Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2250, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill.
It gives me great pleasure, both personally and as convener of the Justice 1 Committee, to speak to the motion that the bill be passed. As has been said on earlier occasions, this is the first bill to be introduced by a committee in the Scottish Parliament. That alone makes the bill important, even without the increased protection that it will give to many in society who are at risk from violence and abuse. In a constitutional sense, the bill demonstrates the ability of the Parliament's committees to initiate legislation. That is one of the most important ways in which our system is distinctive from that at Westminster.
Having been a member of the Justice 1 Committee when it first had the idea of investigating the subject, I am well aware of the amount of time and consideration that was given to the original suggestion. I was there, as were others, when a flash of light illuminated the committee during evidence from representatives of the Sheriffs Association. Who would have thought that the Sheriffs Association would be our Damascus? The witnesses suggested that a way forward would be to have a common law interdict to which a power of arrest could be attached. That proposal developed into the bill that we are considering today.
The committee undertook a thorough investigation before reporting to the Parliament and I am glad to say that the proceedings within Parliament have been conducted quickly, but without sacrificing any of the scrutiny that the Parliament requires to undertake.
The current law does not protect all victims of abuse equally. The main civil protection available is the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, but that act does not offer protection to all abused persons. A matrimonial interdict ends on divorce and is not available to a divorced spouse. The 1981 act affords limited protection to cohabitees, who may apply for an interdict or exclusion order for an initial six-month period only, and thereafter for a six-month extension. Another limitation of the legislation is that a solely entitled cohabitant cannot obtain a matrimonial interdict against her or his partner unless the latter first seeks occupancy rights.
The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill addresses those points. The effect of the bill will be to entitle any individual who has obtained, or is applying for, an interdict against another individual, for the purpose of providing protection from abuse, to apply to the court to have a power of arrest attached to the interdict, regardless of whether the interdict is a matrimonial interdict. It will no longer be necessary to demonstrate any particular personal relationship to the alleged abuser. Instead, the court will simply have to be satisfied that granting the power of arrest would be necessary to protect the applicant from the risk of abuse. If the court is so satisfied, it will grant the order.
The effect of attaching a power of arrest to an interdict is that, in the event of the interdicted person being suspected of breaching the interdict, a constable would be entitled to arrest that person and take him or her away from the scene. The constable would also have to be satisfied that if he or she did not arrest the interdicted person, there would be a risk of that person continuing to cause abuse in breach of the interdict.
Once the person has been arrested, if the fiscal decides that there are to be no criminal proceedings, the person must be brought before a court on the first available day following the arrest. The fiscal must present a petition to the court that sets out the facts and circumstances of the case. The sheriff then has discretion to order a further two days of detention. The further period of detention will be ordered only if it appears to the sheriff that the information discloses a prima facie breach of the interdict and the sheriff is satisfied that there would be substantial risk of abuse to the victim if the person was not detained.
The bill is not all one-sided and safeguards have been built in to protect the rights of alleged abusers. I read an editorial in Green's Family Law Bulletin, July 2001, which suggested that the loss of the discretion that is given to the police to release an arrested person back at the police station could lead to injustice. With respect to the editor of that journal, I cannot agree. Two safeguards are built into the bill to avoid such injustice. First, the test before an alleged abuser is arrested has been set at a higher level than was the case under the 1981 act. Not only must the constable have reasonable cause for suspecting that the person is in breach of the interdict, but he or she must consider that if the person were not arrested, there would be a risk of abuse or further abuse by that person in breach of the interdict. That alone should answer the suggestion that a one-off momentary loss of self-control would lead to a man or woman spending the weekend in the cells.
In addition, one must consider the background to the granting of a power of arrest that is attached by the courts to an interdict. To obtain an interdict, it is likely that the wife in the situation described by the editor of Green's Family Law Bulletin will have suffered abuse previously at the hands of the man, and the terms of that abuse will have been set out in an application to the court. Under the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, the man will also require to be given an opportunity to contest the application to the court. Thus, rather than dealing with a momentary loss of self-control that will not be repeated, we are dealing with at least two incidents of abuse and, in many cases, more.
