I call on Michael Matheson to speak to and to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Everyone in this chamber is aware that domestic abuse blights the lives of too many people in Scotland. It might not be obvious because it is largely hidden, often occurring behind closed doors and out of sight, but we know that it is widespread. The number of incidents is truly shocking. It is likely that everyone in this chamber, even if they do not know it, is likely to have family or friends who have been abused or are being abused by a partner or an ex-partner. In 2015-16, nearly 60,000 domestic abuse incidents were reported to the police. That is likely to be a significant underestimate of the true extent of domestic abuse. In 2014-15, the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey found that only a fifth of those who experienced partner abuse in the previous 12 months said that the police knew about the most recent incident. 14 per cent of adults have experienced partner abuse since the age of 16. Anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse, and it is most definitely not restricted to one gender, one class or urban or rural area in the country. However, we know that women are disproportionately likely to be victims of domestic abuse. Twice as many women report having experienced partner abuse in the previous 12 months as men. The instance of female victim and male perpetrator represented nearly 80 per cent of all incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police in 2015-16. We as a Parliament and as a society have moved a long way in our understanding of domestic abuse since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999. I was a founding member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in this Parliament. I will remember key stakeholder groups such as Scottish Women's Aid coming to the committee seeking to explain why steps were needed to tackle domestic abuse. Back then, it was sadly the case that too many in our society saw domestic abuse solely in terms of physical violence. Crucially, there was also an attitude within some parts of society that it was a private matter and no business of the police or anyone else. Time has moved on and attitudes have thankfully evolved. Our modern understanding of domestic abuse, shaped by the experience of women affected and the groups that helped them, is now such that we know that domestic abuse is commonly experienced as a pattern of abusive behaviour that is sustained over time. It can take the form of physical violence or even overt threats, but it can also take the form where an abuser may behave in a highly controlling, coercive and abusive way over a long period of time. The Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill is this Government and this Parliament's next important step in the fight to address the scourge that is domestic abuse. This Parliament has already taken action to reform the criminal law concerning domestic abuse. In 2010, this Government ensured that what might be described as the traditionally understood form of domestic abuse, prosecuted using common law breach of the peace, could continue to be prosecuted using a new statutory offence of threatening and abusive behaviour. This followed a court judgment that called into question the scope of the offence of breach of the peace. This Parliament has also legislated to create an offence of stalking, which can, on occasion, be relevant in cases of domestic abuse. However, notwithstanding those reforms, it is clear that the criminal law does not fully reflect what domestic abuse is in all its forms as our modern understanding reveals. As many of you will know, the then Solicitor General, Leslie Thomson, called on the Scottish Parliament to consider the creation of a specific offence of domestic abuse in 2014. She said that, in her experience of prosecuting domestic abuse, the existing criminal law did not always reflect the experience of victims of long-term domestic abuse. The explanation given was because the law focuses on individual instances of, for example, threatening behaviour or assault and does not reflect the fact that domestic abuse is commonly experienced as a pattern of abusive behaviour that is sustained over time. The kinds of cases that stakeholders have highlighted as being difficult to prosecute using the existing law are those in which an abuser behaves in a highly controlling, manipulative and abusive way towards their partner over a long period of time. Examples of what abusers may do to humiliate their partners are horrendous—forcing someone to eat food off the floor, controlling access to the toilet, or repeatedly putting them down or telling them that they are worthless. Those can also try to control every aspect of their partner's life. For example, preventing them from attending work or college, stopping them from making contact with their family and friends, giving them no or limited access to money, checking or controlling their use of their phone or social media. Those actions can often not be accompanied by physical violence or overt threats because the abuser knows that the victim may be in so much fear of their partner that they do not need to take physical or threatening action to exert control. That behaviour can be very difficult to prosecute under our existing law. Somewhere a prosecution is possible, a conviction, for example, for an incident of threatening or abusive behaviour may leave the victim feeling that the court process and the sentence imposed did not reflect the reality of the abuse that they experienced. The centrepiece of the bill is a new offence of domestic abuse. The new offence modernises the criminal law to reflect our understanding of what domestic abuse is. By providing for a specific offence that is intended to be as comprehensive so that abuse in its totality can be prosecuted as a single offence. It is a course of conduct offence that enables the entirety of the perpetrator's abusive behaviour to be included in a single charge. This allows the court to consider the totality of the abuse that is alleged to have taken place. It enables the court to consider both behaviour, which would be criminal under the existing law, like assault and threats, and psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, which can be difficult to prosecute under our existing law. Crucially, of course, I will give way to remember. Liam McArthur. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking intervention and, indeed, for the way he has set out the proposition under scrutiny at the moment. He will be aware that the committee heard evidence about the potential for setting the evidential bar too low in terms of prosecuting criminal offences. I think that the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report is very helpful in setting out why that is not the case, but I wonder whether he might be able to read that on to the record for the benefit of the Parliament now. I will seek to do so. In our response to the committee's report, we believe that we have set the bar right. It also reinforces the oral evidence that I gave to the committee at the time when it was considering the stage 1 report that we believe that the bar which we have set with the qualifying criteria for engaging in this offence is the right level, and we believe that the courts will interpret it in an appropriate way. Crucially, the way that the offence is going to work is to criminalise certain specific behaviour, such as violent behaviour and criminalise other types of behaviour by reference to the effect that it has on the partner or ex-partner. For example, the offence seeks to cover behaviour such as unreasonably restricting access to money by reference to the fact that it may make the partner feel dependent or subordinate to the perpetrator. Children too are harmed by domestic abuse. Where a parent is being abused, it always brings harm to the child whether directly from the child witnessing the abuse or indirectly where a child is affected by the effect that it has on the parent. In line with the long-established definition of domestic abuse, the bill is about creating a new offence of domestic abuse between partners and or ex-partners. The harm to children is acknowledged through the new statutory aggravation. Where children are involved, that can be reflected by the court when sentencing the perpetrator. I welcome the Justice Committee stage 1 report that supports the general principles of the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those organisations and in particular those individuals, not least those who shared with the committee their personal experience of suffering domestic abuse, who gave evidence to the committee to assist their consideration of the bill. The committee has raised a number of important issues, including how we might expand the scope of the power to impose non-harassment orders to provide protection to the children of the victim, the proposal to create emergency banning orders, which would ban a perpetrator from a victim's home, and issues concerning the interaction between the criminal domestic abuse cases and the civil child contact case process. The Scottish Government has responded to the stage 1 report recommendations and I will listen carefully to the issues offered in today's debate ahead of stage 2 of the bill. On the specific issues of non-harassment orders, I give way to the member. I welcome his thanks to all those groups who have contributed to the process. Scottish Women's Aid and Indeed Children First have called for a parallel offence specifically around domestic abuse and the impact that it has on children to be included on the face of the bill. I wonder if he could tell us now whether his mind is still open to that at this stage. If the cabinet minister could use to it and conclude it, I would bring it out in Mark's Reconclusion. We have responded to that particular issue at the stage of stage 1, when it was being considered by the committee. We have set out the approach that we are going to take is through reform of child welfare legislation, which will allow us to look at creating a specific measure to tackle issues around domestic abuse for children, because that being a more appropriate avenue in order to consider that specific issue. Part of the reason for that is that the qualifying criteria that is set out in the bill for adults is actually one that would be very difficult to apply in the instance of children. That is why taking a different approach to how we deal with children in this matter will be extremely important to make sure that this approach works, but also that we get a specific approach that will also work for children in the future. In conclusion, creating a new offence of domestic abuse will not end domestic abuse, but there is a groundbreaking approach that will put Scotland at the forefront of efforts to tackle the scourge of psychological abuse and coercive control. The new offence will provide greater clarity for victims, sending a clear signal that what their partners do to them is not only wrong but is criminal. Improve the ability of the police and our prosecutors to intervene in specific cases and to change societal attitudes about what domestic abuse is. There is not only physical violence but psychological abuse, exerting total control over our partners every movement and action, forcing them to live in constant fear. For too long, an attitude has been allowed to linger that domestic abuse is a private matter, no business of the criminal law. That bill makes crystal clear. Those days are long gone. I move the motion in my name. I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the Justice Committee in this important debate. The committee took evidence on the bill over six meetings earlier this year. Private meetings were held with survivors of psychological domestic abuse from different parts of Scotland, and the committee received written evidence from over 40 organisations and individuals. The new domestic abuse offence in the bill is intended to address a gap in the law, namely the lack of a criminal remedy when domestic abuse is primarily psychological in nature in a relationship where one party seeks to control and dominate the other. The committee heard that the current law is not well equipped to handle situations where abuse consists of a course of behaviour as opposed to an isolated incident. That means that the current law does not effectively reflect the lived experience of many victims. The private meetings that the committee members held with survivors of psychological domestic abuse helped members immensely to better understand the nature of this particular form of domestic abuse and the trauma that it causes. It was indeed sobering to reflect that some of the appalling conduct that victims described cannot currently be prosecuted. Consequently, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and