on to our next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is, Scottish Parliament Bill 8A, the marshaled list and the groupings. Just to remind members, the division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon, and the period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should refer to the marshaled list of amendments. Before I start proceedings, I want to draw members' attention to the fact that amendment 7 and 8 appear in the wrong order in the marshaled list. Amendment 8 should in fact be considered and disposed of before amendment 7. Therefore, when we reach that point in proceedings, I will call amendment 8 before amendment 7, and I will remind members again before we reach that point. I hope that that is clear. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendments as shown—amendments 1 to 16, inclusive. Section 12A of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill introduces a requirement for the Scottish ministers to report to Parliament on the operation of the domestic abuse offence and the existing statutory domestic abuse aggravation at section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Scotland Act 2016. The amendment 7, in my name and its group, respects the overall aim of the provision that Clare Baker introduced into the bill at stage 2. However, my amendments are intended to make much clearer exactly what information such a report is required to contain and to make some adjustments to ensure that the information that is collected is as useful as it can be in assessing the effectiveness of the domestic abuse offence and the domestic abuse aggravation. Amendment 1 and 2 are technical amendments, which are intended to improve the readability of the provision and make as clear as possible at the outset that the report is to relate to the domestic abuse offence at section 1 of the bill and the existing domestic abuse aggravation at section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Scotland Act 2016. Amendment 3 tidies the requirement to report on the number of cases in which criminal proceedings are undertaken. Amendment 14, in the name of Clare Baker, adds a requirement for the report to include information about the use of the child aggravation at section 4 of the bill. I agree that it is important to monitor the effectiveness of the aggravation in reflecting the harm caused to children by domestic abuse and we support this amendment. Amendment 4 extends the requirement to report on the number of convictions so as to require the report to provide information both on the number of convictions for the new offence and the number of convictions for offences where the domestic abuse aggravation in the 2016 act has been proven. Amendment 15, in the name of Clare Baker, adds a requirement for the report to include information on the number of cases in which the court imposes a non-harassment order both to protect the primary victim and to protect children. Again, this is a useful addition and we will be supporting this amendment. Amendment 5 amends the provision requiring the report to include information concerning the average time taken to dispose of cases so as to provide greater certainty as to what information requires to be provided in the report. It provides that the report must include information regarding the average length of time from the service of complaint or indictment on the accused person to a finding or a verdict as to guilt. That is the main aspect of the proceedings in the case. Some might suggest that the date of sentencing should be used as the end point. However, we consider that there is a risk that cases where a suspended or deferred sentence is imposed could significantly distort the case statistics. We think that the time taken by the courts to reach a verdict is the key consideration that should be reflected in the statistics. Amendment 6 is intended for the avoidance of doubt so that the requirement for the report to include information about the experience of witnesses relates to the experience of witnesses at court. Amendment 16, in the name of Claire Baker, provides the reference to witnesses, including child witnesses. Although the provision as it stands would already include child witnesses, we are content to support this amendment. Amendment 7 and 9 address an issue with section 12A3, which arises from the fact that it is not clear how the reference to courts constituted to specialise in dealing with the offences of the commissioning of which involves domestic abuse would be interpreted. The Scottish courts and tribunal services have advised that, although there are courts that sit as specialist courts in that they are presided over by a sheriff who has a specialism in domestic abuse cases, they are not constituted as specialist courts. Amendment 7 and 9 replaces existing subsection 3 with a provision that requires the statistical information to be broken down by court area and type of court. That enables someone reading the report to compare, for example, statistics for sheriffdoms that have made arrangements for a sheriff with a specialism in domestic abuse cases to handle such cases with those who do not have such arrangements in place and to compare statistics on the performance of JP courts with sheriff courts and the high court. Amendment 7 also requires that there should be distinct statistics on the report for each of the two sorts of offences referred to in amendment 1. Amendment 8 is a minor amendment in order to clearly cover any additional information that ministers decide to include in the report to Parliament by virtue of section 12A2E. For example, that could include information such as the number of cases reported to the police or the proportion of those reported to the procreator fiscal for consideration of prosecution. Amendment 10 and 11 amend subsection 4. Currently, that requires the Scottish ministers to state whether they intend to recommend to the Lord President that additional specialist domestic abuse courts should be constituted and, if not, why they are not making such a recommendation. This area was debated at stage 2 in other amendments that were defeated. The Judiciary and Courts Scotland Act 2008 provides that the Lord President is solely responsible for the making and maintaining arrangements for securing the efficient disposal of business in the Scottish courts. In other words, this Parliament has legislated to protect the constitutional independence of the Lord President in respect of court programming. As such, it would not be constitutionally appropriate for the Scottish ministers to become involved in the detail of how the Lord President and the chair of principles arrange court business. However, I recognise the value of ensuring that the report includes information about how the court business is arranged, including in different areas or types of court, such as specialist courts that hear domestic abuse cases to assist anyone reading the report who wishes to assess how the courts are operating. That is why amendment 10 and 11 therefore require the Scottish ministers to seek information from the Lord President on how court business has been arranged so as to ensure the efficient disposal of cases involving the offences that the report covers. Amendment 12 is a technical amendment that amends section 12A5 so as to make it clear that the Scottish ministers are required to report to Parliament as soon as is practical after the reporting period has ended. Amendment 13 amends section 12A6 so as to provide that the reporting period is the period of three years, beginning from the date on which the domestic abuse offence comes into effect. Parliament has already recognised that there is a need to ensure that police, prosecutors and those working in the third sector are trained on the new offence before it comes into effect and that there should be a public information campaign to raise awareness about the new offence to coincide with its commencement. As such, there will be a period of some months between the date of royal assent and commencement of the legislation. Clare Baker's amendment 13A would, if accepted, reduce the reporting period proposed in amendment 13 from three years to two years. It might be helpful if I explain the reason that we propose that the reporting period should cover the first three years in which the new offence is in force. As members will be aware, the offence in this bill is a course of conduct offence, an only conduct that is alleged to have taken place after the date on which the offence comes into force will be capable of being liable as part of a course of conduct amounting to the new offence. It is likely that there will be few prosecutions in the immediate aftermath of the commencement with an increase only lightly to happen gradually, perhaps towards the end of the first year of commencement. We also know that victims of domestic abuse will often not report to the police for some time. That is currently the case and will likely to continue to be the case. In terms of seeking to ensure that relevant information is included in the report, we think that a reporting period of three years from the date of commencement will provide more scope for meaningful information on how the new offence is operating from the time that a prosecution is initiated through to verdict. We say this as we think that two years is likely to mean a relatively short period for assessment of how many cases have been initiated from prosecution to final verdict. By adding an extra year into the reporting period, the richness of the information in the report will be much improved. Liam McArthur I certainly appreciate the logic behind the three-year timeframe that he is talking about immediately after the introduction of the legislation. I suppose that, looking forward, there is an argument for saying that some of the problems that he has identified at the outset in terms of the slow pace at which those cases have come forward would be less applicable later on and, therefore, a three-year period initially could be followed by a two-year period thereafter. The principal reason for the three-year period is that, as it stands at the two-year period, there is a danger that we would largely only have one year's worth of data to consider, whereas the three-year period is more likely to give us two years of much more detailed information. We think that that would make it much more meaningful in terms of understanding how the bill is operating once it has been enacted. I understand the point that Liam McArthur is making. That is in order to try to make sure that the richness of the data that we have in the report is more meaningful and that it allows us to take a much more considered view of how the bill and the legislation is operating. On that basis, I invite Clare Baker not to move amendment 13A, and I move amendment 1, in my name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I now call on Clare Baker to speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2, I moved on a number of amendments aimed at recognising the value of specialist genetic abuse courts and giving consideration to increasing their numbers. I was pleased to have section 12A accepted by a majority of the committee, resulting in a duty on the Government to report on the operation of the offence. I am inclined to support the majority of the Government's amendments today, which look to clarify the content of the report. I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing them forward. I am grateful for the clarity this afternoon that amendments 7 and 9 would still allow comparisons to be drawn between the different types of court. I am pleased that the Government accepted the need for a review and report of legislation in practice. There are three reasons why I have brought forward amendments concerning domestic abuse courts. First, there is a frustration at the slow progress in the development of specialist domestic abuse courts. Glasgow was established in 2004 and Edinburgh in 2012. There are four courts that cluster Dunfermline, Aire, Livingston and Falkirk. Although other courts operate a fast-track system, there are large areas of the country that are not served by any kind of specialist court in domestic abuse cases—Dundee, Aberdeen and the Scottish Borders, for example. I would argue that a postcode lottery is operating in terms of victims' access to justice. Secondly, there are concerns about consistency in decision making and about confidence in the decisions that are being made. Members may have read about cases in which community sentences were given for what appears to be serious domestic abuse crimes. I have been contacted by victims who are very distressed by those sentences. In addition, there was a case in 2016, although that was not an isolated case, in which the sheriff decided to send the alleged victim, who was a mother, to jail for two weeks under contempt of court, because, according to the sheriff, she did not fully participate in the court proceedings. Those cases were not heard in domestic abuse courts. I recognise that it is the sheriff's decision based on all the evidence before them, but I believe that a specialist domestic abuse court provides the victim with greater confidence in how the decisions were made and better appreciates the experience of the victim and is able to make better decisions in their interests. Thirdly, I am fully supportive of the legislation and the introduction of a specific statutory offence that will cover coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as physical abuse, but there will be challenges to the legislation in the courts, in particular the introduction of coercive behaviour. I would rather see the act's provisions tested in a specialist court, with a greater understanding of the legislation and the experience of what the Parliament seeks to achieve through the bill. The report that will be presented to Parliament, while providing valuable information on the use of the legislation and its specialist measures, will also provide information to enable us to compare the decision making, outcomes and the victims' experiences in specialist and non-specialist courts. We will have to wait and see what the evidence shows, but that information could provide evidence to support the expansion of domestic abuse courts. That is why the bill states that the Scottish ministers must take a view on the evidence, explain that position and make a recommendation to the Lord President if they judge that that is the best way forward. That is why I am not inclined to support amendment 10 and 11 this afternoon. I do not believe the bill as it stands questions judicial independence. The recommendation would be to the Lord President in his capacity as chair of the Scottish courts and tribunial service, rather than as head of the judiciary. It would be a recommendation relating to high-level policies and priorities, which the Government is in a position to make. However, the