The bill also provides the arrested person with rights that are equivalent to their rights under the criminal law. Those include the right to have a solicitor informed of their detention, the right to a hearing with a solicitor to obtain advice prior to any court appearance, and the right to be heard before a sheriff before any further period of detention is ordered.
During stage 2, there was discussion of the requirement on the police to intimate an arrest to the procurator fiscal
"as soon as is practicable."
Pauline McNeill and others were satisfied that those words were appropriate, given that an attempt at immediate intimation would, at certain times, find the procurator fiscal's office closed until the next morning.
The bill provides safeguards against excessive detention by requiring the alleged abuser to appear at court on the first court day following arrest. That could be the same day, and the provision will ensure the earliest possible appearance, at which the procurator fiscal will be required to present a petition to the court. The requirement on the procurator fiscal may also assist in ensuring intimation as soon as practicable, because the fiscal will wish to ensure the earliest possible intimation in order to prepare the petition.
At the end of the day, however, it is necessary to consider the purpose of the arrest and detention. The arrest and detention will be imposed because there has been a prima facie breach of a lawful order made by a court. Also, the detention is part of a train of events that is directed at ensuring that the abuser will fulfil his legal obligation not to abuse the victim.
It is worth emphasising that there is no element of punishment. The purpose of the detention is not to punish the person concerned for the breach. In considering whether to order a further short period of detention, the sheriff will weigh up the risk of future substantial abuse in the immediate aftermath of a breach of the interdict, and the need for a cooling-off period. The Justice 2 Committee considered that to be an entirely proportionate response to increase the protection of the person who is at risk of abuse. In many circumstances, the power of arrest will enable the police to take prompt action to remove an abuser from the scene, which in some cases could prevent matters from escalating into criminal conduct.
This has been a trail-blazing bill in many ways, not least in its passage through Parliament. This is the first time that the procedure for a committee bill has been used and it has been seen to work well—from initial consideration by the Finance Committee, when my predecessor as convener, Alasdair Morgan, was called to give evidence on the financial memorandum, right through to the stage 2 process, when the Justice 2 Committee considered 44 amendments. I thank the Law Society of Scotland in particular for introducing a number of amendments that enabled the Justice 2 Committee to scrutinise all aspects of the bill. The process has shown the Scottish Parliament at its best. The Executive has been extremely supportive during the passage of the bill, and a number of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 had their origins in suggestions by the Executive.
I thank all members of the Justice 1 Committee and those of its predecessor, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. In particular, I thank my two predecessors as convener, Roseanna Cunningham and Alasdair Morgan. I have mentioned the Finance Committee, which scrutinised the bill at stage 1. In addition, the Subordinate Legislation Committee gave the rule-making provisions a clean bill of health. Mention requires to be made of the clerks to the Justice 1 Committee and its predecessor. Andrew Mylne, in particular, provided a lot of assistance and encouragement during the inquiry stage. I personally thank David Cullum and Alison Coull of that shadowy group known as NEBU—the non-Executive bills unit—who worked hard and put in long hours in assisting the Justice 1 Committee and me with the bill.
I have already quoted from the Family Law Bulletin, but I quote from it again in relation to the drafting of the bill. After commenting on the work of the Justice 1 Committee, the editors stated:
"Another noteworthy feature of the Bill is that it shows the utility of the innovative Scottish Parliamentary Drafting Unit which prepares members' and other non-Executive bills. In Westminster private members' bills are often badly drafted … and have to be kicked into shape by the official Government drafters during their passage. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, drafted by a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Drafting Unit, is by contrast admirably clear and precise from the outset."
That should make for good law. I, and all members of the Justice 1 Committee, echo those sentiments and express our thanks to the unit and its draftsmen.