many third sector organisations who gave evidence were all of the view that reform is overdue. The committee agrees. However, a minority of witnesses, including legal academics and the Scottish Police Federation, expressed some significant concerns about the new offence. They stated that it was not easy to legislate in terms of human relationships and consequently that there was a risk of inadvertently making bad law. That fear could result in an individual being charged for behaviour that is not by any reasonable standards criminal or being charged when there is no clear evidence that a crime has been committed. The committee effort considered that evidence very carefully and took into account the counter argument from witnesses who disagreed with that view. For example, Chief Superintendent Leslie Bowell stated that officers were not being called upon to do anything especially new. They already deal with complex abuse and child welfare cases. The counter arguments also recognised that aspects of the new offence, such as any new offence, will give rise to questions of interpretation. Here, the committee was persuaded by the evidence that was led about context. That emphasised that an understanding of the context of the behaviour is crucially important. In some contexts, even the most innocuous-seeming comment may, in fact, be a chilling threat. While the new offence addresses abuse between partners, the drafting recognises that perpetrators sometimes use third parties, children in particular as a means of control. The bill also makes provision for a statutory aggravator for instances of partner abuse in which children are directly involved. That was welcomed, although some considered the bill should have gone further and recognised the abuse of a child as a criminal act in its own right. The committee understands those views but notes the Scottish Government's response, confirming that the bill was never intended to have this wider focus. Instead, the Government has committed to consulting the issue in the near future. In terms of implementation, the committee recommends that there should be a publicity campaign to draw attention to the new law and to underline the psychological abuse in a relationship that is totally unacceptable. The committee also considered that the police and prosecutors must set clear policies and how they intend to enforce the new offence. Crucially, those policies must be kept under review in the light of experience. Furthermore, evidence-led indicated that the new offence is likely to be relatively resource-intensive, especially as the cases can be complex and vulnerable witnesses and victims will almost certainly need support. The committee therefore recommends that the funding of agencies dealing with the new offences must also be kept under review. Some evidence was led to the effect that there was an excessive focus on punishment in handling domestic abuse. However, many others, including Social Work Scotland, strongly disagreed. The committee did observe that punishment for the crime is potentially up to 14 years' imprisonment and that it would be possible for that to be imposed on the basis of psychological abuse alone if the court considered that to be merited. The committee has asked the Government to expand on its reasons for taking this approach. The remaining reforms in the bill are mainly procedural or evidential changes to the law as it relates to domestic abuse. Those reforms are important to ensure that the justice system supports, rather than re-traumatises, victims of abuse. One such reform is the proposal to require court to consider whether to make a non-harassment order at the end of every domestic abuse criminal case. The committee is supportive of that recommendation, especially as the current law, placing the initiative with the prosecutor is not resulting in those orders being used when it is appropriate to do so. However, the committee took cognisance of the fact that an NHO does not always offer the victim the protection that was intended and it asked the Government to respond to that point. In addition, a case was made by some organisations about the advantages of and the need for so-called emergency barring orders. Those orders would exclude an abuser from the victim's home immediately. The committee has therefore agreed to take more evidence on that at stage 2. Finally, the issue of decisions made in the civil courts not taking cognitions of convictions in the criminal court was raised, especially in relation to contact with the child of a person who was the victim of domestic abuse. The committee noted that. In closing, I want to pay tribute to the courage and eloquence of those victims of abuse who shared their stories with the committee. In doing so, they have, without doubt, helped to underline why the bill has the potential to improve our justice system. The committee recommends that the Parliament approve the general principles. I echo the cabinet secretary and Justice Committee conveners' thanks to everyone who gave evidence to the committee, along with the clerks and spies for all their assistance. In its current form, criminal law focuses on discrete incidents of physical violence or on threatening behaviour that causes fear or alarm. It can fail to recognise the lived experience of domestic abuse as a course of conduct over a period of time. Therefore, it seeks to bridge the gap, making it possible inter alia to convict an individual on the basis of a course of conduct that includes psychological abuse. As the cabinet secretary made clear, the bill, if passed, is intended to improve how the justice system responds to domestic abuse by principally creating a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct, even entirely non-physical, against a partner or ex-partner, and will also amend procedural and evidential aspects of criminal law with a view to tipping the balance in favour of domestic abuse victims. Accordingly, I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives do support this bill in principle and will vote to agree to the general principles of the domestic abuse Scotland bill at decision time tonight. The proposed bill seeks to address a lacuna in the legislative landscape. The committee heard compelling and persuasive evidence from a number of organisations, social workers, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and, indeed, from abuse survivors themselves. Some of the harrowing conduct described to the committee is not currently criminal and therefore cannot be prosecuted and it is that which the bill seeks to address. There are some areas that merit further consideration which my colleagues will pick up throughout the debate. First, concerns have been expressed over whether the bill risks setting the bar of criminality too low, potentially leading to the wrong cases being prosecuted. Callum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation gave evidence that couples at the time of a relationship breakdown may sometimes be particularly horrible to each other, but that a few months down the line the parties may regret getting the criminal justice system involved. Andrew Tickell of Glasgow Caledonian University Law School expressed concerns around over-criminalisation when the law intervenes in family and romantic life. He had particular concerns around the use of the word distress to define psychological harm, which is a novel term in criminal law. The SPF further expressed disquiet around officers becoming pawns in routine family disagreements. Callum Steele noted that there is a fundamental difference between arresting on the basis of physical evidence and interpreting whether there had been psychological abuse. He said that the very least officers would need training to apply the law, and I note the cabinet secretary's responses to the committee in that regard, and I agree with Liam McArthur's intervention earlier that the cabinet secretary's responses are useful in a great deal of respects in that regard. I would like to flag an area in which the Scottish Government might wish to consider. Courts can sometimes seem stacked against domestic abuse survivors. There is an acceptance that the judicial process for domestic abuse victims is traumatic, and steps should be taken to minimise what they have to relive. As the report suggests, ensure that they are not re-victimised by the criminal justice process. The Scottish Government accepts that point in its policy memorandum for the domestic abuse bill. The issue potentially persists where victims of domestic abuse have to recount their case to multiple sheriffs. Far too often, in cases of domestic abuse, there may be a number of issues, for example divorce and or child residence arrangements, as well as domestic abuse. Those will be heard in different arenas, with perhaps one sheriff in a civil court hearing evidence during divorce proceedings and a separate one in the criminal court for domestic violence. There is also the possibility that multiple sheriffs deal with different stages of a civil case. According to SPICE, at present, a number of sheriffs can be involved in an individual family case. There is no system whereby the same sheriff deals with every stage of the civil case. That means that, potentially, victims have to repeatedly relive their ordeal. Domestic violence victims face many barriers to safety and independence. Incomprehensible and or overcomplex court proceedings should not be one. Trials of one family, one judge system to address this have been carried out in the US, Australia and New Zealand, where the victim only has to recount in their experience to a single judge to avoid unnecessary trauma. 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. In that case, a single presiding judge is cross-trained to handle all matters, criminal and civil, relating to a family. By concentrating responsibility, arguably, the court speeds decision making and eliminates the potential for conflicting judicial orders. It can increase co-ordination amongst criminal justice and community-based social service agencies and may be better able to keep tabs on defendants, responding quickly to allegations of non-compliance with imposed orders. That may reduce the number of court appearances, streamlining the process and meaning that the trauma of retelling the incident numerous times can be avoided. A review found that, and I quote, the evidence on IDVCs is promising and indicates that there are advantages to bringing together family, civil and criminal cases. I accept that there are issues to be addressed. Difficulties can arise where the evidence given in one case differs from another and there could be an administrative burden ensuring that the same judge deals with both matters. Proper procedures, administration and resources would require to be in place to make it happen, but surely whether as part of this bill or separately one family, one sheriff approach for domestic abuse victims in Scotland is certainly worth exploring. Presiding Officer, 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 organisations which support them, highlighting that there is behaviour that cannot currently be prosecuted because it does not meet the threshold of criminal conduct. It is clear from that evidence that more must be done to support victims, that there is a gap in our law and that this new offence is required. We agree that the general principles of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill are sound and shall vote for that today. However, we are confident that the Government will listen to concerns that are raised in the Justice Committee's report and during the debate today to ensure that the new law is as effective as it can be. This year, last year, Scottish Women's Aid reached their 40th year. Their work from local groups providing support and refuge for women and children who are facing domestic abuse through to their role as a national organisation who give a focus to pushing for political and societal change has been instrumental in shifting attitudes. That includes how the legal system and the police have both changed their response to domestic abuse. The difference in how we deal with domestic abuse today compared to how we dealt with it 40 years ago is clear and welcome. There can no longer be an acceptance that domestic abuse is a private matter, that it is the victim's fault or that the victim could leave if they really wanted to. Yet there is still work to be done and there is a gap in the law as this bill recognises. The reality of facing victims throughout Scotland is that abuse within relationships is as much psychological and emotional as it is physical in nature. People's homes become their prisons, their actions are watched, they are cut off from their friends and families, they are at the mercy of their abuser, someone who they loved or even still love. That is why we are fully supportive of ensuring that psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour are recognised as a crime. I would like to say at the outset that we very much support the general principles of the bill. There is much to welcome. However, I hope that the cabinet secretary appreciates that I only have a brief seven minutes in which I would like to use this time constructively to look up where we could possibly strengthen the bill. There are ways in which we can make this bill stronger and those changes are achievable. Domestic abuse has a devastating impact on the victim and we must recognise that that impact can spread further than the intended victim. Often in families it can have a serious and long-term impact on children. Those who witness domestic abuse are at an increased risk of experiencing mental health problems, of developing alcohol or substance abuse problems or entering into abusive relationships themselves. We do not want to be in a position in a few years' time where we consider the bill to have been a missed opportunity. Women's aid and children first argue that, at stage 2 or 3, we can assure the law that recognises the damaging impact that domestic abuse can have on children. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's response to Kezia Dugdale on this issue this afternoon and his argument that the bill is perhaps not the appropriate place for this. However, I think that this will be an issue that will be tested at stage 2. We need to appreciate the link between domestic abuse cases on victims and any children that they may have, especially not exclusively younger children. If physical assault is witness, that clearly has a significant impact on children. If we look at the impact of controlling behaviour where our mother's movements are restricted, their finances and independence is constrained, we cannot ignore the impact on their child who will also suffer from those restrictions. As women's aid highlighted in their briefing for today's debate, women and children's experiences of domestic abuse are interwoven and inseparable. We must also consider the impact of domestic abuse when it comes to future contact decisions. To inflict domestic abuse on another person is a choice, and it is vital that that choice is strongly considered in any court decision to award or refuse contact to parents who have been guilty of abusing their partner or their ex. We must move away from the current situation where evidence of domestic abuse does not play a significant part in contact decisions. The move to insist that courts always consider the use of an national health service is welcome. I also look forward to the Scottish Government's response to the committee's recommendation of the use of emergency banning orders. There was some evidence to the committee that incidents could be engineered or provoked to prevent child contact, that there would be a malicious element within them, but there was very little substantive evidence about the extent of that. Rather, there were descriptions of contact tortures being used to continue with psychological abuse. I recognise that this is an issue that has been recently discussed at the Public Petitions Committee, and the Government is reviewing relevant legislation. While outwith the scope of this bill, it is important that the bill is consistent with other pieces of legislation in the review that is on-going. Scrutiny of the detail of the bill will be important, and we all want to see an effective bill. Context is also important, and that is why we will be committing towards a national roll-out of domestic abuse courts. We believe that that is to be a model that works in ensuring that victims feel safe, confident and coming forward, that their case will be taken seriously and that it will help in delivering convictions. Sadly, we have seen cases involving domestic abuse in recent years where it has often been difficult to understand the judgment that has been reached. Domestic abuse courts would ensure consistency and expertise, and we should encourage models that can build that specialism. The bill then affords us the opportunity to put down in statute such a commitment to the model. By doing so, we would not only show a commitment to victims that we understand the fragile and complex nature of their cases, but we can also address some of the concerns that we have heard regarding the scope and the definition of the law. Training for the judiciary is vital, and I know that it has offered, but a degree of compulsion would be greatly beneficial. Ultimately, we must have confidence that this bill and the subsequent law is clear and easily understood, not just by lawyers and the judiciary but by those at risk of domestic abuse. The concerns raised to the committee regarding the clarity of the new offends must continue to be addressed. Although there is much support for the bill, we should recognise that it will be tested, and we must all be confident that it can achieve its objectives. As the bill progresses, the Scottish Government must continue to work in putting forward the case that the law is robust, that it is clearing its objectives and that the new offence will deliver justice for victims. While stage 2 will test the bill, I have a level of confidence in the current legislation, and sections 1 and 2 provide a series of thresholds and safeguards. Psychological damage cannot be trivialised. It must be, by its definition, serious or substantial. The bill must challenge—not normalise—actions that demean, humiliate, harm and control partners. The bill can only be the latest step in tackling domestic abuse. In Scotland, as the cabinet secretary said in his opening statement, the extent of the abuse is still concerning. We have to ensure that there is sufficient funding for advocacy services, for refuge accommodation, for counselling and one-to-one support. Many of those are feeling the strain of funding pressures, particularly in our local authorities. We know that there can be a postcode lottery when it comes to receiving support, especially in rural areas, and we must work to address that. We will be fully supportive of the general principles tonight, and we look forward to contributing to strengthening the bill as it progresses its way through Parliament. Thank you. We now move into the open part of the debate. We begin with Mary Gougeon, followed by Maurice Corry. It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the domestic abuse bill because it is such a vitally important piece of legislation to come before Parliament. The bill makes domestic abuse a specific offence and creates a new offence of engaging in a course of abusive behaviour towards a partner or ex-partner and recognises for the first time the patterns of abusive behaviour and the truly traumatic and lasting impact that it has on the victims of abuse. The Justice Committee heard a considerable amount of powerful evidence on this bill, and I would like to focus my contribution today on non-harassment orders. A non-harassment order is a court order that can be used against a partner, ex-partner or indeed any third party, behaving in a way that frightens or causes distress. As it currently stands, it is up to the prosecution to request a non-harassment order. There is no obligation at all to engage with the victim on whether or not an application should even be made. Under the current system, only a small percentage of successfully prosecuted cases actually result in non-harassment orders being issued. We received figures from research done in one particular region that found out of 644 cases with a domestic abuse aggravator. There were convictions in 502 of those cases, yet only 33 non-harassment orders were issued. That is in only 6 per cent of cases. Changes proposed under this bill would instead see consideration of those mandatory in such cases. Non-harassment orders are particularly important for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned repeatedly in the submitted evidence by the Crown Office and zero tolerance among others, there is a significantly high risk of re-offending, with zero tolerance stating it as a near certainty in domestic abuse cases. Secondly, the high financial cost of pursuing a non-harassment order through the civil courts. In written evidence, we heard from one survivor of domestic abuse who told us about her own experiences. She said, on the day of sentencing, I did not know if my abuser, who was my husband, would be given a non-harassment order. He was not. In effect, the law would allow him to leave court, get in his car and drive straight back to the marital home where I was still living. Having had the benefit of 17 months of police bail conditions while he was innocent, the law waits until he is actually convicted of a violent crime, then lifts the protection I had. It just does not make sense. She then went on to highlight what that means financially for those who are then forced to try and pursue a non-harassment order through the civil courts. A civil interdict is a very expensive rate, and I would argue beyond the reach of most victims. When considering that, I rang a solicitor and was quoted £2,000. When I expressed my shock and asked what if I cannot afford it, he replied that some women just wait to be assaulted again and use bail conditions. Cost can in fact spiral to as high as £10,000 if the interdict is defended and can be considered effectively acting as a barrier to justice. The evidence then went on to say, I can honestly say that I would rather be assaulted again than go through the system as it stands. What really frustrates me and hurts me about that statement is that we heard exactly the same phrase from another victim of domestic abuse when we took evidence as part of the Justice Committee's inquiry into the Crown Office. We simply cannot have a situation that makes people who have suffered at the hands of such horrendous abuse prefer to suffer that abuse than go through the justice system. Another important element that we touched on during our evidence session was that of the potential for introducing emergency barring orders, which would be an immediate action that can be taken, which would essentially ban perpetrators of abuse from the home of the victim for as long as it is considered necessary. Unfortunately, we felt as a committee that we did not take enough evidence on that in order to make a recommendation, but I am glad that we will be taking more evidence on that at stage 2. In conclusion, I would just say that this is such an important piece of legislation that we are looking at today and one that has the capacity to make a huge difference. To those who have suffered physical and psychological abuse, as well as sending a message loud and clear that this insidious crime of domestic abuse will not be tolerated in our society and in our country. Before I call Maurice Corry, I remind everyone that it is four-minute speeches, but there is some reasonable time in hand to take interventions. You will get your time back. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Sandra White. I am very glad to have the opportunity today to take part in this very important debate about the domestic abuse bill. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the organisations and individuals who gave so eagerly and well the evidence that they put before the Justice Committee, sometimes in awfully difficult circumstances. Domestic abuse is an intolerable evil act, which happens too often in our society. It harms those who are meant to be closest to us and to whom we look to for support. It is totally unacceptable, whatever form it comes in, but as it stands, the law does not properly take into account every aspect of domestic abuse. As it states on page 12 of the report, where it references the submission by Anne-Marie Hicks of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, I quote, the current law prevented the bigger picture behind an abusive relationship being put before the court. The need to include psychological abuse, as with physical abuse, was clearly highlighted by SACRA as well in their submission to the committee. They are correct when they highlight that psychological abuse can just be as effective as a method of control as physical abuse. The need for changes has also been made clear to the Justice Committee from a large number of varied and respected external sources, also from organisations that work with victims of domestic abuse, social workers, academics, lawyers, the police service, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. That is not to say that there are not issues with the bill, though. For example, Clare Connolly of the Faculty of Advocates noted concerns that the offences as set out in the bill does not sufficiently contextualise the conduct to be made criminal, as has been spoken about by my colleague Ian Leam Care. Additionally, Clare Connolly noted that, while passing the bill, it would be appropriate that a publicity campaign focusing on addressing coercive control be placed alongside the passing of the bill. I agree with her conclusion that this will probably be an overall more effective approach alongside the bill, so I would be interested to hear from the Scottish Government as to what thoughts they have given to the possibility of a publicity campaign to highlight the issues of coercive control as it relates to domestic abuse. Research does bear this out as being a problem area. It shows that many people are likely to think what forms of coercive controlling behaviour are more acceptable in a relationship than physical abuse. Of course, we welcome that the vast majority know that physical domestic abuse is wrong. I believe that we need to get to the same place with psychological domestic abuse as well. Another issue that I believe that the Scottish Government should consider looking into is the way that officers will be informed on how to use the new legislation. If you take the example of England and Wales, where they have introduced legislation to do with coercive control, in the first six months of their new law, eight out of their 22 police forces did not charge a single person and of further nine police forces charged two or fewer people. I believe that the Government needs to consider this going forward and ensure that our officers will have a high level of awareness and understanding of the new laws, which, if necessary, should include specialist training. The need for training of the officers is also highlighted by Callum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation, when he spoke to the committee. He correctly pointed out that there was a fundamental difference between arresting on the basis of physical evidence and the interpretation of whether there had been psychological abuse. That would be a step-change for officers and they will need support accordingly. In conclusion, I think that we would all agree that we would want our police officers to be able to use their new powers as quickly and as quickly as possible from day one to help to combat this dreadful domestic abuse. I think that we really need to look at a cultural change as well, training in a cultural change, because for many, many years domestic violence—I really do not like the title, I have always called it violence—was accepted until we got a cultural change. That was through laws and through advertising as well. I absolutely agree with you that training is very important. We need a cultural change within society that is not just physical domestic abuse but psychological abuse. It is absolutely unacceptable and it is happening all the time. We might not recognise it just now but, hopefully, we will once the legislation goes through and it takes time to bed in. I must say to the colleagues before me that they have stated in their contributions that they welcome the legislation. I certainly do welcome the legislation as much as many organisations and agencies do, too. I am reminded of Scottish Women's Aid, who have said of the bill that they will bridge the gap in addressing controlling behaviours not covered by existing offences and crimes, particularly those that cannot be dealt with via common assault, threatening abusive behaviour and stalking. They say that victim survivors have been telling us this for 40 years that the harm from emotional and psychological abuse is the most traumatic. I must say that they are absolutely correct. The cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening remarks that domestic abuse is not the only form of physical abuse that is part of domestic abuse, but it is not the only form. The abuse that we are talking about today—I am so pleased that it is going through and I do welcome the justice committee's work on that. I know that they are very dedicated on those particular issues. When you look at controlling, intimidating, threatening behaviour, that is all psychological abuse. It can start off, unfortunately, as a drip-drip effect. People are told that they are withholding their money and that it leads on to having no money, so they are unable to go out and buy their clothes. They are unable to see their friends and family. They are told what to wear or not to wear.  So many times, unfortunately, victims and they are victims begin to believe it. That is the psychological drip-drip effect that is happening for, as women's age said, more than 40 years that they have been made aware of it. It goes on all the time until you are meant to basically feel worthless all the time. Like others on the justice committee, I want to thank most sincerely the people who gave evidence, having served the justice committee. I know how traumatic it is under various bills, and it is very traumatic. I thank them very much for doing that. I really support the piece of legislation. Another piece that I really support and welcome is the fact that the bill recognises that third parties can be used by a preparator. In most instances, it would be a child or a young person. It has not been recognised before. I know that that was evidence that was given that the asset would be recognised. There is normally a child there. Now that is recognised that third parties can be used by a preparator to push it further. I thank the Government for taking the evidence and that on board as well. Most organisations and agencies have welcomed the approach. Witnesses from more organisations, working with children and young people, told the committee that the inclusion of the aggravators showed that the Scottish Government had listened and thanked them for that previously and responded to concerns raised during the pre-legislative consultation, as it had not been included in the initial consultation. I know that I am slightly run out of time, but I just wanted to raise one particular group in my area, which is run by Glasgow Women's Aid, which provides support to mothers and children. That is the CDER project. It set up the CDER project, Children Experience Domestic Abuse Recovery, a five-year project that delivers special support to women and children in the city centre and the east end of Glasgow. It offers support by addressing the behavioural, emotional and social difficulties that children and young people can experience because of domestic abuse. I think that we have to remember that, although there is physical abuse and psychological abuse, children are absolutely affected by it. I welcome that part, too. I have some time in hand, so I can give you all a little bit of leeway, 30 seconds. I know that it does not sound like much, but there is nobody intervening, I have to use up the time. I am not very often saying that here. I call Kezia Dugdale, followed by Rona Mackay. I am delighted to assist you in that effort. I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. That is a bill that is about improving the justice system and how it serves victims of domestic abuse and how it punishes the perpetrators of domestic abuse. What it cannot do, though, is eradicate domestic abuse. I would like to start by reminding the chamber that abuse is about the extracision of power and for as long as women are unequal in society, domestic abuse will persist. That bill could be perfect and it would still persist. That is why we must redouble our efforts about the wider goal of achieving gender equality within society. On that point, Presiding Officer, I love Paisley, but Paisley, as a city of culture, was given six-minute speeches for backbenchers yesterday. While we consider a stage one debate today, I have about four minutes to talk about a piece of legislation. I cannot help but ask whether that is a product of having a business bureau that comprises entirely of men. On the issue of the bill that we are considering today, I very much welcome it. I welcome the contributions from all the justice committee members. I welcome the way in which this bill has been produced by consulting on a number of occasions about different aspects of the bill. I welcome the principles that constitute that bill. You have heard from Clare Baker that we wholeheartedly support the principles of it. Therefore, like Clare Baker, I would like to focus on what is missing from the bill and return to the issue of the need for a parallel offence of domestic abuse against children to be included at a further stage. I encourage the cabinet secretary to look at the evidence from Scottish Women's Aid about the requirement for that. Equally, it is important to consider how good emergency banning orders would be, because the evidence has told us already how ineffective exclusion orders are within the civil system. I am a cynical soul these days for a number of reasons, so I would like to consider how the principles of the bill might operate in practice. There is a history in this Parliament of doing brave things, of producing grand world-leading legislation and then not fulfilling its promise when it comes to delivering that in practice. Just yesterday in education questions I talked about how proud I was of the Children and Young People Act and the provisions that had within it for continuing care for looked after young people, yet I was able to expose that 99 per cent of the young people who should have access to that provision currently are not. I am sure that the chamber would be united in its hope that what we are trying to do with this bill will actually be realised in practice. In order to do that, I think that there are four things that we need to consider, education and training, resources, publicity and the relationship that this bill will have with the rest of the justice system. When it comes to education and training, which was the point that was made earlier already by a Conservative colleague, we have to make sure that the understanding of the principles behind this bill is provided in training to staff who will have any contact with it altogether. My colleague Claire Baker has also discussed the issue of resourcing. We know that cuts to refuge services are already a considerable issue in constituencies across the country as is cuts to community policing, as are pressures on housing. I have talked in this chamber before about meeting a woman who was the victim of domestic abuse who was stuck in a refuge for 18 months because the housing list was so considerable. She wanted to move on from that experience, but she simply could not. We will have to do a good job of advertising the benefits of this bill to the wider public, just as the Government has done on the issue of revenge porn. I commend them for the publicity campaign that has gone along with that. Ultimately, we also have to look at the relationship between this bill and the rest of the justice system. Some colleagues have already referred to the relationship between this and contact orders when it comes to families with children, where that is a necessary issue. One thing that we have perhaps talked less about today is criminal procedure, and I very much welcome the sections of the bill that address that. In closing, I cannot help but think about what the bill would mean for the constituents that I have met in my time as a member of this Parliament. I can think of one particular woman who came to my surgery who had experienced domestic abuse. The bill would have helped her, but it will not go quite enough in her mind. If I can give you some examples of her experience, she came to visit me to talk about what life was like for her and her children having been subject of an abusive partner. Her children had to give evidence by remote site, but the Edinburgh remote site was closed. She had to travel to Livingston to do that, and that caused a great deal of discomfort for her family. The children were not given enough forward knowledge about what it would be like to give video evidence in court. They were not told that they would be streamed live, not just to the judge but to the whole courtroom, and they were very alarmed to hear about that after the event. That court case had had the trial date moved on four separate occasions because the defender was trying to prolong it deliberately, and that in itself was a form of abuse. The accused faced 30 different charges and was eventually convicted on 10 counts with three not proven verdicts, but was released for background checks prior to sentencing when he was bailed. He absconded, and then when he was caught he was bailed again. That is an issue that will not be addressed by this court and today's proceedings, but it is an issue about criminal procedure that I would encourage the Justice Secretary to look at again. On that note, I will close. Today is a historic day in the chamber as we debate the general principles of the stage 1 domestic abuse Scotland bill. It is historic because this bill, for the first time, introduces psychological abuse into the repugnant crime of domestic abuse. It has two main purposes. It creates a new offence of engaging in a course of abuse of conduct against a partner or ex-partner, and it amends other procedural or evidential aspects of criminal law in relation to domestic abuse. In other words, it recognises the damage that psychological abuse can do and makes it a crime in its own right. It addresses a gap in criminal law, allowing for convictions of domestic abuse based on a course of conduct that includes psychological abuse rather than individual incidents. We all know that psychological and emotional abuse is just as painful as physical abuse. You might not see the bruises, but controlling and coercive behaviour eats away at the sole and self-esteem of the victim each and every day. The evidence that the committee has heard was heartbreaking at all times. I thank the witnesses for their immense bravery in telling us their stories so that others will not suffer the way they did. Domestic violence, physical or psychological, exists in all sections of our communities across all levels of society. As we have heard, mental and emotional abuse include threats, criticism of appearance, an intellect, name calling, controlling what you do, your access to money, where you go, how you dress and who you speak to, among many other degrading control mechanisms. The cowardly abuser knows no bounds.  