Government's alternative this afternoon is disappointing, as I feel that it is timid, in that it only requests information from the Lord President on the current arrangements and misses the point of the report as a means to influence or inform future decisions. I am also seeking support this afternoon for amendments 14, 15 and 16, which will result in the report, including reporting around the specific measures in relation to children. I have the support of NSPCC, Barnardo's Children First and Scottish Women's Aid for these amendments, and I welcome the Government's support this afternoon. The bill is significant in its recognition that children are adversely affected by domestic abuse, and we need to make sure that those measures, including an activation in relation to a child, the use of non-harassment orders are used effectively and that the experience of children as witnesses is understood. The data collection and analysis will enable us to do it. We owe it to children to be the stress about monitoring how the new act is operating, to ensure that it is effectively recognising the harm that domestic abuse causes them and to take the right measures to protect them. Finally, I recognise the logic and the report period starting from the day on section 11 comes into force, but I have questioned the extension to a three-year reporting period. There are concerns at this means that we may not see a report until 2022 in reality, and people are keen to see how the legislation is working. However, following further discussion with the sector and with the cabinet secretary, I am clear that I want to see a comprehensive report that will provide us with enough information to move forward on the issue of how we manage domestic abuse cases through the courts, so I am inclined to support the Government's proposal this afternoon on that amendment. The Scottish Conservatives have reviewed the amendments proposed in group 1 and noted that virtually all of them go towards improved drafting and or improved post-legislative scrutiny. I can confirm therefore that, with one exception being amendment 13A, we have to support all of the amendments in group 1, although I note that Clare Baker is not going to press amendment 13A. In particular, just for the avoidance of doubt, we will support amendments 10 and 11 in the name of Michael Matheson. The purpose and effect paper from the Scottish Government is correct in my view of what those amendments do, namely recognising that the Scottish ministers have no power to become involved in matters relating to the organisation of court business, while ensuring that the report provides information from the Lord President on how they are organising court business with regards to offences relating to domestic abuse. It is, in my view, always preferable that the executive should not be giving directions to the judiciary, particularly not to the Lord President. Therefore, I confirm that we will agree to amendments 10 and 11. Again, just for the avoidance of doubt, if Clare Baker was to press amendment 13A, we would not be voting for that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to speak about amendments 10 and 11, and the cabinet secretary talked about the Lord President making securing arrangements for the court. That is true. Of course, it is true, but, of course, we have also seen court reform legislation passed in this Parliament. It is quite clear that the amendment that was passed at stage 2 was deemed competent. Although I accept a view, if you take a very narrow view on the role of the Lord President, that it is not constitutionally appropriate, and I readily accept the separation of powers, that is a law-making building. Just as we have seen with court reform, I am keen that those 10 and 11 are opposed. I think that we have seen excessive deference in the past to the Lord President. Timidity, as my colleague referred to it, and I am very keen that nothing inhibits the progress that there should be with domestic abuse courts. It is quite clear that that phrase making and securing arrangements has meant that we do not have parity of access to justice for victims of domestic violence across Scotland, and that is access to specialist court service. That is something where the courts are out of step with the other partners in addressing the scourge. Third sector organisations, the police and the prosecution service all recognise that their specialist skills are attached to that service, but yet we still have cases that have been dealt with in the court. We will be supporting 10 and 11. I can confirm that we will be supporting the vast majority of the amendments in the section, which I think are indeed helpful. Obviously, the area of controversy is principally around amendments 10 and 11. I think that the purpose and effect briefing from the Government outlining the concerns with the amendment that was passed at stage 2 was certainly helpful. I suppose that the question would be that, as the report comes forward with an explanation of the lived experience of this legislation by those it is there to protect, I think that it will be incumbent upon all of us to form our views to whether or not there is equal access to justice and a consistent experience for those wherever they may live in the country. I imagine that ministers themselves will form a view. How that is expressed to the Lord President and by this Parliament is another question entirely, but it is perhaps naive to assume that in producing this report we will not come to a view on where that leads us in relation to specialist courts or perhaps on the route of ensuring a greater consistency in terms of specialist knowledge and understanding within the fiscal service among sheriffs and their staff. I will listen with interest to the cabinet secretary in winding up this section, but I will share some of the sentiments that John Finnie has expressed in relation to amendments 10 and 11. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am happy to support the amendment 13 and note that Clare Baker is withdrawing amendment 13A, which I think is a sensible approach. I recognise the issues of concern that Clare Baker has raised regarding the issue of consistency of sentencing and approach within our sheriffs courts and the points raised by John Finnie, which were matters considered and debated at stage 2. They will be aware of some of the concerns that were echoed at that particular point around the dangers of specialist courts. For example, in some rural areas, potentially drawing people away longer distances for the purposes of having to have their case considered than a specialist court. A practical example that was put to me was the existing arrangements in, for example, the Portree Sheriff Court that considers domestic abuse cases. If Inverness was to become a specialist court for domestic abuse, women would have to go from Portree to Inverness for the purposes of that particular court. It is important that all victims of domestic abuse receive the same support and service. Is it not possible that, on certain days, in the smaller district courts, it could be set aside for domestic abuse cases where the specialists that would support victims would be there and where sheriffs who had an understanding could be there handling those cases? That is exactly what a number of sheriff principles do at the present moment, is that they try to cluster cases so that they can arrange to have support services at the court there at that particular point and also for a single sheriff or, if possible, to dealing with those cases. There are a number of sheriff principles that try to manage cases on that basis, but that will not always be possible in every individual case. That is something that existing sheriff principles, as I mentioned, are taking forward. Liam McArthur made an important point on the value of the report. That reinforces why I believe that the three-year timeframe is particularly important. The richness of data that can be captured over a three-year period will allow us to make a much more informed and considered view around what further measures will be taken. Although that will help to inform ministers on experience for victims and the way in which the courts are operating those matters, I have no doubt that the Lord President and our judiciary will want to take into consideration the findings that come from that particular report, which I suspect will help to inform future practice and the approach that our courts and judiciary have in that particular area. The value of the report can be underscored by the potential impact that it could have on helping to adjust practice and to alter the way in which our courts are operating. However, the ultimate decision in doing that is a matter for the Lord President, given his role within the judiciary. I therefore encourage members to support all of the amendments in my name. I accept and welcome the fact that Clare Baker is not seeking to move amendment 13A. That is that that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 2, Assembly Joker, is already debated with Amendment 1 and the Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Move. Thank you. the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would like to ask amendment 3 that is already debated. Do you think that amendment 2 is already agreed to? Move. Thank you. The question is that that amendment 3 be agreed to. Rwy'n credu, dweud? Rwy'n credu. amendment 14, in the name of clear baker, already debated with amendment 1. Clear baker to move. It moved. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 1. Cabinet secretary to move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 15 in the name of clear baker, already debated with amendment 1. Clear baker to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated? Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 16 in the name of clear baker already debated with amendment 1. Clear baker to move. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 6 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated? Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Just remind members at this stage that they are going to change their order. I'm going to call amendment 8 before amendment 7. So calling amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated, Cabinet secretary to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'm now going to call amendment 7. So to call amendment 7, already debated, Cabinet secretary to formally move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated. Cabinet secretary to move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Ni 450 Africa cityw67b. Diolch allaniedd mewn y de crispaw. Diolch am suren iawn o'r bobl yn todayad kommen y 110 y fitnw. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This is the first division of the day, so I am going to ring the bell to call members to the chamber and we will suspend for five minutes. Thank you colleagues, we are back to order. We will move straight to the division. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to, and we will move to division on amendment 10. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10 in the name of Michael Matheson is yes, 90, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I will call amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I can ask the cabinet secretary to formally move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11 in the name of Michael Matheson is yes, 89, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I will call amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I can ask the cabinet secretary to formally move. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I will call amendment 13. I can ask the cabinet secretary to formally move amendment 13. Before we move to a vote, I will call amendment 13A, which is already debated. Is it clear-baker to move or not to move amendment 13A? Not moved. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That includes the amendments in that group. We move to the second group, non-harassment orders. I will call amendment 17 in the name of Linda Fabiani in a group on its own. Linda Fabiani, to speak to you and move amendment 17. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I stand to speak to amendment 17. At stage 2 of the bill, I placed an amendment before the Justice Committee, which sought to make the granting of a non-harassment order mandatory in cases of domestic abuse. I had come to believe this necessary from discussion over many years with victims of domestic abuse. Those women felt very clearly that they had been let down by the courts that did not grant non-harassment orders. That was backed up in fact by answers to written parliamentary questions over the years, which showed, I believe, that the courts have issued fewer non-harassment orders than they should have. That situation often results in fear and dread for the victim, and many have had to resort to civil action to achieve some peace of mind. That was all very well discussed at the Justice Committee, and I would like to thank all the members for the very serious consideration that they gave. I understood some of the concerns expressed by those members who had carefully listened to much evidence over the peace, and I recognised those also expressed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I also recognised everyone's commitment, particularly the cabinet secretary's, to strengthen the bill in the interests of victims, and I therefore withdrew the amendment requesting mandatory non-harassment orders. Amendment 17, which I offer for consideration today to the chamber, does not demand mandatory non-harassment orders but adjusts the provisions in the bill relating to non-harassment orders. The amendment provides that the court must make an order to impose a non-harassment order unless it is of the view that one is not necessary for the protection of the victim and or the children involved in the case. That adjustment creates a presumption in favour of imposing a non-harassment order, while still retaining a measure of discretion for the court, where the court concludes that a non-harassment order is not necessary in a particular given case. Thus, the amended provision changes the provision currently in the bill so that a presumption is created in favour of imposing a non-harassment order unless a court is absolutely satisfied that it is not necessary in order to prevent the victim of domestic abuse or any children involved in the case. Certainly, the bill currently provides that a non-harassment order can be imposed without an application by the prosecutor in domestic abuse cases, so it already goes some way in highlighting the importance of non-harassment orders to the court. My amendment takes it further by placing more of anonness on the court to justify why a non-harassment order is not necessary. Lastly, the existing provision requires reasons to be given whether or not a non-harassment