It gives me great pleasure to move the motion to pass the first committee bill in this Parliament. I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is a good bill, which I have much pleasure in supporting on behalf of the Executive.
As Christine Grahame said, a lot of work was done by the non-Executive bills unit. The bill started off as a good draft. Amendments were made at stages 2 and 3 and have served to strengthen the bill. That that has happened, in many respects, is due to the hard work and good sense of the many people who have been involved with the bill. All members of the justice committees, past and present, have contributed to the bill, but it would not go amiss to pay particular tribute to Maureen Macmillan, whose energy and persistence drove its development from the feeling that something must be done, through the development of policy, to the drafting of the bill. [Applause.]
Roseanna Cunningham and Alasdair Morgan are distinguished former conveners of the justice committees, but the task of taking the first committee bill through its final stages has fallen to Christine Grahame, and it is fair to say that she has completed it triumphantly. All have steered the way forward with wisdom and commitment. Pauline McNeill as convener of the scrutinising committee and Iain Gray as the Deputy Minister for Justice both played important parts. The Parliament is indebted to them all.
I pay tribute also to the many experts who gave evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, and to the staff of the committee and the non-Executive bills unit. They have provided excellent analysis, good drafting and good advice. I am particularly grateful for the exemplary manner in which they have co-operated throughout with Scottish Executive officials. That good example is especially important because those who have been involved have been blazing the trail for committee bills. I am sure that we can all learn from the helpful and constructive way in which there has been co-operation not only between the parties, but between the committee and the Executive.
It is interesting to stand here and deal, yet again, with a bill that falls under the remit of the justice committees. I am conscious of the amount of legislative work that the Executive has given to the justice committees, and it says something that the Justice 1 Committee is the first committee to produce its own bill. Perhaps it is an example of the old adage, "If you want a job done, give it to a busy person." Given the work load of the justice committees, it is to their credit that the bill has come to fruition.
We all know why there is a need for the bill. For a long time, domestic abuse has been a blot on our national life. I recall, in my early days of practice at the Scottish bar, dealing with many matrimonial cases. I used to feel frustrated when I read papers that said that domestic abuse was a civil matter and not something that the police thought that they ought to do much about. The law then was developed by a Conservative Government, with the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. Since that time, there has been recognition of just what a blot on our national life domestic abuse is.
Of course, the bill does not confine itself to domestic abuse, but deals with abuse generally. It goes beyond the protection that is given by the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and provides a means of protection to all those who are at risk of abuse. We are indebted to the members of the Justice 1 Committee who had the good sense not to restrict their proposals to fixing the immediate problem of violence in the home.
It is fair to say that changes in the law inevitably help, but only if they are widely known and are part of a wider range of practical assistance to the vulnerable. We have a national strategy to address domestic abuse and an action plan is being implemented. More than £18.3 million has been committed over the coming three years to implementing the strategy and improving services at ground level. That sum includes £10 million for refuge development. It is important that the Executive works hard to ensure that the intention of Parliament is given effect and that those who are at risk of abuse in Scotland have access to new protection.
The bill is a good one. If it is passed by Parliament, it will fall to the Executive to ensure that it is implemented. The bill would be useless if people were not aware of the protection that it offers and its deterrent effect on potential abusers. I assure the Parliament that the Executive will try to ensure that the various agencies, such as the police and the courts, are fully aware of the new procedures and powers. We will co-operate with others in ensuring that the public are well aware of the new legislation and that people can get informed advice from lawyers and voluntary organisations. Through the financial resolution that has been passed, we are committed to meeting the costs that will flow from the legislation.
Protecting the vulnerable is one of the most important duties of any civilised nation. We expect that the bill will provide an important additional shield for vulnerable people. The Executive commends and supports the bill.
On behalf of the Scottish National Party, it gives me pleasure to support the Parliament's first committee-initiated bill. I thank those who were involved in producing the bill, those who gave evidence to the committee, the committee clerks and, as Christine Grahame has mentioned, the non-Executive bills unit.