It is all about control and controlling by fear. The bill aims to tackle all forms of this vile crime. It has been welcomed by a wide variety of organisations, such as Scottish Women's Aid, the Law Society of Scotland, Children First and the NSPCC, to name but a few. Children are the forgotten victims of domestic violence. The ways in which children can be harmed by domestic abuse are wider than simply witnessing the abuse itself. The trauma is long-lasting and far-reaching. That is why I am delighted that the bill provides for a statutory aggravator, for instance, as a partner abuse in which a third party, usually children, is involved. The aggravator was not part of the Scottish Government's initial consultation on the bill, but as we listened to stakeholders, children's charities and women's groups, it was clear that there was a need for the children to be recognised as major victims of the crime. However, as we have heard, there is a view among children's organisations that abuse of children in domestic violence cases should be recognised in its own right. I have to say that I have sympathy with that. The Government believes that the bill strikes the right balance and that any major reform of the criminal law and the abuse of children is best considered separately and is currently under review. I sincerely hope that that will reflect the urgent need for recognising the devastating effect that domestic violence can have on children. Another welcome measure is that the bill requires the court to consider whether to impose a non-harassment order to protect the victim. The Scottish Women's Aid believes that it is critical that the NHS covers children too and that courts should be more willing to consider refusing contact to abusive parents. I agree with that, too, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is considering it. I am also pleased that emergency barring orders have been considered and that the cabinet secretary will enter into a dialogue with third sector organisations for consideration of the measure at stage 2 of the bill. There is not enough time to do justice to all aspects of the important bill. I agree with Kezia Dugdale that it is far too short, but I hope that between us across the chamber we have covered most of the salient points. The bill aims to expose the inadequate bullies who perpetrate controlling and coercive behaviour and to send a message to them that it will not be tolerated any longer. For that reason, I am proud to recommend the general principles of the stage 1 domestic abuse Scotland bill to the chamber. As I said, there is some time in hand, so you can say a little longer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A number of people have talked about filling a gap. Indeed, Scottish Women's Aid mentioned that in their briefing. I would like to thank them and others for their briefing. The cabinet secretary used a phrase when he was talking about this, and he said that the next important step is an important step. I think that there is more to go, and that has been alluded to in the comments about the children's legislation. It is about a course of conduct that includes psychological abuse, and that is laid out in section 2. It is important that there is a non-exhaustive list, because it is for the courts to remain open for the courts to decide. I would align myself with some of the comments from Clare Baker, who talked about the important role that domestic abuse courts can play. I have long been an advocate of running that out. People have a clear understanding that it is about the timetabling events rather than new buildings. That is about scheduling and people working together, and surely that is what we want in relation to that. I want to read one phrase from the Scottish Women's Aid briefing, which I thought was particularly significant. It is that the new law officer has a policy sea change by focusing our criminal justice response on the actions of the perpetrator rather than the circumstances of the victim. By doing so, it will enable better understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on women, children and young people in our community's institution and country. To inform our background and our investigation of this legislation, we did hear testimony and that has been alluded to by a number of people. In our report, we say that we receive compelling and persuasive evidence that psychological abuse within relationships or by an expater can cause immense and enduring trauma and harm. Powerful and moving private testimony is how it is also referred to elsewhere in the report. I would like to pay respect to those women, because this is primarily gender-based violence. It is not exclusively, but that is what it is. I would like to take great respect to them. It is important to say that, confidentially, shallotty must be respected, but in some respects it is disappointing, because those women can do far more at explaining the need for this bill and more than any politician can do. It is a great thanks that is due to them. The courage was for a number of reasons. A lot of those people who, from a wide range of backgrounds and a wide range of geographies, had to relocate in the effect, was not just the relationship with a partner, but it was with a wider family. I think that laws are intended to indicate and reflect society's views on a given issue. I think that, as a number of people have said, there has been a welcome change in relation to domestic abuse and domestic violence, but we have a way to go. I would like to touch on the question of how the police will respond to that. It is important that someone said that chief inspector, chief superintendent, Richard Barden-Bogue, talked about that there is nothing new in that. There is nothing new in that. The change that has taken place in respect of how police respond to historic issues of violence will not be their initial reaction when they attend at the scene of an allegation. It is the subsequent inquiry that will unearth that. We have seen some tremendous work by Police Scotland in relation to serial abusers whose violence has not just been visited in one female victim, one household but a series of them, sometimes over decades, and some of the salutary sentences quite rightly reflect the damage that they have done to a number of lives. I have every confidence that the police, working with the prosecutors, can properly address that. Judgments will always have to be made, but that is the case with every piece of legislation, and I do not think that we need anything to fear that. Another term that has been used in the port was hard-to-reach groups. The survivors that we heard from and the people who were at this legislation will assist should it pass, and I sincerely hope that it will. They have been hard-to-reach, felt abandoned, and people have talked about the effect that the criminal justice system has on people. It should be supporting people, it should be helping people, and it should not be victimising them further. It is a very limited time that I appreciate, Deputy Presiding Officer, but it is important to quote some of the evidence from children first, also covered by other people. They talked about a mandatory duty on court to consider whether to impose non-harassment order that includes the children in all cases where the statutory aggravation in relation to the child is considered. I think that that is very important. If we are going to recognise it in the aggravation, then it should be picked up in the order. It is important for another reason, because it is the well-documented fact that child contact is an occasion in a location where the further abuse continues, the psychological abuse. I hope that that will be looked at as we go forward. A comment from Scottish Women's Aid to ensure that abuse of behaviour is dealt with by the criminal courts is that there is a prima facie evidence of unsuitability for contact with a child. I think that that is important. I gave you an extra minute, so... Many thanks. I can certainly lend full support to the legislation. Thank you. I call Ben Macpherson to follow by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As others have said, psychological abuse within a relationship or by an ex-partner can cause immense and enduring trauma and harm. As a member of the justice committee, when we took evidence, that was underlined most powerfully and movingly by the survivors that we heard from and met with and also from the many remarkable support agencies that are supporting survivors today and across Scotland. What was clear was that domestic abuse is a multi-dimensional scourge on our society and all of us, which affects a range of relationships, but particularly unequal relationships between men and women. It affects those across classes, across wealth, across ethnicity and across age. That is why I strongly support the principles of this bill to create a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct, because that is the lived reality of this abuse on the ground. It is the lived experience of victims, as we speak, and it takes account of the context and impact of domestic abuse. The proposed offence addresses a gap in the existing law by recognising—that is an important word—that domestic abuse may not only damage or violate a victim's physical integrity but also undermine a victim's character, restricting a victim's autonomy and freedom and their ability to live their life in the manner that they choose. The reason why I said that word recognition is important is because not only will that law if passed empower our courts to deal with that scourge in our society more effectively, but it also helps to clarify in our society that that coercive controlling behaviour is unacceptable, because some of the survivors that we heard from said very movingly that, at the beginning, they were not quite clear if they were being abused. So that the clarity of passing this law will make it absolutely clear across society, in particular with victim suffering, that they will know when they are being abused more easily and that the criminal law will be clear in its ability to take judicial action on their behalf in the interests of justice. I think that it is important to also recognise that the gendered approach within this bill is something that I support and I think that it is the right thing to do, because, as other speakers have said, this piece of legislation is within a wider context of gender equality and addressing violence against women. That is why, not just getting the legislation right, not just making sure that the criminal justice system is ready and resourced appropriately to enact the new powers and the new abilities that this law would give in order to create greater justice. Others have touched on a publicity campaign, and they are absolutely right that it is important that there is a Government-led publicity campaign and that there is training to make sure that others in the criminal justice system and the third sector are able to support and give effect to the bill's intention. However, that greater awareness and publicity campaign has already started with the introduction of the bill and the stage process that we are at. I would like to draw the Parliament's attention in closing to one project that has been launched today by Scottish Women's Aid, which is a photo project. It is putting forward 15 new images of what domestic abuse looks like, to get away from the perception that domestic abuse is only about physical harm and to illuminate the fact that it is deeper than that and that it is multifaceted and