order is imposed. The amendment changes that so that reasons are only required where a non-harassment order is not imposed. That reflects the presumption. It is clear to me and I know many others that the present system does not work for victims. Surely, where someone is found guilty of abuse, it is logical for the victim to presume that the court and the system will take all steps that they can to protect them from potential further abuse, physical or mental. It is clear to me and I know many others that the present system does not work for victims, as I said. The bill is taking excellent steps forward and I am convinced that a presumption in favour of imposing a non-harassment order takes this even further and I would ask members for support. I move amendment 17 in my name. Thank you, Mr Abiani. I call Rhoda Grant. I have nobody else asking to speak. I have Margaret Mitchell. I beg your pardon, you have just popped up. I apologise, Deputy Presiding Officer. As Linda Fabiani has just explained, she lodged an amendment on the subject of the non-harassment order at stage 2, which will equivalent to seeking a mandatory non-harassment order to follow a conviction of domestic abuse. While sympathetic to the reasons why she wanted to do this, which she has outlined again today, I considered that this was a step too far and instead supported the provisions in the bill, which presented a more balanced approach. The member did not press the amendment undertook to reflect what had been said with a view to seeing how it might be strengthened at stage 3. The new amendment is equivalent to a mandatory granting of a non-harassment order. It provides that the perpetrator, as well as the prosecution agent, must be heard before the court decides to grant or not. The amendment then provides that it has to be said in what I found quite confusing terms that, if an order is not given, the court has to explain the basis of the decision. The new amendment therefore is equivalent to a presumption in favour of granting a non-harassment order. Given that, although the Scottish Conservatives will support the amendment today in the interests of fairness, equality and good drafting, we consider it essential that this provision is reviewed at the earliest opportunity to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I welcome the amendment in Linda Fabiani's name. She has raised the issue of non-harassment orders tirelessly on behalf of a constituent of hers who was affected by domestic abuse. Her amendment strengthens the non-harassment order regime by creating a presumption for a non-harassment order to be imposed, unless the court considers that it is not necessary for the protection of the victim or children involved in the case. It is important that the courts see non-harassment orders as a valuable part of the necessary approach to tackling domestic abuse. Such orders are protective orders, which are used where a person has been subject to harassment. Clearly, non-harassment orders are a key consideration when a court is assessing what disposal to impose following a conviction for domestic abuse. The bill already strengthens the non-harassment order regime by making it mandatory for a court to have to consider in every domestic abuse case whether to impose a non-harassment order, allowing children to benefit from the protections of non-harassment orders in domestic abuse criminal cases without needing to apply to the court separately, and requiring the court to have particular regard to victim's safety when sentencing in domestic abuse cases. Linda Fabiani's amendment is therefore a welcome further addition that strengthens the bill in the area of non-harassment orders, and we support it here this afternoon. I thank everyone for their consideration and thank them. As I have been asked to do by the particular constituent that the cabinet secretary mentioned and others about a very strong message that will be sent out, further harassment following conviction will not be tolerated and that it is not acceptable from anyone. I thank you very much and I press the amendment. That ends consideration of amendments and we will shortly move on to the debate on the bill. Before I move on to the debate, I am required to state that members will be aware that, at this point, the proceedings, the Presiding Officer, has required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter, that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchises for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the bill, the Presiding Officer has decided in his view no provision of the domestic abuse Scotland bill relates to protected subject matter, therefore the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. We now move on to the debate on motion 10218, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the domestic abuse Scotland bill at stage 3. Can I write members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, to speak and move the motion please. Thank you. I would like to begin the stage 3 debate by thanking the members and clarts of the Justice Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their diligent consideration of the domestic abuse Scotland bill. I would also like to thank those who have taken the time to engage in the bill process and share their knowledge, experience and views during the scrutiny process. In particular, I applaud the courage of the individuals who shared their own personal experience of suffering domestic abuse with the Justice Committee to assist their consideration of the bill and help this Parliament to gain a fuller understanding of what it is like to experience domestic abuse. I think that the chamber will recognise that attitudes towards domestic abuse have changed considerably since the Scottish Parliament was established back in 1999. Back then, there was a mindset, including among some of those who worked within the justice sector and our justice system, that domestic abuse, especially when it did not involve physical violence, was a private matter and no matter of business for the police or our courts, attitudes have changed. One effect of that has been that, as victims have become more confident, they will be taken seriously and more willing to come forward to the police, the true scale of domestic abuse in Scotland has become more apparent. In 2016-17, nearly 59,000 domestic abuse incidents were reported to the police. However, we know that even that is likely to be a significant underestimate of the actual scale of domestic abuse. In 2014-15, the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey found that of those who had experienced domestic abuse in the previous 12 months, around 20 per cent, stated that the police came to know about the most recent incident. That is in contrast with a reporting rate of 38 per cent for all crimes in that survey. I think that it is right that we should also reflect on the changes to attitudes that have happened and are happening as this bill has been proceeding through Parliament. The MeToo hashtag, which is shining a light on the experience of all too many women across the world, demonstrates only further the need for that bill. While it is the case that attitudes to domestic abuse have changed and, as a society, we have a fuller and richer understanding of what domestic abuse is, the criminal law used to prosecute perpetrators of domestic abuse has not reflected that understanding. I pay tribute to Leslie Thompson, who, as the sister general, led from the front in publicly calling for a new criminal law approach to domestic abuse. It is worth recalling why she made that call. She said that, in her experience of prosecuting domestic abuse, the way that the existing criminal law focuses on individual incidents of assault, threatening or abusive behaviour was misguided. That is because it did not reflect the way that victims actually experience domestic abuse as an on-going course of abusive behaviour that has sustained over time and not simply as a few isolated incidents. Responses to the subsequent Scottish Government consultation made clear that there was a gap in the law in that it was very difficult to prosecute cases in which an abuser behaves in a highly controlling, manipulative and abusive way towards their partner over a long period of time without using physical violence. Examples of the kind of behaviour that perpetrators may engage in are harrowing. Behaviour intended to humiliate or degrade their partner such as abusive name calling, sharing of private information, being made to eat food off the floor or from pet dishes. Perpetrators may also try to exert control over every aspect of their partner's life, such as preventing contact with family or friends or checking and controlling their use of their phone or social media, stopping them from attending work or college, making unreasonable demands, whether that be about food preparation, housekeeping, where the victim needs to be and when or what the victim is allowed to wear. Those actions will not necessarily be accompanied by physical violence or overt threats, because the perpetrator knows that the victim may be in such fear of their partner, that they do not need to use physical force or overtly threaten them to exert horrendous control over them. Even where a prosecution is possible using the existing current law, a conviction for a single incident of, for example, assault or threatening or abusive behaviour may leave the victim quite rightly feeling that the court process and the sentence imposed did not reflect the seriousness of the abuse. The background of long-term psychological abuse and controlling behaviour is what we are addressing through the new offence of domestic abuse. The offence modernises the criminal law to reflect our understanding of how victims experience domestic abuse. It does that by providing a specific offence that is intended to be comprehensive, in that the abuse can be prosecuted as a single offence, ensuring that the court considers the totality of the abuse that is alleged that the victim has experienced. It will enable the courts to consider both behaviour, which would be criminal under the existing law, such as assault and threats, psychological abuse and coercive and controlled behaviour, that can be difficult to prosecute using our existing law. The Justice Committee heard evidence from stakeholders, which identified a number of ways in which the bill could be improved. Scottish Women's Aid highlighted the importance of providing extra-territorial jurisdiction for this offence, and we amended the bill at stage 2 to do so. As this is a course of conduct offence, it is possible that, in individual cases, abuse may occur across a long period of time and in more than one jurisdiction. The bill now caters for that. Groups representing the interests of children asked us to consider how the child aggravation could better reflect the harm experienced by children growing up in an environment in which parents or carers are being abused, irrespective of whether they see here or are present when the abuse is taking place, or whether the abuser directs behaviour at the child or tries to involve the child in the abuse. We widened the scope of the child aggravation at stage 2, so that the aggravation can be proven if a reasonable person would consider that the perpetrator's course of behaviour or an instant informing part of that course of behaviour would be likely to adversely affect a child who lives with the victim or perpetrator. That has been warmly welcomed by key stakeholders. That means that the aggravation can apply where, for example, the perpetrator's controlling behaviour has the effect of isolating a child as well as the primary victim from friends, family or other sources of support, or where abusive behaviour undermines the non-abusing parent or carers' ability to look after the child. For example, by restricting their access to transport, limiting their ability to get a child to a doctor's appointment or restricting access to money, limiting their ability to provide essential support for the child. I am not under any illusion that creating a new offence of domestic abuse will on its own end domestic abuse. Changes to the mindsets of the men who perpetrate domestic abuse will take a generation or more. Only once it can be said that women are treated equally within our society can we be confident that we are on our way to eradicating domestic abuse. It is heartening to see the pace of change with the MeToo movement emerging during the scrutiny of this bill as an example of what we all hope are seismic shifts in society's view on how women are treated within our society. I am proud to have led the development of this bill through Parliament. This is a momentous day as our law will be changed in a way that reflects the experience that all too many women have suffered in terms of domestic abuse. While I am under no illusion that the law alone can address the issues of domestic abuse, laws do have a key role to play, and this bill will, once implemented, allow our justice system to deal more appropriately with domestic abuse. I move that the Parliament agrees that the domestic abuse Scotland bill will be passed. I appreciate that this is very important, as all bills are. I have been generous with the cabinet secretary, so I will be generous with the other front bench. I will give Liam Kerr seven minutes and Rhoda Grant six minutes so I get extra time. Mr Kerr Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I open for the Scottish Conservatives and, of course, speak in favour of the passing of the domestic abuse Scotland bill. The bill creates a specific statutory offence around domestic abuse. Currently, the criminal law focuses on discrete incidents of physical violence or threatening behaviour that causes fear or alarm, and it can fail to recognise the lived experience of domestic abuse as a course of conduct over a period of time. The new offence that we welcome seeks to protect victims who experience coercive, controlling, psychological, emotional behaviour by creating a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct, even if it is entirely psychological, and even if the victim did not actually, on the face of it, suffer harm as a result of the conduct. Furthermore, I acknowledge the stage 2 amendments brought forward by the Government where the perpetrator in committing the offence involves or affects a child, or a child sees, hears or is present during an incident that happens as part of the course of behaviour and is mounting to the offence, then that offence will be aggravated. The act also makes a number of attendant changes that, again, we welcome. Those include prohibiting the accused from conducting a precognition of the victim or a complainer, or personally conducting a defence in court. Judges will be required to take account in their sentencing of ensuring that the victim is not subject to further abuse, and it will be exceptional for bail to