Credit should also be given to members who were on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee from the outset, who were keen to introduce their own legislation and had the foresight to do so. I looked at the Official Report of the first meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and it was interesting to see what members said at that time. In particular, it was clear that members from all parties were keen to ensure that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee was not just there to scrutinise Executive legislation. The committee wanted to tackle issues that were brought to it as a matter of concern and to initiate its own legislation. At that first meeting, Christine Grahame stated:
"I think that it is very important that we are not simply a scrutinising committee, but that we initiate legislation. It is exciting that this committee can legislate on a number of areas that will affect ordinary people. We all have our pet lists, but I am sure that we can reach consensus on some areas, such as family law or domestic violence, in respect of which measures could be introduced".
She went on:
"That would show that the Parliament is delivering in a very simple but obvious manner."
Today, the Parliament is showing that it is delivering in what appears to be a simple but obvious manner.
As that first Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting continued, Pauline McNeill, Tricia Marwick and, in particular, Maureen Macmillan—who has been a driving force behind the bill—illustrated that domestic violence was an area of particular concern. Pauline McNeill highlighted the issue when she said:
"I would like to see a women's dimension to our work because it is important, in terms of women's perceptions of the Scottish Parliament, that we deal with an issue that affects women. I know that several members are interested in the issue of violence against women".—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 29 June 1999; c 7.]
The Parliament is illustrating that it takes seriously issues that are of importance to women.
One in four women in Scotland suffers from some form of domestic violence, and 25 per cent of all violence that is reported to the police is the result of domestic violence. Parliament has demonstrated today that it is willing to take the issue seriously. Until today, not everyone was treated equally in the eyes of the law. By providing greater protection to people who suffer domestic violence, whether they are married, cohabiting or divorced, we have addressed an inequality in our legislation.
The bill illustrates that the Parliament is willing to listen. It also illustrates the value of the committee system. The bill has delivered on an important issue for many people in Scottish society.
I have heard what other members have said and agree that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is undoubtedly a good piece of legislation. The way in which the matter has been dealt with, from the debates at its inception, through the committee stages and to this morning's finalisation of the bill, has reflected well on Parliament.
The bill, when passed, will have a meaningful impact on the confidence, safety and security of many vulnerable women in Scotland. That is no bad thing at all. Human relationships can be complex and difficult, but there can be no excuse for resorting to violence and abuse of the sort that has been described in the chamber, particularly by Maureen Macmillan and Dr Winnie Ewing, when the matter was first debated. Accordingly, the bill is a good step forward.
The Sheriffs Association also had some impact. However, sheriffs and judges must regard this bill as a bit of a wake-up call. In criminal instances in the past, domestic abuse has been tolerated much more than it should have been. Had everybody being doing their jobs, it might not have been necessary for us to legislate. Legislate we have, however, and we have done so in a positive and constructive manner that reflects well on all who have been involved. This has been a happy occasion for the Parliament and progress has undoubtedly been made.
I am happy to contribute to the debate and I am particularly proud to open on behalf of the Labour party.
It is important to recognise the role of the Justice 2 Committee in developing this legislation and I echo the thanks to all those who were involved behind the scenes and in the committee. I give particular credit to Maureen Macmillan, my Labour sister, for the work that she did on the bill.
There is no doubt that the development of policy in relation to understanding domestic abuse and violence against women has been an important strand in the Labour party and explains why Labour has placed such emphasis on women's representation. Labour and Labour women are clear that women's representation is not an end in itself, but a means by which women's needs and experiences can be addressed in the priorities of government and legislation. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill stands as testimony to that work.
The work that the Justice 2 Committee took on was important, because it addressed weaknesses in the current legislation and emerged from a deeper understanding of the nature and extent of abuse and a realisation that marriage does not inhibit the abuser and that abuse might not stop when couples separate. Indeed, evidence of women being murdered by ex-partners stands as horrific testimony to the fact that women are often at their most vulnerable when they decide to separate from a violent partner.