that all of that range of abuse is something that we should tackle. That bill will make a remarkable difference on that journey, and I fully support it. I call Liam McArthur, who is followed by Fulton McGregor, Mr McArthur. I start by confirming the Scottish Liberal Democrats' unequivocal support for the bill to tackle controlling and coercive domestic abuse. I think that Kezia Dugdale was absolutely right to warn about the limits that any bill, however good, can achieve on its own. I thank all those who gave written manual evidence to the committee and pay, like others, a particular tribute to the survivors of domestic abuse that we heard from, who is often harrowing testimony, vividly brought home to all of us how psychological abuse can be every bit as damaging, as traumatising, as long-lasting to the victim as physical abuse. For all the strides that have been made since the establishment of this Parliament in terms of heightened public awareness, political priority, changes in legislation, too often prosecution of psychological abuse has proved difficulty. That difficulty in prosecution has made it difficult to reinforce the messages about how unacceptable this sort of controlling and coercive behaviour is, and therefore difficult to persuade victims to come forward. Ben Macpherson was absolutely right that victims are looking for more clarity and certainty, that the abuse that they have suffered will be recognised and actions taken against perpetrators. As I say, the Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support the principles of the bill and welcome the contribution that it can make to closing the current gap in our criminal law. I look forward to working with committee colleagues, ministers and stakeholders to improve and strengthen the bill in a number of areas. There were a range of questions that were raised with the committee during stage 1. Initially, there was a debate about whether the scope should be broadened out to encompass wider family relationships, including elder abuse. Although that appears to be the approach adopted in recent legislation south of the border, from the evidence that we heard, I am certainly persuaded that the nature of the abuse between partners and ex-partners demands a laser-like focus and response. That is not to say that there is not a recognition of the impact that domestic abuse can have on children in a relationship or household. While the bill does acknowledge that and establishes a specific aggravation, Scottish Women's Aid and others are right in arguing that the effect is not just on a child who 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 that needs to be better reflected in the bill. More controversially, perhaps we also considered if the evidential bar for prosecuting coercive and controlling behaviour was set at the appropriate level. We had concerns from legal experts, the police federation and others that the bill may risk criminalising behaviour that, while unpleasant, should not be considered a criminal offence. Initially, I admit that I was persuaded by some of those concerns, but over the course of the evidence that we heard, I became increasingly satisfied that the tests were sufficiently robust. I think that the Government's response to the committee's report is further helpful in clarifying that position. Turning to non-harassment orders, it is absolutely right that courts should be required to consider those in any case of domestic abuse, but we can go further. Children first argue, as John Finnie reminded us, that in all cases where a statutory aggravation is applied, the courts should be required to consider an order covering the child of children as well. That seems to have merit, and we will return to that at stage 2. Similarly, emergency barring orders in more serious cases could play an important role. I welcome the Government's continued engagement with the third sector in developing proposals, which the committee will consider and take evidence on at stage 2. More work is also needed, as others have said, in tying down the details around the resources that are needed to make that legislation when implemented as successful as possible. There is a welcome acceptance by ministers of the critical importance that training and awareness raising can play, but perhaps insufficient clarity around the scale of what might be needed, and I think that the cabinet secretary might helpfully set out his thoughts in more detail in winding up. Finally, I note that Scottish Women's Aid is highly critical of the committee about any suggestion that might be diversions away from prosecution. For my part, I accept that criticism. Although that will always be a matter for the Crown Office, I think that the more appropriate debate to be had is in relation to alternatives to custodial sentences in certain circumstances. In conclusion, I am in no doubt at all about the devastating and enduring impact that this coerce of controlling behaviour can have on a victim, undermining their sense of self, hollowing them out slowly but surely over time. At present, the criminal law in Scotland is inadequate to deal with such abhorrent and pernicious abuse. I am pleased that the bill can play an important part in writing that room, and we will have great pleasure in supporting the general principles at decision-making this evening. I am immensely proud that the Justice Committee has unanimously agreed to the principles of the bill. Five parties all completely agreed about this piece of legislation. How often do we say that? That says something about Scotland, and that says something about this Parliament, and we should all be very proud. During the committee, we heard evidence. Upon evidence, as others have said, the bill was needed that there is a gap in the law protecting victims from psychological abuse, Scottish Women's Aid, abuse men in Scotland, all the children's charities, social work, the police, the Crown Procurator Fiscal Service and victims themselves. That is just to name a few. In my own experience, as a social worker told me the same, 12 years in a local office setting out lost count of how many times I sat at a child protection conference, a children's hearing, a map I'm eating or some other forum and heard evidence of often a pervasive pattern of psychological and emotional abuse, often over a long period of time. The police, social and health services often having nowhere concrete to go with this. That is a law that is groundbreaking and will make a real difference to service intervention and, most importantly, the lives of those suffering at the hands of this abuse, which mostly, as others have said, is men. I don't want to sound too socky upy here to the cabinet secretary, but because that is an area that has been a part of my life through work for a long time and means a lot to me, I do think that if the bill is passed, he can be very proud and think back in many years to come as this being an absolutely outstanding achievement that will have positively impacted the lives of many and help to change the culture in this country. Like others, I want to address some of the issues that the committee report and that the Government responded to. Much has already been said, so there is a risk of repeating things, but it is worth well-doing. There was a very small—I stress that—a small number of stakeholders who expressed concern that the bar is set to a law. I do not agree with that. The committee heard evidence, for example, from Anne-Marie Hicks from the Crown and Prosecution and Fiscal Service, who did not think that that was the case. I welcome the response from the Government, as others have mentioned, which outlines the three thresholds that are required to be met. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will highlight those. During evidence gathering, the subject of children who exposed this behaviour generated a lot of discussion, and I think that most speakers have mentioned that. I welcome the Government's response in relation to the review of the Children's Scotland Act, including a review of child contact cases as they relate to domestic violence. I also welcome consideration of amendments at stage 2 to allow non-harazment orders to protect children specifically. I also think that it is a positive step that the Government are meeting with Women's Aid about emergency barring orders, and I would also encourage dialogue on the front with the children's charities, such as Children's 1st Chloe Riddle, from that service, which I met earlier today when we discussed the issue. Finally, I would like to follow up on a question that I asked the cabinet secretary in his recent statement to the chamber. I believe that the introduction of the offence and the subsequent publicity that is produced will lead to more convictions. I know that the Scottish Government, and I know first-hand from working in the field, has invested strongly in criminal justice, for example, in the area of female offending recently, but we will need to ensure that funding is increased for male perpetrators—because it is particularly male perpetrators—of domestic violence. Programmes can work, but they need people who can specialise and do the intense work. It takes a lot of work to change people's belief systems. The change in Caledonia programmes are examples of that, and I would also like to take this opportunity here to encourage local authorities to use the Government investment to create specific posts for people who work in that area and allow them to affect change. There are some local authorities that do it, but I would like to see local authorities add to specific teams that can work around domestic abuse, as they do for other areas of criminal justice. I think that that would be a step in the right direction. I see him just over four minutes, so he will be glad to know that I am finishing. I welcome the bill and commend it to the chamber. I call Gordon Lindhurst, followed by Christina McKelvie. Christina McKelvie will be our last speaker in the open debate. Deputy Presiding Officer, close and intimate personal relationships are an integral part of our lives. Sharing life with a husband or wife, for example, learning more about each other and experiencing life together can be some of the most precious times in life.  Worse still is a situation in which two people have placed trust and love in each other, only for one of them to turn around and abuse that trust through physical or psychological maltreatment. Such abuse can, of course, take many forms and leave deep emotional wounds, which last long after a physical bruise or scar may appear to have healed. And so complex can human relationships be that a victim may not initially realise what is happening? It is that sort of complicated set of circumstances that we look at now as lawmakers. I am sure that we are all agreed that our purpose should be to target serious wrongdoings rather than what might be categorised as occasionally irrational behaviour. Human weaknesses can, of course, often cause disagreements to take place within a relationship. As Andrew Tickell of Glasgow Caledonian University Law School said in evidence, and I quote, even broadly healthy relationships are occasionally characterised by hurtful conduct, jealous behaviour and distressing episodes. Callum Steal's evidence has been referred to already, one part of it anyway, but it was also his experience that once the criminal justice system becomes involved, that involvement can itself become a source of regret and distressed individuals. So the question is, is the draft legislation before us sufficiently clear or does it blur the line between a pattern of unacceptable coercive and controlling behaviour on the one hand and irregular friction on the other? Does it over criminalise? The Glasgow Bar Association referred to a wide scope of behaviours which may be criminalised by the bill. A low threshold to establish a course of behaviour was a concern raised by others, including the Law Society of Scotland. For example, and this has been referred to already, distress is a measure of the impact of a person's behaviour towards another. I say that this is a valid and important question, which others also referred to. Is the bar being set too low? I will take the intervention. John Finnie. I am grateful for the member for taking the intervention. Does he accept that it is the judgment of the individual who chooses to pick up the phone and says, I require the police's assistance that we must take cognisance of? Matters will develop as a result of that, but it is their judgment. Yes, of course. It is always the judgment of the individual who picks up the phone and calls the police as to whether or not they should do that. I do not demer from that at all. That is, of course, no. Let us contrast the Scottish bill classification of behaviour as coercive or controlling, even if it has happened on only two occasions with the Serious Crime Act 2015 for England and Wales. The definition there refers to repeatedly or continuously engaging in behaviour towards another person. Home Office guidance on the 2015 act makes clear that courts should look for evidence of a pattern of behaviour established over a period of time, rather than one or two isolated incidents that do not appear to establish a pattern. A serious concern arises on this point. Law should be clear, and those of us like myself who have been involved in the prosecution of those types of cases under the current system do understand that. Those involved know that those are sensitive matters that need to be looked at very carefully. As Mr Tickel said, rather than trusting prosecutors to use the law as it was intended, legislators should try to get the law right in the first place. I am sure that that is what we are all trying to be doing here and what we agree that we should be doing. In conclusion, without demurring in any way from the principles of this bill, I would say that I am not entirely satisfied that all of the concerns raised have been addressed, and that the important point is that we want the act to work. If it is to work, then we need to see that it will work in practice because it is watertight so that it has its agreed intended effect. The poet and domestic abuse survivor, Christy Ann Martin, wrote this. You can't keep her in a cage, clip her wings and tell her lies. Say that fragile birds will never meant to fly.  