be granted where the accused has a previous conviction. As a cabinet secretary talked of, jurisdiction will be extended such that the Scottish courts will be able to try an offence of abusive behaviour committed wholly or partly outside the UK. Moving on, the law society concluded their very helpful briefing note with these words. We would stress that the law must be easily understood by all concerned. The public must be aware of the provisions of the bill when it becomes legislation. I think that this is a very important point. Earlier this week, I met with David Macintosh, who is the area commander for Angus police, to discuss various issues in the region. Coincidentally, he is also chair of Angus violence against women partnership, which I think of itself is an important message about how seriously the police take this issue. The subject turned to today's debate, and he reminded me that, on average, a woman suffers 22 incidents of domestic abuse before she feels able to report it. He suggested that one of the key benefits of having a bespoke act specifically for domestic violence is that it sends a signal to those victims of abuse that there is something specific there for them. A piece of legislation designed precisely for their needs that says that you are the victim, you do not need to suffer this because Parliament has specifically legislated for you. Now come forward because the police will hear your voice sympathetically, appropriately and ensure that all is done to protect you. The area commander reminded me that, in his area and throughout Scotland, recorded police reports of domestic abuse are rising from 36,000 incidents in 2000 to 58,810 in 2016-17. The explanation appears to be that this is down to increased reporting of a previously hidden crime. In the financial memorandum, the Government estimates that creating the new offence will lead to an increase in the reporting of domestic abuse cases of between 2 and 10 per cent. Good. However, if we take the median 6 per cent, its best estimate is that increased costs on the COPFS and the courts will be just over £2.5 million per annum. The best estimate in terms of police dealing with the offence is around £720,000 per annum and costs on the Scottish prison service are estimated at just under £1.1 million per annum. That is a considerable amount. Of course, I urge the Scottish Government to consider that very carefully if and hopefully when the bill is passed today. I also draw the Government's attention to the representations on page 5 of the Scottish Women's Aid submission, which I think are well made and worthy of consideration around funding. In passing at stage 2, I did try to amend the bill. I was staggered to learn that experiencing domestic abuse is the third most common reason for a homeless application in Scotland and can result in women and children spending months in refuges and unsuitable temporary accommodation. Therefore, I wanted to amend to require a review of emergency barring orders, i.e. an order that would immediately ban a perpetrator of domestic violence from the home of their victim for as long as is considered necessary to secure the victim's safety. The cabinet secretary argued that the amendment was unnecessary as the Government had committed to conduct a consultation on that in early 2018. I was drew. I welcomed the cabinet secretary's commitment then and I welcome it now and I look forward to this commencing. I also haven't forgotten my stage 1 representations in which I made clear that courts can sometimes seem stacked against domestic abuse survivors, particularly where victims of domestic abuse have to recount their case to multiple sheriffs. Mr Matheson referred to the court process and he is right to do so. Trials of a one-family one-judge system to address the issue of being carried out in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In England there have been trials of an integrated domestic violence court in which one judge handles the criminal cases related to domestic violence, as well as all accompanying civil matters. A one-family one-share approach for domestic abuse victims in Scotland is surely worth exploring going forward. I wonder if the cabinet secretary or minister will address in closing whether a trial might at least be possible. Domestic abuse is monstrous and can cause immense and enduring trauma and harm. It has been sobering to hear and read the testimony of victims and the organisations that support them, which has highlighted the fact that there is behaviour that cannot currently be prosecuted because it does not meet the threshold of criminal conduct. More must be done to support victims. More—there is a gap in our law and it is correct that the new offence is required. We agree that the domestic abuse Scotland bill achieves what is required and we shall vote for it today. Thank you very much. I call Rhoda Grant to open for Labour. Six minutes please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When someone sees the physical devastation of domestic abuse for the first time, they always ask, why on earth does the victim stay? Why haven't they left and left immediately? Why do they go back? What they don't see is the years of psychological abuse that the victim has faced before the physical abuse begins. They don't see a person who is so undermined that they will blame themselves. A person who is nowhere to run because the abuser has alienated friends and family. The psychological manipulation is what the bill is trying to deal with. Behavior is often the precursor to physical abuse, but it is also just as devastating. Initially, it is often so subtle that the victim will be unaware of what is happening to them, so it is for friends and family to spot it. There were concerns expressed that the threshold for criminality might be too low, but given the underhand nature of the crime, how it is often hidden, if the threshold was higher, it would not capture and protect against the harmful behaviour. There are also conditions that need to be met that ensure that a falling out or disagreement will not be captured. The conditions that have to be met to lead to conviction are a course of behaviour that was abusive to the accused partner or ex-partner, deemed reasonable that the behaviour would cause physical or psychological harm. The accused attended to cause harm or was reckless about whether it would. Therefore, the legislation will offer further protection, but there are still areas that need to be tackled. The bill looks at the impact of domestic abuse on children, but it does not go far enough. Today, it was strengthened by my colleague Claire Baker. Through my case work, I see far too often examples of custody and access to children being used to continue to perpetrate abuse. Using contact to trace where a family is living and continuing to abuse them through that. To use contact to monitor where a victim is and also to control the behaviour of their victim by changing pickup and return times. Something that means that that abuse is continuing and what is worse is that the child is being used as a weapon. Mothers being forced by courts to hand their children over to an abusive ex-partner who they know is and will harm their children. If they do not do that, they will face arrest. It is a horrendous position to put anybody in. All too often, we read of the tragic consequences of this wholly unacceptable situation. Although the bill now recognises the damage done to children by domestic abuse, we need to go much further to protect them. An abusive parent or step parent should not have access to a child under any circumstances unless they are enabled or have been able to prove to a court of law that they have addressed their behaviour, their child must be protected from them. We need mechanisms to operate that, but the rule of thumb must be no contact because of the damage that it causes to the child. I know that the minister in a meeting with Mary Fee suggested that the Government would look at this as part of the reform of family law. However, it needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency because lives are being damaged and indeed lost because of it. The bill also does nothing to ensure that all victims have access to domestic abuse courts. Given the concerns expressed with regard to prosecution under the bill, I think that that is now essential. Without specialist presiding over the legislation, we will have a two-tier system in which access to a specialist domestic abuse court will get protection for the victim, while those who do not have access will not get the same protection. Domestic abuse courts are used to implement special measures in court, where victims ask for things to be put in place to make giving evidence easier for them unless traumatic. A victim can ask for this in any court, but it is commonplace in an ordinary court for them to turn up and discover that those measures have not been put in place. If all victims had access to specialist domestic abuse courts, that would not come down to a post-cote lottery, but would be a standard provision. We also need specially trained professionals dealing with the legislation. The police need to be trained to investigate and recognise the offence. Through the whole prosecution system, we need people who are appropriately trained otherwise that this will not offer the protection that it should. That is why specialist domestic abuse courts are so important because they cater for the needs of the victim and the professionals have a deep understanding of the offence of domestic abuse. Emergency barring orders were dropped from the bill because the Scottish Government said that it was something that they were going to consult on as part of the review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. However, that would be required even if there were not children in the home. The victim should never have to leave their home, especially in haste for fear for their own safety. The trauma that causes is unacceptable. There needs to be measures in place that immediately remove the perpetrator and make the house safe for the victim and their family to remain. Abuser is not law abiding, so simply being told to leave is unlikely to address their behaviour. We also need to ensure that where exclusion orders of any kind come to an end, the victim is informed in enough time for them to take action to protect themselves. Too often we hear of abusers being given non-custodial sentences with no restrictions, therefore restrictions could in place while on bail fall immediately leaving the victim unprotected. We in the Scottish Labour Party support this bill. Anything that provides better protection against domestic abuse is to be welcomed. Thank you very much. My generosity is extending to the open speeches. You all have five minutes now for your speeches. I know that you will have no trouble filling in an extra minute. I call Rona Mackay, followed by Michelle Ballantyne. I am very happy and proud to be speaking today in the stage 3 domestic abuse Scotland bill debate. As deputy convener of the Justice Committee, I would like to thank the clerks for all their hard work. Of course, the many witnesses who bravely came forward to give evidence and who made it possible to frame such an encompassing piece of legislation. I am particularly proud because this bill is a good bill and it will give greater security to the thousands of women in Scotland who suffer mental or physical trauma at the hands of a cowardly abuser. It is quite simply a ground-breaker. I am happy too that it is consensual and that the chamber is united in condemning violence against women and children. As has been said, the bill is historic, as for the first time, psychological and coercive behaviour is introduced into the vile crime of domestic abuse. It creates a new offence of engaging in a course of abusive conduct against a partner or ex-partner and amends other procedural or evidential aspects of criminal law in relation to domestic abuse, which addresses a very important gap in the law. Crucially, it recognises the horrendous damage that psychological abuse and coercive control can do, and that is everlasting damage. It allows for convictions of domestic abuse based on a course of conduct rather than individual incidents. The amendments that are made have strengthened the bill and I am happy to support them all today. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes the aggravator clause, which recognises the damage that is done to children caught up in those situations and ensures that that is taken into account during sentencing. In the year of young people 2018, it is a powerful way to demonstrate to them how important they are and that society is taking steps to recognise the trauma that they suffer in situations of domestic abuse, which, in my view, has not been regarded highly enough before. Members will be aware of the revolutionary evidential research from the ACEs study on adverse childhood experiences that prove that domestic abuse figures score highly in the ACEs trauma index. I hope that recognising that in the bill is another step along the way to society, changing the way that it deals with traumatised children to help them heal and I echo children's first call for investment in trauma informed support across Scotland to help children and families to rebuild their lives. The inclusion of the presumption in favour of non-harnassment orders in the bill is also welcome and it will give comfort to some victims who feel extremely vulnerable after a court decision. The benefit of the amendments at stage 2 in the name of my colleague Marie Gougeon will be that children who reside with the perpetrator of the domestic abuser or with the partner or ex-partner who has been abused will also be able to receive the protection of a non-harassment order. Those measures protect children in a way that until the introduction of the bill has not been possible. I am absolutely delighted that the Scottish Government has listened to children's organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid, the Law Society of Scotland, Children First and the NSPCC, to name but a few organisations that protect our children every day. Introducing a formal reporting process on the operation of the offence, extending the extra-territorial reach of the offence and clear baker's amendments in relation to data collection to monitor the implementation of the bill are all very welcome to. Domestic violence, physical and psychological exists in all sections of our communities across all levels of society. We may never rid our society of it completely, but this bill, which puts Scotland at the forefront of progressive legislation, once again should act as a warning that it will not be tolerated. For that reason, I am proud to recommend the passing of the domestic abuse Scotland bill to the chamber. Thank you very much. I call Michelle Ballantyne to be followed by Kezia Dugdale. Several months ago, I stood in this chamber and spoke of my sense of sadness that this debate was ever necessary. I still feel that way today. Domestic abuse has no place in our society, and regrettably, it is all too prevalent, with reports suggesting that most cases still go unreported. Physical abuse is often easier to identify because it leaves visible evidence. Coercion and control, on the other hand, are pernicious. They eat away at an individual's self-esteem, leaving them subservient to the perpetrator and often unwilling and unable to report the abuse. I accept the argument that has been put forward that it can be difficult to prove this kind of abuse, but this bill makes it clear that it is a crime, one that we as a society will not tolerate. By acknowledging that psychological violence is as harmful as its physical counterpart, by realising that it does not just affect one partner but the whole family and by recognising that the court system is simply not fit for purpose, we are taking meaningful necessary steps towards a society free from abusive behaviour. In that vein, I feel that Mary Gougeon's amendment expanding the scope of non-harassment orders to cover children is a move that bolsters the legislation. If a child is residing with an adult who has been abused by their partner or ex-partner, the protection that a non-harassment order affords them should be expanded to cover that child as well. Anything else would be an abrogation of the state's duty to protect children from harm. I would also urge the cabinet secretary to consider Liam Kerr's proposals to introduce emergency banning orders in Scotland when the Scottish Government consults on this issue later this year. Those orders would provide a reprieve for those who are being abused, offering a short-term solution before a non-harassment order can be put in place. Without emergency banning orders, those who have been brave enough to speak up against abuse are still at risk in the short term, at the point when they are at their most vulnerable and require the most support. For any children involved, the prospect of having to flee their home on top of the additional stress of disruption to their family life would surely have an adverse effect on their mental health. Introducing those orders would protect those children, helping to keep them in a safe and familiar setting without risk of displacement. That protection is already available in England and Wales and I see no reason why they should not be introduced to Scotland. In the previous debate on the issue, my colleague Maurice Corry highlighted the need for a widespread publicity campaign around the events. Although the amendment failed, I was heartened by the cabinet secretary's reassurance that the legislation will be effectively publicised. It is clear that if the bill is to deliver the result that we want, awareness is key. That is why I would like to see the publicity aspect of the bill expanded into PSE classrooms. In this area of gaslighting and revenge porn, I feel that it is necessary to make sure that our young people have the tools required to deal with these issues and know when offence has been committed. Furthermore, by reinforcing the idea at a young age that domestic abuse can happen to men, not just women, as well as affecting same-sex relationships, we can change the culture around this area within a generation. To conclude, Presiding Officer, there is a good deal to welcome in this new bill, but that said, this bill is not perfect. I still believe that my colleague Liam Kerr was right to call for a one-family, one-judge system. As I mentioned previously, I look forward to seeing the results of the Government's consultation on emergency barring orders. However, the Scottish Conservatives absolutely support the principles that are contained in this bill. I hope that that will be a watershed moment for all those who have suffered at the hands of abusers. The bill will benefit the people of Scotland, and for that reason, I hope that, with all the chamber, I will be supporting it this evening. I call Kezia Dugdale to be followed by John Finnie, Ms Dugdale. It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon and to start by putting on record my thanks to all the organisations that have provided us with briefings. My eyes are not that great, Presiding Officer, but I can see Dr Marsher Scott in the gallery and Lily Greening, both of whom have devoted much of their life's work to getting to the point of the legislation that we have before us today, and they should be incredibly proud of their achievements. In every dealing that I have had with those two individuals, I have always been struck by the passion that they have for the first principle of addressing domestic abuse and domestic violence, but also their grasp of the detail. I think that we see both the passion for the principle and the masterful grasp of the detail in the bill that we are considering this afternoon. Too often, women's organisations still have to justify their existence. Every time there is a funding round, they have to talk about the good work that they do, but before us today we have a bill that is the living, breathing kind of reality of why their work matters, why we still need it and the difference that it could make. It is a good week for them, it is a good week for women following on from the agenda representation bill that we considered on Tuesday and now this. I start by agreeing with Rona Mackay that that is a very good bill, it is an ambitious ground-breaking bill. For me, it does four key things of note, it will do many more things than that, but four things I would like to address quickly. First of all, it removes the idea that the perpetrator of domestic abuse could conduct his own defence. I think that if you stop and think about what that means for the victim of domestic abuse when coming forward and thinking about reporting what they have experienced, the idea that they might have to face across examination from the very person that perpetrated this abuse just does not bear thinking about and this bill makes sure that that can no longer happen. Secondly, as has well been discussed already, it creates the crime of coercion and I was particularly struck when the cabinet secretary first talked about this in the media because he immediately understood that for this new crime to have any impact or any effect, the training associated with police officers with all those on the front line was absolutely critical and he said at that time that he would provide the necessary resources to ensure that police officers and, indeed, all front line workers will be fully briefed on this new crime and how best to deal with it. Thirdly, we have had a little bit of discussion already around non-harassment orders and how important that was and there is no doubt that a huge amount of progress was made by the Justice Committee members at stage 2 and I commend them for that. It was not until today that I realised the fourth bit of the bill that I am particularly fond of and that is the aspect around bail restrictions and I am grateful to the Law Society for the briefing on that matter in particular because, of course, there is normally a presumption in favour of bail when it comes to criminal procedures with the exception of drug offences, violent or sexual offences where it is the opposite. There is presumption against bail and one thing that this bill does that we have perhaps not talked about enough is that it adds domestic abuse to that list of presumptions against bail and I think that that is a very important development on this legislation, not least because I have one particular constituent who I talked about before in this chamber. I do not have time to repeat her entire history but, on 1 December, I talked at great lengths—on 1 December 2016, I talked at great lengths of her experience of reporting domestic abuse to the perpetrator, facing many charges in court that were whittled down and then absconded, not once but twice, on bail. The difference that this could make to individuals who have experienced what my constituent experienced is quite profound. I have said a lot of very positive things about the bill. I am immensely proud of it. Given that it is a gendered take on violence and the routes are there from the equally safe strategy, we should be immensely proud of it. A by-product of that, however, is that there is some unfinished business around how we deal with children who are the victims of domestic abuse and much of that ground was covered by Rhoda Grant. I would be very grateful to the cabinet secretary if, when he comes to closing, he could comment on the other legislative opportunities in the lifetime of this Parliament where we might be able to find some symmetry between the civil, the criminal legal systems and, indeed, their relationship with the child protection system in general. I think that there is unfinished business there but that is in no way to take away from the success that all those parties have had in getting us to where we are today. Liam Kerr earlier today mentioned the importance of housing and the position that many women find themselves in when it comes to refugees. Visiting Edinburgh Women's Aid, I met one woman in particular who was stuck in the refuge because of the lack of affordable housing to get her out of that situation, which shows us just how important resources for quality social housing are but also how important resources when it comes to funding domestic abuse services and violence against women services are. Can we please once and for all recognise that, to do their job, organisations that deal with women who are affected by violence need long-term sustainable funding? If the bill means anything, if the work of the people in the gallery means anything, we must give them that definitive commitment, that money will always be there. I thank everyone who has participated in this Government for bringing in the legislation forward. Colleagues in the Justice Committee for the work that we have done and the staff, various people for the briefings. Most of all, I thank the people who gave us private testimony. The cabinet secretary used the word harrowing, and it certainly was harrowing, and it was very compelling and gave us an insight into areas that, unfortunately, many of us are unfamiliar with. There is a gentleman on Twitter who takes great exception to the use of phrase that I use, so I am a way to set an again when I talk about the role that inequality and gender waste violence that underpins this whole pernicious issue of domestic violence. I also want to touch on one of the briefings that is for Scottish Women's Aid when they talk about their grateful for the cross-party support, and that has been the basis for progress. There has been progress over the years, and there has been no role for party politics. For those who are unfamiliar with the procedures that might have heard some differences earlier, that is in our mutual quest to try to make things as good as possible. Certainly in relation to domestic abuse courts, I think that the previous speaker, Kezia Dugdale, talked on the relationship between several criminal proceedings and the conflict that can be there. Other members have talked about the issues around contact and the distress that that causes, not simply the individual involved. Previous occasions I have talked about grandparents becoming involved in the abuse that continues through that system. One of our reports used the phrase, compelling in persuasive evidence, and it certainly was that. The credit does come to the people who have come forward. We also talked, not for the first time in the last week in this chamber, about filling a gap in the law. There is a gap in the law that requires to be filled. People readily understand the physical evidence. Often years of psychological abuse can take a real toll, and that toll does visit children as well. I understand that people have reservations about that legislation. Again, people said that it is not easy to legislate in the field of human relationship. Things are difficult to prove. I think that there has been ample evidence from Police Scotland and the Crown Office Brokeeter Fiscal Service. The excellent work that has been done into serial perpetrators and historic abuse in the world is that, if there is a will and if there are resources, of course that can happen. After all, we have heard that it would be failing if we did not legislate. Again, the stage 1 report that we did talked about the new offence given rise to questions of interpretation and enforcement. That is the law. Whether it is a police officer, whether it is a social worker or whether it is someone from the third sector who gets that first bit of information, they make judgments on that. The police officers investigate and make judgments on that. The Crown Office Brokeeter Fiscal makes judgments on whether it is in the complainers' interests, the public interests and the efficiency of evidence in the judge, ultimately. There is nothing new in that. We are adding something else into the equation. It is very worthwhile that we are doing so. I would like to mention Linda Fabian and Bania's amendments and the work. It has been evidence of her commitment to that over the years. I think that a presumption there with a non-harassment order is a real boost to that piece of legislation. In the very short time that is left in Michelle Bannatine, others have talked about education and awareness and proper resource. We need increases in refuge precision, increase to visiting support for women and children and young people living in the community, increase in contact time for individual women and children, a decrease in waiting lists for refugees, an increase in counselling service, an increase in therapeutic activities and support to children, more on-call hours and drop-in support, and an increase in the provision of training for other agencies. All the very things that the Scottish women tell us in their briefing with the phrase, the elephant in the room, funding for local services, which are at risk here. An idea is that when important legislation is passed, it will be wrong to get embroiled in issues around funding. However, if there genuinely is a commitment across the public sector to address the issue, that should not be an issue. The final things that I would like to say are in relation to children and the addition of the aggravator. I think that that is extremely welcome. Children first retain a concern that there is a need to ensure in Scots law that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right. I think that that is important in their own right. Again, the issue of contact comes in. Finally, I know that the cabinet secretary is looking at the issue, looking at ways to ensure that the rights of children who give evidence are protected, including the development of a Scottish model of Barnahos. The Scottish Green Party will be supporting that