Her spirit is slipping away so you can keep her in sight. Beautiful creatures cannot be confined. Her wings will grow, she will find the sky. I will talk about that in a wee minute. Around one in three women and a grown number of men have become victims of domestic abuse. We would like to think that we find this behaviour completely and utterly appalling and disgusting, which we do, but some are still too inclined to brush it under the carpet, but we know that it is still happening that evidence tells us that. We are better informed by statistics, but too many victims are still fearful of seeking redress. Perhaps some people, particularly those who are not exclusively abusers, have thought, oh well, we will get over it. We will get over the broken bones, the bruises, the smashed teeth, your life goes on, but we know through the evidence from the committee and from other avenues that that is certainly not the case for many victims. The question is, are we doing enough? We need to wipe out home-based domestic violence and make it completely unacceptable, that culture change that my colleagues spoke about. With the right tools in place, Scotland can become an exemplar and really chip away at an old outdated notion of its none-of-my-business-pal mentality. That can be through grassroots community work. We have heard of many of the organisations that I would like to thank them for all their help and support for the work that I do in co-chairing the cross-party group with my colleague Claire Baker. We have seen some improvements, in many cases, through local led groups and some of the ones that I work with, South Lanarkshire Women's Aid, Lanarkshire Rape Crisis and the brilliant work of the stamp project doing work in schools. The bill tackles one of my biggest concerns, which is coercive control. In that, victims who are not aware of being isolated from friends or family, having access to money and bank accounts restricted or having personal medical conditions revealed, is domestic abuse and it needs to be a criminal offence. That decimates human lives. Using gestures and eye contact to warn or control and others' behaviour can be undetectable to most of us, but devastating to the person who is the target of that type of coercive control. The Justice Committee saw so much compelling and persuasive evidence of psychological abuse to see it as a real and pernicious issue, the effect of which can be every bit as harmful as any violent abuse. It is important to add here that an increasing number of victims are young men and women in the LGBTI community. Having a same-sex partner does not protect you from abuse. They find themselves being bullied, humiliated, laughed at or rejected with psychological or coercive behaviours and, of course, the physical violence that comes with that. We have to be mindful that that is what is happening now. In its submission to the Scottish Women's Aid, I welcomed the principles behind the legislation and said that, the new law offers a policy sea change by focusing our criminal justice response on the actions of the perpetrator rather than the circumstances of the victim. By doing so, it will enable better understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on women, children and young people in our communities, institutions and our country. I agree with him. Our present law leaves a gap that I hope that the bill will close. It will give better protection to victims seeking redress for acts that will be criminal in law. At the moment, if you want to take a case, you really have to do so under a claim that your physical integrity has been attacked or threatening behaviour has caused you fear and alarm. Fundamentally, the bill carefully defines the offence of engaging in abuse of course of conduct against a partner or ex-partner. It enhances the power of the police and improves protection for the victim. That is notwithstanding some of the asks that people have asked for today. Here is my ask in conclusion. I would ask the Scottish Government to strengthen the bill when it comes to the impact on children. I know that Scottish Women's Aid has some proposals on those issues. I would also welcome the Scottish Government confirmation of the review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995, including consideration of that. I reiterate Kezia Dugdale's call for similar mindfulness. I would also ask the Scottish Government to be mindful in its review of short-term sentencing during the process of the bill, and I am sure that many organisations will tell you why they have concerns about that. In the bill, we have an opportunity to break the locks of the cage that I spoke about at the beginning, and we begin with this contribution. Why would anyone stand in the way of those essential principles? I do not. I did not want you to eat at the time of closing speeches. I call Rhoda Grant to close for Labour. Ms Grant, five minutes, please. This Parliament has set out on a journey to combat violence against women. It is good to see the bill progressing and that there is support for the need to extend domestic abuse legislation beyond physical abuse to emotional and coercive control within a relationship. Yet that is not the end of the journey. There are many more issues that need to be further examined and legislated on. Hopefully, some of those can be included in the stage 2 of the bill, but those that cannot must be given priority. Our vision must be creating a country where we have true equality and an end to violence against women. We need to look at the legislation regarding children, victims of domestic abuse and adequate resourcing of police social services, and support services such as women's aid, which do wonderful work in that area. Clare Baker, my colleague, paid tribute to them more than 40 years in existence and is still working to battle this curse. We recognise the devastation that domestic abuse causes to women. However, we need to understand that children of the relationship are damaged, too. That was points made by my colleagues Clare Baker, Kezia Dugdale and others, including Rhoda Mackay and many others in this debate. The bill deals with situations in which a child is used as an aggravator to further the abuse against the adult victim. It does not deal with the impact of domestic abuse on the child. Domestic abuse can have long-term and catastrophic impacts on a child. We had a briefing from children first, and they said that an increasing body of robust international evidence recognises domestic abuse as one of 10 types of traumatic adverse childhood experiences. It can increase the likelihood of people developing chronic diseases, mental ill health and a range of negative social and emotional impacts such as being a victim of violence throughout their lives. That is the impact on children in a domestic abuse brought up in a domestic abuse relationship, and until we recognise that impact and protect them, we are falling short of our duty of care to them. Liam McArthur talked about the child's experience being interlinked totally with that of their abused parents. A review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995 will take time and more children will suffer in the interim, and there are things that we can do in this bill that will save many more children from being harmed while that takes place. I have many cases where child access arrangements are used to continue the abuse beyond the end of a relationship. Added to the impact of the abuse itself, there are long-term impacts on the child.  I believe that access arrangements and situations of domestic abuse need to form part of the disposal. The proposal from Scottish Women's Aid Children First and other expert stakeholders that children should be provided with a non-harassment order in their own right would prevent a civil court from forcing them to have contact with an abusive parent. I would argue that an abusive parent should not have any access to a child until they can prove that they have changed their behaviour. A parent who creates a situation that damages a child should surely relinquish all their parental rights. That is the case under child protection. It is just that we do not recognise the damage that witnessing abuse does to a child. Michael Matheson in his opening statement said that he would deal with this in new legislation. Indeed, there are wide issues that can be dealt with in new legislation, but domestic abuse courts and experts recognise what a children's hearing or a civil court might not. There must be no gaps in protection. I urge the cabinet secretary to look at this again as others have urged him to do in this debate. There is some opposition to the bill, and Liam Kerr pointed out that a minority of those giving evidence expressed reservations concerning the wording and practical effect of the new offence. Some legal experts and police officers said that it was difficult to legislate in the realm of human relationship. That takes me back to the days when domestic abuse was referred to. It is sad to see that that seems to resonate with some in some quarters still today. Those views would indicate a need for additional training of police and prosecutors, given that abuse of this kind is easily recognised to the trained eye. Moris Corry, Kezia Dugdale and Ben Macpherson made that point. Apologies, Presiding Officer.  Let me finish by saying that we support this bill. It is a step in the right direction, and we hope that we can build it on it on stage 2. Thank you very much. I call Michelle Ballantyne post to the Conservatives seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I closed today on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives with a sense of sadness that this debate was ever necessary, but also with some hope that we in this Parliament are taking some meaningful steps towards our efforts to tackle something all too prevalent in our society. The Cabinet Minister, Margaret Mitchell, opened the debate very eloquently, setting out the reason why we are here and discussing this, and the importance of getting it right so that what we enshrine in law can actually be enforceable and protect the very victims that we seek to protect. A victim once described to me the insidious nature of domestic abuse. She said that it picks away at your confidence, often in small ways at first, so that you do not even realise that you are being drawn into an abusive relationship until one day you look in the mirror and it is not you looking back any more. Your confidence is supplanted by doubt, your freedom is enveloped by change because psychological manipulation is an evil and systematic poisoning of the soul. Yet our present law is not sufficiently expansive to enable what the COPFS described as the effective prosecution of psychological abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour, which might undermine a victim's character, restrict a victim's autonomy and their ability to live their life in the manner that they choose. The bill bridges that gap and I commend certain elements of its construction. First of all, I welcome the bifurcated test employed in section 12A, allowing the court to take account of any particular circumstances or vulnerabilities of the victim, which may be preyed upon irrespective of whether that behaviour in question would be likely to cause harm to the objective reasonable person. I am also supportive of the inclusion of a recklessness test in determining men's rare in