and welcome the legislation more and more. Thank you very much, Mr Finlay. I thank all those who have helped us to get to the stage, those who provided invaluable evidence, particularly the harrowing testimony that we heard from survivors so powerfully. I also thank the parliamentary staff, committee colleagues and indeed the cabinet secretary and his officials. I think that John Finlay made a very fair point in pointing to the cross-party collaboration that has been on the issue over the years and certainly in relation to the bill. I also think that the constructive challenge that is necessary in the scrutiny of any legislation, but I can confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have strongly supported those efforts to tackle controlling and coercive domestic abuse. We look forward to voting in support of the bill shortly, albeit recognising, as others have done, that more must be done to change both attitudes and behaviour more widely. As we heard, time and again during our scrutiny of the bill, most powerfully from survivors of domestic abuse themselves. Psychological abuse can be every bit as damaging, every bit as traumatising, as physical abuse, and potentially even more long-lasting in its effects on the victim. The law currently does not provide anything like the protection needed, as I said during the stage 1 debate, where psychological abuse is difficult to prosecute. In turn, it becomes difficult to reinforce messages about how unacceptable this controlling and coercive behaviour is and, in turn, difficult to persuade victims of the value of coming forward. The bill, which I believe has been strengthened and improved through the scrutiny process, provides much-needed added protection. However, it also offers more clarity and certainty for those predominantly women who are affected by the type of abuse that what they have suffered will be recognised and action taken against the perpetrators. Of course, the impact that that sort of abuse can have extends beyond the immediate victim, one of the areas where I think the committee has worked most effectively with the Government in strengthening the bill is in relation to protections around children. While the bill originally established a specific aggravation where children are involved and pleased that the cabinet secretary accepted that this needed to apply beyond simply instances where a child sees, hears or is present in the house during a particular incident, a child's experience is invariably interwoven with that of their abused parent and the amendments made at stage 2, I think, better reflect that fact. The other area where we focused on in both Mary Gougeon and I brought forward similar amendments was with regard to non-harassment orders and the way in which these would be applied, including the protection that they afforded to children. It is absolutely right that the bill now requires courts to consider such orders in any domestic abuse case. I, like John Finnie and others, warmly welcome Linda Fabiani's success earlier this afternoon in introducing a presumption in favour of those orders. Again, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary responded positively at stage 2 to the proposals that were put forward by Mary Gougeon and myself, so that where the statutory aggravation is applied, the courts should also be required to consider an order covering the child or children. On the question of using emergency barring orders in more serious cases, I think that the evidence that the committee took at stage 2 was very helpful. I know that the Government continues to work with the third sector on proposals in this area and look forward to seeing what emerges from that work in due course. Perhaps the area where there continues to be a bit of an impasse is around the potential for more standalone domestic abuse courts. I entirely understand and recognise the rationale behind those calls. Indeed, there is absolutely a need for specialist knowledge in taking forward domestic abuse cases, particularly when it comes to the psychological abuse that we are striking at through this bill. Obviously, there have been steps in this direction within the structure of the Crown Office and Procurate Fiscal Service. I also firmly believe that training in the area should be more of a requirement across the piece for fiscal sheriffs and staff. However, again, I said this during our consideration at stage 2. I do have a concern about how such a specialist court system might operate in some parts of the country, including the one that I represent, in that local access to justice is critically important. I would have quite serious concerns if cases were having to be heard some distance from where those involved live and work for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I accept that this is an issue that we will keep under review. I think that the three-yearly reports will allow us to do this in a more informed fashion. For now, I thank all those who helped us to get to this stage. As I said before, the sort of coercive controlling behaviour that this bill strikes at can have a devastating impact on a victim, undermining their sense of self, hollowing them out slowly but surely over time. There is no place whatsoever in 21st century Scotland. Although the bill will not end domestic abuse, I am delighted that today we will close a gap in the criminal law in Scotland that will help to crack down on that abhorrent behaviour. Thank you very much. I call Fulton MacGregor to follow by Maurice Corry, Mr MacGregor, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Have spoken in this chamber before in this issue and I am proud to be speaking in the stage 3 debate again today. This law is world-leading and will go some way to addressing the true nature of domestic abuse, which is often, as others have said, a pervasive controlling and demeaning behaviour over a long course of time that destroys the identity of the person who usually will not exclusively be a woman. It sends out a strong message that we do not tolerate this behaviour and demonstrates that laws that we make in this chamber can indeed do that, and over a longer term would be part of a strategy to effect change. I want to say that I am a member of the Justice Committee and, like others have done, I know that a lot of the members have spoken today, thank those who provided evidence, particularly the victims of abuse who I think provided the most stark evidence. I would also take this opportunity, Presiding Officer, to declare an interest as a registered social worker with the triple SC. I declare that because domestic violence is one of the issues that I came across most frequently in both child protection and criminal justice roles. I mentioned this when talking in Gail Rossi's member's debate on ACEs last week. There are gaps for prosecutors and agencies to tackle psychological abuse and are currently seen in criminal law. With the bill in place, convictions will be sought for domestic abuse with the inclusion of psychological abuse. The current law focuses on incidents of physical violence or threatening behaviour that causes fear and alarm. However, domestic abuse, as we know and have heard, is not as simple as physical violence. Emotional abuse, controlling and coercive behaviour all contribute to domestic abuse and can have deeply damaging impact on families. It is important that the bill takes into account that the third parties are often involved in cases and use as a means of control or abuse. Domestic abuse often takes place within the family homes where children are present, which is why it is vital that the bill takes into account protecting children who are affected by domestic abuse. I think that that is the most discussed area today. I welcome the widening of the child aggravation considerations at stage 2 and the amendments that have been brought forward by Claire Baker today. When domestic abuse takes place in the family home, children always experience something. That could range from having little access to support, networks or restrictions placed in their parents' reading or even witnessing the abuse that is taking place. If a child grows up in a home where coercive and controlling behaviour is commonplace, that could have a deeply damaging and lasting impact on that child's attitudes towards what is acceptable behaviour. I mentioned the recent member's debate on adverse childhood experiences, where we heard how such experiences can impact upon individuals, including witnessing domestic abuse in the home. While reducing ACEs is a very complex issue, I believe that the bill will play a part in contributing to the reduction of the impact of ACEs. I would like to talk also, as others have done, about the non-harasment order and pay tribute to Mary Evans at stage 2 in Linda Fabiani's amendment today. I think that that is an important change and will help to protect victims and children. It should be the case that the court should have to explain why not to not put one in place, as opposed to the other way about. As Liam McArthur mentioned, the issue of specialist courts was raised at the committee and in the amendments, but I am off the belief that, while I have sympathy with that view that it has been expressed, all courts should be specialist in that area. That was something that I had raised at committees well because that is a widespread issue. It does not take into account gender class geography anywhere or anything like that, so all courts should be specialist in that area. How will that work in the ground? What does that mean to ordinary people? I have to say that this Parliament can be very proud if we go ahead to pass the bill tonight, because I think that it will have a very positive effect. Over recent times, my office, for example, has dealt with a very complicated case of a young woman and her children. Obviously, I cannot go into the details, but we were able to put it in touch with the local women's aid, where she got help in refuge, and this law could help her. What about implementation, as John Finnie had talked about? We must make sure that everyone plays their part to make sure that that works. I was at meeting just a couple of weeks ago with other politicians, with Monkman's Women's Aid, the local service, and I was bitterly disappointed to hear that they are running into real funding difficulties with their local authority. Funding difficulties are hampering their ability to provide even simple things for the women who need refuge, such as clean carpets and bedding, so I am calling on all local politicians in my local authority area—SMP, Labour and Tory—to do the right thing and priorities these services and help this law be implemented, as more and more referrals are likely to be made. I am proud to be voting for the bill today. I would like to come into the chamber to do likewise and make history. I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the third stage of this most important piece of legislation. First, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Justice Committee clerks team for all their hard work on the bill, but also for those who incredibly brave people who provided valuable information to the committee who had been victims of this despicable issue. I am glad to be able to add my support to the bill today, and, as has been pointed out by other members, domestic abuse is always a monstrous and evil act. It was clear from the evidence that the Justice Committee heard that a new criminal offence was required to help the police, courts and the whole of society to crack down on domestic abuse effectively. I am glad that the Parliament will be able to offer that to them today. I do think that we have a bill that will work well and hopefully help a lot of men and women suffering in abusive relationships. The Government has listened to the legitimate concerns that were raised in the Justice Committee and acted accordingly, including the amendment from Mary Gougeon on the non-harassment orders, which allows the courts to impose an NHS that protects children, which is very important, as well as the victim. That is a great move, and anything that we can do to protect children from harm must be applauded most vigorously. On the NHS, more widely, though, I have noted that some evidence was raised by groups such as Scottish Women's Aid with concerns surrounding age NHS effectiveness due to the lack of an emergency barring order within the legislation. I am not sure whether that will be the case, but I believe that it will be important for the Government to monitor that and ensure that NHS will work as planned. If the NHS is not working according to plan, as intended by the Government, then the Government must be willing to adapt them to ensure that they are fit for purpose. I tried to amend the bill to require the Government to promote public awareness of the new offence. At the time, I said that it was necessary to ensure that we have maximum awareness, understanding and clarity about the operation of the act among the public, Police Scotland and its team. I still believe that to be the case. The cabinet secretary argued that it was unnecessary, as he said. It had always been our intention to raise public awareness prior to the implementation of the offence, so it was voted down. Of course, I accepted that. I welcome today very strongly his commitment in his opening remarks as the cabinet secretary to raise public awareness as a matter of importance. I welcome that and commend that today. I think that it is important that we make sure to say publicly, loudly and as often as possible about what is unacceptable. In my view, it is not just about telling people about the legislative changes. It is about changing the whole culture surrounding domestic abuse, making it clear that both physical and psychological abuse will never be tolerated in any part of our country. That is incredibly important. Another point that I would welcome to be addressed by ministers is in connection to a point raised by Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation. He told the committee that there was a fundamental difference between arresting on the basis of physical evidence and interpreting whether there had been any psychological abuse. That means that the requirement placed on police officers had changed dramatically. For the legislation to be most effective, it requires to be used correctly by the police. For that reason, front-lines police officers need as much support and training as possible on how to apply the law. I hope that a scheme for roll-out of training is already in place. If not, I hope that the Government will endeavour to have one in place as soon as possible. Nevertheless, I take note of what the cabinet secretary said in his opening statements again, and I am pleased that it is going in the right direction. A final point is that I want to associate myself with my colleague Liam Kerr's words around the benefits of moving forward with one family, one judge system, as advocated by the Scottish Conservatives. I will not go into detail now, as he has already covered this, but it is a move that I strongly believe in and which we should at least be investigating. In conclusion, I look forward to joining other members in voting for this bill today, which I believe has the potential to do it to a tremendous amount of work for the victims of domestic abuse in Scotland. I call Christina McKelvie to be followed by James Dornan, Mr Dornan will be the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you. Yesterday, I received from a friend who was one of the first prosecutors in the first domestic abuse court in Glasgow a note, and she said, Good luck tomorrow. More legislation has seldom the answer, but this bill has potential to affect meaningful change, even just in the conversation that is prompted. And Mary Baird said, You can't fit women into a structure that's coded as male. You have to change the structure, and this legislation on the foundation of Equally Safe seems like a good attempt to do that. I agree with her. And with 40 years of tireless work from the likes of Scottish women's aid speaking out, rape crisis and gender, zero-tolerant Scotland, white ribbon Scotland, stamp, the women's rights centre in Hamilton, my colleagues in the cross-party group of which I co-chair with Claire Baker, and many, many more. Today, we do make history. On what I am sure is a landmark day for this Parliament and one of the proudest days, the proudest days I have had the privilege to serve in this chamber, we can begin a healing process, the scars of which have existed for some centuries. And I urge support, not just from this chamber, because, as we can see, we have that support in this chamber, but for the voices of the women and the men across Scotland who have, for far too long, been the victims of abhorrent abuse that this bill will seek to rectify. This domestic abuse bill will move to safeguard all victims and ensure the secured wellbeing as a matter of priority. From a human rights perspective, stage 3 will show that this Scottish Parliament is a guarantor of those human rights and is committed to the wellbeing of all its citizens more equitably by protecting those most vulnerable to newly identified criminal offences. The bill closes a gap in the law, enabling police and prosecutors to better protect victims of domestic abuse. The new offence under the bill's strict new measures will ensure convictions for a recognised pattern and a course of abuse, for instance. The psychological forms of abuse, such as a coercive control, are not currently covered by existing legislation. The gap was identified through consultation as letting victims down. We'll let's not let them down today, because these new measures will ensure that, where abuse against partners or ex-partners has been reported, all types of abuse is considered, ensuring survivors easy access to justice with dignity. It is vitally important that improvements in domestic abuse legislation go on to recognise the ever-changing patterns of behaviour, enabling professionals, those working with victims and their families to count the number of incremental changes as an ordered number of incidents over time. Patterns may vary a little between perpetrators, but incidents all share controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading and even violent characteristics. Domestic abuse is perpetuated on victims of all identities, but is driven by other community pressures and discrimination in society more widely. That is a gender issue, whether that be sexism, racism or even class divide. That is why, as a gendered crime, it is overwhelmingly experienced by women, but not exclusively so, as we know. That new legislation will become more effective at detailing those characteristics because it applies to those who are already marginalised and subjected to isolation, denigration and derision imposed by social contexts. Domestic abuse needs to be viewed as more than violence, particularly for those partners far more likely to become the victims of hate crime by virtue of their identity and are at risk because of their gender. Issues of emotional wellbeing, physical health, financial security and self-esteem are inextricably linked to inequalities of power. Methods of control are insidious, maybe subtle behaviours but equally harming. That bill ensures victims a voice, that their voice will be treated with gravity and the seriousness that it deserves. For example, in the use of social media to spread images to shame and intimidate, like the revenge porn issue that I brought to this chamber in September 2013, which we now have legislation on. As the proposed changes will cover such behaviour most robustly. In closing, Presiding Officer, this Parliament stands alongside those who, for far too long, thought their voices would be silenced by their abuser, whose ambitions and dreams were limited by the poundings of fists or the power of controlling words. Finally, Presiding Officer, we can ensure that victims of domestic abuse will have their voice, will have our support and will have their justice. Thank you. I call James Dornan and then we move to closing speeches. Mr Dornan, please. Thank you Presiding Officer. To be able to speak in support of a bill such as this is a great privilege indeed. As politicians, we all have different areas of Scottish life that particularly affect us and impact the way we think forever after having heard their real life stories. And what I'd like to do is to talk about the impact some of those stories have had on me and how that bill is an incredibly important piece of legislation for the Parliament to pass today. I've had meetings with groups such as Rape Crisis and Scottish Woman's Aid. I've worked closely with groups in my constituency, such as the Waves and Daisy project in Casamol, who support the victims of domestic abuse. I've heard numerous stories and got to know the women and their children on a personal level. And this highlighted to me the importance of this bill more than any briefing could possibly do. And why is it important? Well, it's hard for me to imagine, but listening to these women, just to think about what it means to be abused by a partner. And this is the right time to show just how some people's lives could be changed for the better or hopefully will be changed for the better if this legislation is passed by telling stories of just some of the many women who have been brave enough to share what's happened to them. I know a woman well now who moved to Ireland when she met the love of her life, had a family and did everything she could to make that life across the sea. Sadly, she was beaten and emotionally abused so badly that she had to flee from her home and her life and try to survive whilst rebuilding her life back here in Scotland. This woman, marvelous woman, is now in her 70s, chairing a charity which she helped to form that supports women who are fleeing abuse. Through her work and care for others, she's been able to move on with her life. I've heard stories of a woman who had to flee in the night from the woman themselves and who could not even seek shelter with family because of stigma and blackmail, and these can often be cruel tools that abusers use to control women. Language like, no one will want you, I will find you and I'll hurt the people who take you in, can have a devastating effect on women, and these are just some of the common phrases used to stop many women escaping the hell in which they exist. I'm forced to flee into the unknown to boarding houses and safe housings, often with small children and very little in the way of clothing. I cannot tell you how much it breaks my heart to hear a woman making her children sleep with her coats and shoes on, in case the man of the house comes home and the abuse starts for no reason and without warning. I was delighted to see the focus on psychological abuse in this, because we all know that abuse isn't just physical. It can be sexual, it can be emotional, and it's almost always psychological. Many women don't even realise they're victims. That's why I'm so pleased that this is part of the proposal. Controlling behaviour can often be hard to detect at first. Perpetrators may use psychological tactics to ensure that their partner feels like she isn't good enough and that her self-esteem is so damaged that her relationship becomes like an emotional prison with no escape. For me, one of the really damaging things, and one of the reasons why I'm delighted that the Government has said that it will look at the Children's Scotland act to see about contact with the children is the impact that that has on children. I've spoken to some of those kids and I've taken part in Christmas parties where the only gifts that they've been able to get are the gifts that my constituents have given to me to pass on to those children. I see the financial implications, I see the psychological implications and I see the physical implications on those children. I'm really pleased to see that this piece of legislation, which the Scottish Government is moving forward, which clearly the Scottish Parliament is going to support and which is going to be a historic moment for Scotland. The important thing about that is that this legacy of change may have come from this place but it belongs to the many women who have been victims of abuse, the women who have survived and the women who have gone on to use their own experiences to change the lives of others. My speech and this result is dedicated to each and every one of them. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr Dornan. I applaud Clare Baker. It's close for labour. Four minutes, please, Ms Baker. I would like to recognise the work of the cabinet secretary supported by his team in bringing forward this important piece of legislation, as well as the work by MSPs across the chamber in supporting and strengthening the legislation. I want to thank NSPCC for their support on my amendments this afternoon. Domestic abuse is a stain on our society. It is in the main that the domination of men over women and children. It destroys lives and families and our criminal justice system must be robust in dealing with the perpetrators. This legislation is significant in that it creates a specific statutory offence of domestic abuse, which includes coercive, controlling, psychological and emotional behaviour, as well as physical assault. It makes changes to bail conditions, to the use of non-harassment orders and recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children. It also emphasises the Parliament's commitment to tackling domestic abuse, to not hiding from the problem but to play our part in bringing it into the light. In 1999, when the Scottish Parliament was first established, it was seen as a Parliament that was able to focus on issues of importance. It was a Parliament that had many more women politicians than we had seen before in our mainstream politics. A Parliament was prepared to bring those issues to the Parliament. This afternoon, we have had thoughtful, challenging and impassioned speeches that realise the reasons for the Parliament having been created. The bill is significant in its understanding of coercive control and emotional abuse and the impact on women's lives, the isolation and the fear that comes with living in this situation. We need to make sure that the law is effective and that victims have confidence in it, and John Finnie this afternoon described how that can be achieved through the police and the procreator fiscal service. I recognise that funding has been announced for training, for specialist training within the police and this morning for training within Scottish Women's Aid, and that is all to be welcomed. There are going to be challenges in rolling out the legislation, but there are two things that I wish to highlight. First, judicial training and Liam McArthur have touched on the issue. That remains an issue and, while there is training available, it is only voluntary. The measures outlined in the letter that we received from the Lord President are welcome. I recognise his commitment when he said that he will continue to place a high priority on judicial education in the field, but I feel that the current measures do not fully address the issue and I would like to see more progress here. While training that has been announced for funding is welcome, Scottish Women's Aid and their briefing talks about the elephant in the room, which is the issues that are around funding. Some members will have received a briefing from Persia Women's Aid in my region. They describe the experience as counselling services have been heavily oversubscribed, children's services have been under resourced and all services are running to capacity. We recognise the financial situation that has been faced by many women's support organisations across the country. I know that the Government has a big commitment to this area, but I would call on them to do what they can to make sure that there is sufficient support there. I recognise that local authorities have been carrying the brunt of the cuts in recent years, but I would ask all local authorities, even in difficult times, to recognise the importance of those services and to prioritise them. John Finnie and Kezia Dugdale both spoke about the need for funding for the organisations. There are many areas that I wish to raise. I realise that we are short for time. Rhoda Grant made important points around the contact system, and perhaps the cabinet secretary can respond more to that in his closing comments. Scottish Women's Aids has been tweeting artwork done by children who support them, who they support, and it has brought home the impact that this has on children. In closing, I would like to mention the work that was done by Zero Tolerance along with Scottish Women's Aids and assist in publishing what journalists need to know about domestic abuse in Scotland. That went beyond the bill. It described what responsible journalism should mean, and it is about changing the narrative. It is about increasing public awareness of what abuse is, what it looks like, how your sister, your neighbour or your daughter might be living in this, so we can all challenge it and not accept it. I hope that that is a positive ending, because today is one in which we can be proud of the legislation that is being passed and in our firm hope that it will improve the lives of women and children across Scotland. It is clear for members' contributions today that there is total consensus in the chamber and across all parties in the Parliament for the introduction of legislation to create a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct against a partner or ex-partner. The current law focuses on individual incidents of physical violence or threatening behaviour, which causes fear and alarm, but the evidence from witnesses during the scrutiny of the bill