section 12B. This is appropriate, indeed I would say essential, because a perpetrator of domestic abuse can be devious and skilled in manipulation. They may present their conduct in a manner which suggests, at least superficially, that they did not intend to cause harm and therefore did not meet the requisite standard of men's rare. This bill importantly closes that particular back door, allowing effective policing of the specific characteristics of those who control or coerce victims. I also support the statutory aggravation of the offence in section 4, which takes into account the harm caused to a child who is exposed to an abusive environment, which restricts access and interaction between the victim and child. We have heard from many members today, Sandra White, Kezia Dugdale and Claire Baker, calls that we ensure that the welfare of children caught up in domestic abuse is thoroughly explored during the stages of this bill, and I wholeheartedly support those calls. However, as my Conservative colleagues have highlighted, we have some significant reservations around the drafting of the bill, not because we do not want the bill to pass or to do well during the stages, but it is absolutely vital that we make sure that anything that we put into statute is enforceable. Maurice Corry noted calls for a publicity campaign to be running in conjunction with the bill's enactment and thereafter to raise awareness of the issue of coercive control and its criminalisation. I would like to add my support to this, and I noted that Kezia Dugdale echoed that. Ben MacPherson made some good points that even the bill running through Parliament does raise attention to the issues around domestic abuse and that there are many pieces of good work already occurring, but that does not mean that we cannot go further. One of the things that we should look at is the early intervention and prevention services for young people who have displayed any signs of problematic behaviour in this context. Gordon Ninhurst highlighted the concerns of academics and police that there is a substantial risk of lowering the threshold of criminality due to the ambiguity of the word distress in the legislation. We must therefore proceed with caution so as not to open the floodgates to vexatious litigation because this in turn could undermine the cases of those victims who really need support and eventually a prosecution. I fully endorse the comments of Liam Kerr and our advocacy of trialling the one family, one judge approach adopted in various countries. This could be a vital ancillary means of streamlining the system and ensuring that victims are not forced to relive the experience time and time again. Members, we have heard many, many contributions today about the importance of this bill and not one of them is invalid. I would like to just pick up a couple that really struck me. Mary Gougeon presented a very powerful contribution around non-harassment orders. That point that only 6 per cent of convicted cases include a non-harassment order and that somebody who is convicted can walk out and walk back to the victim's home highlights the issues that we are facing as we take the bill through Parliament. We must make sure that the protection of women's graves can be effectively given by any bill that we put in place. I do not want to, in any shape or form, take away from all the calls that have been made, but I do think that it is really important that we look as we close out this debate, that the principles that underpin this bill are sound, but what we now need to do is make absolutely sure, as Fulton MacGregor highlighted, that we have five parties working together on this. We are in agreement, but what we need to do is nail down the details as we take it through the various stages. I really join Fulton in saying that let us work together now to amend and improve the substantive elements of this bill. We must now address the concerns that have been outlined today to ensure that the right balance is struck between the protection of victims and due process in our courts. Yes, there will be differences of opinion. Yes, there will be further debate and discussion, but there should be no doubt that the Scottish Conservatives and I hope that the whole of this Parliament will not waver in our drive to effectively legislate and prosecute against domestic abuse in all its forms. We are working to eradicate the scourge of domestic abuse, and I support what Kezia Dugdale says that we will probably never eradicate it, but it is a process, and this bill represents another step forward in that process. I think that we should take it forward wholeheartedly. I am very grateful to the comments that have been made across the chamber and across the party's support for the general principles of this piece of legislation. As I said at the outset in my open remarks, this is a unique piece of legislation in that we are seeking to criminalise a course of behaviour, which is novel to Scottish law, and to some extent law in the UK as a whole, because it differs from the approach that has been taken in England and Wales, and I will return to that particular point later on. I want to turn to a particular issue around the issue of whether the bar that we have set in this particular bill is at the right level or not, because that is pretty fundamental to the effectiveness of this legislation. One of the concerns that I have is that some of those who believe that the bar has been set too low are overlooking the protections that are built into the bill in order to make sure that we have struck the right balance. I want to be very clear about how this offence will work and, in specific terms, how the offence and the three conditions that must be made for the offence to be brought into play. The first aspect is that the accused must engage in a course of behaviour that is abusive of their partner or ex-partner, and a reasonable person would consider the course of behaviour would be likely to cause their partner or ex-partner to suffer physical or psychological harm, and the accused either intends the course of behaviour causes their partner or ex-partner to suffer such harm or they are reckless as to whether the course of behaviour causes such harm. It is important, Presiding Officer, to remember that the test of whether the accused's behaviour is likely to cause the victim harm applies to the whole abusive course of behaviour and not whether, in a single instance, of behaviour causes such harm. Alongside that, Presiding Officer, I want to turn to the issue about the threshold of distress within the definition of psychological harm, because some members have raised that particular issue, and Gordon Lindhurst may have raised it in his contribution, and Liam McArthur and Michelle Ballantyne made reference to it as well. We believe that the term distress is the appropriate level. The reason I say that, Presiding Officer, is how will courts decide on how to interpret distress, and how will they take that into account? The reality is that what courts will do is they will turn to the dictionary definition of distress. Distress is not synonymous with mere upset or annoyance. The concise Oxford dictionary defines distress as meaning extreme anxiety or suffering. That is exactly why the Crown Office and Scottish Women's Aid have said that this is where the threshold should be set, because they see extreme anxiety and suffering as being key to bringing this offence into effect. That is how, with the three criteria and the threshold of distress, we have arrived at that particular threshold, and I believe that it is the right threshold for setting that up. I want to turn to several other issues that members have raised, in particular issues around children and protection to children. Kezia Dugdale raised the issue, and Claire Baker, Maria Gougeon, as well. I can say that, in relation to non-harassment orders and the committee's suggestion that we should extend the provision of those to children, I can confirm at stage 2 that we will bring forward amendments in order to do exactly that, to extend their provision to children when they are being issued. That is alongside the mandatory provision that courts will now have at the time of sentencing to take that specifically into account. I also want to turn to the issue that some others have raised around the interaction between our criminal law and civil law. Kezia Dugdale raised the issue, in particular, in making sure that the way in which her justice system is operating is in a comprehensive holistic manner. In my view, at the centre of that, when it involves children, it should be the interests of the child that play paramount importance. Mark McDonald mentioned in March that, through the review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995, we have looked at providing a specific measure around domestic abuse for children and a specific offence in that. The review process will allow those who have an interest in it and how we can shape that effectively to reflect her modern understanding of how it impacts on children and their welfare. I will give way to Kezia Dugdale. The cabinet secretary's remarks are very much welcomed. Does he recognise, however, that, as much as the procedure might work in practice very well, the reality is that we will need appropriate resources to make sure that it works for families at the same time? I fully recognise that. Over the past three years, the justice sector has been providing an extra 20 million pounds to support some of the criminal aspects and the court aspects around domestic abuse to speed up the process in order to make sure that cases have been dealt with much more quickly. We have made significant progress in ensuring that cases have been called at an earlier stage. I recognise that we need to make sure that there is sufficient resource. The way in which the member made reference, as others did to the issue about how the child contact process can be used and manipulated by individuals in order to cause greater harm to individuals who have experienced domestic abuse. As part of our modernisation of family law, we have already given an undertaking to look at that specific measure to see where there are mechanisms and processes that we can put in place in order to prevent that from taking place and for the system not to be abused. A number of members have also raised the issue of a publicity campaign around the introduction of the bill. I assure members that we will do exactly that. We will build in a publicity campaign to make sure that there is greater awareness around the whole issue of domestic abuse and the new provisions in the bill. I also think that John Finnie was on the money when he said about the police and how the police will respond to that. The way in which the police have responded to domestic violence has changed dramatically, not just in the past 20 or 30 years but in the last 10 years. We have cases in court where one complaint results from one individual results in three or four complaints from individuals because of the way in which the police now trace those issues back. I am confident with the right support and training that Police Scotland and our officers, with their professionalism, will be able to see through the implementation of this piece of legislation. I will draw my remarks to a close. Kezia Dugdale made a comment in her opening comments where she said that domestic abuse will continue to blight our society while we continue to have inequality within our society. The reality is that domestic abuse is a product of social inequality and gender inequality within our society. The justice system can do so much in tackling it. I am not deluded to the point that this legislation itself will end domestic abuse, but what I believe it will do is that it will give support to those women who have to suffer the misery of coercive and controlling behaviour over many, many years and in some cases decades to recognise that this Parliament recognises their plight and that we are determined to do everything possible to bring the perpetrators of this type of misery to too many households in Scotland to account through our criminal justice system, and this bill will support us and assist us in achieving just that. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on stage 1 of the domestic abuse Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 7708 in the name of Derek Mackay on a financial resolution for the domestic abuse Scotland bill, and I would call on Michael Matheson to move the motion. We come now to decision time, and there are two questions to be put. The first question is that motion 7905 in the name of Michael Matheson on stage 1 of the domestic abuse Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 7708 in the name of Derek Mackay on a financial resolution for the domestic abuse Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. Thank you very much.