established that there is a gap in the law when addressing abuse that is not restricted to physical abuse but which is also controlling coercive and psychological in nature. Put simply, there does not have to be black and blue bruises for an individual to be the victim of domestic abuse. That was vividly brought home to the committee members when they heard as John Finney and Liam McArthur have confirmed the harrowing and compelling private testimony of survivors who had been the victims of this kind of abusive behaviour, which can leave psychological scars which endure many years after physical ones have healed. It took immense courage for those survivors to talk about their experiences and the committee owes them a huge debt of gratitude. Stage 2 amendments include a welcome provision for a statutory aggravator to cover a situation where a child sees, hears or is present during an incident of partner abuse. The committee recommends that the disconnect between criminal and civil courts when deciding child contact orders be considered in the review of the law relating to children and key adults in their lives. Here, I hope, Liam Kerr's suggestion for family, same-sheriff domestic abuse hearings will also be considered. Further evidence was taken at stage 2 on emergency barring orders, which would exclude an abuser from a victim's home immediately. As the cabinet secretary stated, there are complexities here, and I therefore welcome his commitment to formally consult on the introduction of new powers in this area. A minority of witnesses, mainly legal experts and Collins Steele from the Scottish Police Federation, expressed the concern that the new offence could inadvertently criminalise behaviour that, rather than being abusive, is nothing more than a normal heated exchange or disagreement. However, on balance, the committee was persuaded that, with the reasonableness test and if the context and course of behaviour are taken into account, the threshold for criminalisation will not be too low. Clearly, context is crucial, which is why I lodged but did not press a stage 2 amendment to put context on the face of the bill. That was because both the cabinet secretary and now, after reflecting on the point, Scottish Women's Aid considered it unnecessary and that the offences drafted is the best form of words to achieve the purpose of the bill. I sincerely hope that they are both proved correct. Linda Famiani's stage 3 amendment passed today introduces a presumption in favour of granting a non-harassment order, and I commend her for her commitment to this issue. Finally, the bill's schedule makes welcome and long overdue criminal law procedural reforms in an effort to ensure that the victim is not re-victimised by the criminal process itself. The reforms therefore prohibit the accused in domestic abuse cases conducting their own defence or directly recognising the victim. If the bill is to give victims of psychological abuse the justice they so desperately seek, it is essential that sufficient resources are available to ensure that the support for victims and witnesses is adequately funded and that the new offence is the subject of a publicity campaign to encourage victims to come forward. I ask the cabinet secretary again to confirm that this will be the case to ensure that it is indeed legislation that the Parliament can be rightly proud to have passed. Michael Matheson, I thank all members for their positive contributions in the course of the stage 3 debate and for the positive contributions that we have had over the course of the scrutiny process throughout the parliamentary consideration of the bill. The Parliament is not short of disagreements. Of course, that is the nature of the debate itself, but I think that it is right to pause and to highlight that this place is often at its best when we can come together and try to tackle some of the most significant problems that we face as a society. Of course, we cannot afford to underestimate the nature and extent of the problem that we face in relation to domestic abuse. I mentioned in my opening remarks nearly 60,000 cases reported in a year to Police Scotland and an unknown number of other incidents that are not reported. I believe that it is incumbent on us all, as elected members within the national Parliament of Scotland, to address the key gender-based challenges that we face as a society. Despite the concerted efforts over many years, it is still a blight on too many individuals' lives in that they suffer from the scourge of domestic abuse. In seeking to redouble our efforts in order to tackle the issue more effectively, the bill is assisting us in moving that agenda forward. As I mentioned earlier, scrutiny is occurring at a time when I sincerely hope that fundamental societal changes are taking place within our society about how women are treated in our society and that we recognise that there is still much more to do, but that we are moving in the right direction. I believe that the bill is timely for many reasons, but perhaps it is timely first and foremost as an example of the kind of steps that are needed if we are to have a shift in the mindset to support those wider changes in our society that we all want to see. It is a bill that makes clear that domestic abuse is not simply not physical abuse. It is a bill that makes clear that the pernicious and horrific coercive and controlling behaviour that degrades and humiliates women in particular is now within our criminal laws scope. A number of members have raised specific points during the course of their contribution. I recognise the issues that were raised by Kezia Dugdale in particular about raising awareness of the new provision. One of the very specific actions that I have taken is to make sure that those who are engaging with the victims of domestic abuse have a proper understanding and a detailed understanding of the new provisions within the bill if passed this afternoon. That will help to ensure that our police officers and the staff within Police Scotland have understanding about the new provisions within the legislation. That is why I have provided them with additional funding to allow them to train some 14,000 police officers and staff in understanding the new bill, an issue that was raised by Maurice Corry in his contribution. Additionally, alongside that, providing an extra £165,000 to Scottish Women's Aid to support them in a training programme for their trainers right across the country to help to train their staff in the projects that they have right across the whole of Scotland. That is work that I have no doubt that will help to support them in making sure that they have greater awareness of the provisions within the bill. Liam McArthur I welcome the funding that he has identified. The issue that a number of colleagues have been referring to is not so much necessarily the quantum of the funding, but the predictability of that funding over a two, three, four-year period. Perhaps that is something that the Scottish Government can address in trying to take forward the proposals in the bill. What I can assure the member of is that that is something that we will continue to monitor and to evaluate as we go forward. What I am determined to do is to make sure that we have those who are working directly with victims of domestic abuse properly informed and having the right information on how the new legislation will be implemented and the provisions within it. That is why I have specifically targeted both the police and their staff and the Scottish Women's Aid staff to support them. I turn also to the issue about the public information campaign, which I have given a commitment to taking forward before the provisions of the legislation committee force. That is exactly what we will do, and I will set that out in the coming months on how we will roll that public information campaign out. I will give way to Kezia Dugdale. Kezia Dugdale I am conscious that the cabinet secretary does not have too much time left. I wonder if he could comment specifically on the issues that were raised around the unfinished business with regard to children's protections. Michael Matheson I am trying to come to that point, including the issue around the emergency banning orders that members have raised. We will be having a consultation fairly soon on how we can roll out the emergency banning orders in Scotland and the way in which they operate. Should it be the victim who applies for it or should it be a third party who applies for it on their behalf in looking at the impact that they have had on other jurisdictions and on the children's issues in particular. As it stands at the present moment, I have given a commitment through my education colleagues who are about to undertake a consultation exercise to look at the existing children's neglect offence, which is contained in section 12 of the Children and Young People's Act of 1939, in order to look at modernising that and specifically looking at abuse aspects and how they impact on children. They are about to bring forward a consultation specifically on that. My colleague Annabelle Ewing will also be consulting on the potential changes to the Children's Scotland Act 1995 on issues relating to contact, residency, parental responsibilities and rights in that consultation that we hope to publish in the spring in order to allow us to make further progress on that issue. Today is a momentous day, a day that I think that many campaigners who deal day in day out with the corrosive effects of domestic abuse may have thought would never arrive. Our modernising or modern understanding of the nature of domestic abuse is being reflected in how our criminal law in Scotland now operates. I in particular want to pay tribute to Marsher Scott and Leigh Johnston at Scottish Women's Aid for their assistance and expertise in developing this new offence. I also want to pay tribute to people like Manny McGowan, who has tirelessly led assist for many years in providing advocacy to those affected by domestic abuse. I also want to pay tribute to Children First Banardals and the other children's organisation in emphasising the importance of acknowledging the risks and harms that are caused to children by domestic abuse. I am particularly proud of this piece of legislation, Presiding Officer. I mentioned earlier on in my visit to Scottish Women's Aid that the very heart of this legislation is the voices of those women who have experienced domestic abuse. I want to draw this debate to a close by finishing with their voice. The voice of Nicola Borthwick, when she said, Life as an abused woman was dangerous, terrifying and exhausting. I had no freedom, no escape and no voice. After fleeing, I lived in hiding and forwent my right to vote to remain hidden. So, to have spoken and been heard at our nation's Parliament, giving personal evidence to support this domestic abuse bill is a precious memory that will stay with me for the rest of my life, long after the last of the old wounds have healed. It is very difficult to experience a sense of justice. All of the past, good and bad, is real and affecting. However, to transform the legacy of those abusive deeds from merely damaging into something positive that contributes to establishing safety and domestic abuse from domestic abuse for others is incredibly rewarding and fulfilling. In the words of Dorothy Adger, a nurse survivor of domestic abuse, for years, I had to keep silent, watch my every word and facial expression, second guessing everything I ever heard, ever said or wrote, having my words twisted and used against me. It was exhausting and disorientating. I remember once, while being shouted at, actually wanting him to hit me so that I could be allowed to leave. This is why we need this bill. Speaking to the Justice Committee was scary, I brought a lot of memories back, but I was treated kindly and with such respect and he listened. This may sound ordinary, but it wasn't. As a survivor, where this was official acknowledgement of the abuse that I had suffered and validation that I was right to speak up, simply being believed was such a release and I felt a huge pressure being unwrapped like an invisible grip from around me. Being unexpectedly handed the opportunity to contribute to remaking of this historic bill will stay with me forever and I cannot think of a more fitting outcome for some of the darkest days of my life, for myself and for other survivors who cannot tell their story. Today, we, as a parent, stand with Dorothy, Nicola and many others who have spoken up on domestic abuse without their courage and their determination that we will not be here today. I thank the minister and members and that concludes our debate on the domestic abuse Scotland bill at stage 3. We now move on to the next item of business. Point of order, Brian Whittle. During yesterday's stage 1 debate on the budget, I intervened in the cabinet secretary, Dennis Mackay's, to ask a specific question on the issue of significant cuts to education budget proposed by the SNP Labour coalition in South Ayrshire. Order, please. Let's hear the point of order. Mr Mackay replied and I quote, As a consequence of our decisions and local government order that will follow, that local authority will have an extra £9.4 million to spend. However, according to Spice and South Ayrshire council, that figure is in fact £3.37 million, which I'm sure you'll agree, Presiding Officer, is significantly different to the cabinet secretary's claim. So I seek your advice, Presiding Officer, and ask whether it is appropriate for you to ask the cabinet secretary to rise and advise the chamber whether Spice and South Ayrshire council are wrong, or if they are in fact right, we now apologise for misleading the chamber in giving his response to my question. Thank you, Mr Whittle, and thank you for the advance notice that you are intending to ask a point of order. It's not a matter for me to rule, I'm sure that the minister will have heard your remarks and will decide for himself whether it's appropriate for him to do so. I would just comment that your own remarks are now on the record. It's always up to any member who wishes to do so to interrupt or to use proceedings, to ask a question, they can write to ministers. I would also just draw everybody's attention if you wish to correct the official report that has proceeded to do so as well. We move now, if I may, to decision time. There's one item of business today. The question is that motion 10218, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill at stage 3, be agreed, and because this is the final stage of a bill, will move straight to revision, so members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10218, in the name of Michael Matheson, is yes, 118, no, one. There were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed and the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill is passed. Thank you. That concludes decision time, and I now close this meeting.