It is important to get the legislation right and to be willing to continue to monitor its effectiveness. However, as Bill Aitken said, it is also important that those charged with implementing the legislation and protecting those who face violence and abuse ensure that the procedures are carried out and that the work of the police and agencies involved is closely monitored. We still hear concerning accounts of women who report violence and abuse facing treatment that suggests that their situation is not taken seriously.
The bill has another important role, which is to mark out society's view of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable and the value that we place on the rights of individuals to protection from violence and abuse. We want to manage the abuse, but we also want to challenge the abusers.
The bill is part of a broader body of legislation that seeks to respond to the scourge that is domestic abuse and violence against women and which understands the importance of the police and the justice system in addressing the needs of women. Another element is the Sexual Offences (Procedures and Evidence) Bill, which will come before us soon. It is important to understand that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill and other bills show that we have reflected on the experience of those who have faced abuse and have responded accordingly.
We have paid tribute to the many people who helped to develop the bill, but in particular I pay tribute to women's organisations that continue to support women survivors of violence and which play a key role in making the case for change. I refer to groups such as Enough is Enough—I understand that they are represented in the public gallery—Scottish Women's Aid and the Scottish Rape Crisis Network. They do their work, despite limited resources, with a desire to ensure that their first priority remains supporting women who face violence and abuse.
I make one last plea. In the—often complex—debates on legislation that addresses these issues and, more broadly, that seeks to deal with crime and understand the experience of those who suffer crime, the voices of the professionals must be heard, but we must remember that the loudest voices with the best resources should not be the only ones that are heard. Those who have campaigned long and hard for this bill and for other bills campaign for a greater understanding of the causes of abuse. They deserve and need to be heard if we are to legislate against abuse as it presents itself in people's lives and if we are to challenge the attitudes and values that allow abuse to exist.
I voice my party's support for the bill and welcome its being passed today.
I warmly congratulate Maureen Macmillan on the bill. She claimed with typical modesty that it was a flash of inspiration from the Sheriffs Association, but she must take the credit for playing a pioneering role in the Parliament and being a moving force in helping to steer the bill towards enactment.
The bill is the first committee bill of the Parliament. This is a small moment of legislative history, as it underlines the reality that the committees can and will initiate legislation whenever necessary. The bill was sponsored by Christine Grahame of the Justice 1 Committee and scrutinised by the Justice 2 Committee. Considerable input was received from elsewhere.
The bill will improve the law considerably by extending protection for potential victims of abuse by allowing a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict. Many vulnerable people, including divorcees, parents and grandparents, will have protection that did not exist before. If a risk of abuse exists, the police will be able to arrest the interdicted person. That gives better and fuller protection to people who could be at risk.
It is right that Maureen Macmillan's role should be remembered, but it is also appropriate to remember that all parties in the Parliament support the bill. The act will be a credit to the Parliament. It confirms the significance of the Parliament's capability to produce a bill through its committee structure. As a result of this important and successful bill, many who exist in fear will have peace of mind.
I am glad to reaffirm the Conservatives' support for the bill.
The next speaker will be Nora Radcliffe, followed by a speaker whom my computer screen identifies as No 91. Is that you, Mr Paterson?
Yes.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly. The bill is a case study in how the Parliament, its members and committees can work effectively with and for the people of Scotland. A gap in the protection that the law afforded was identified and swift action was taken to address it. The way the bill changed during its progress demonstrated flexibility and common sense. All those involved are to be commended.
I honour all the people outside the Parliament who have campaigned for years to draw attention to the problem with which the bill deals. Some of those people know at first hand and only too well why the bill is needed. I have never forgotten that I was told that the bill should be proceeded with as fast as possible, because delay for some people would be measured in beatings.
Two visitors in the public gallery caught a train at 6 am to be here to see the bill complete its final stages. Kelly and Marie are members of a group called Enough is Enough. The law failed those women and they had the guts to get together to do something about it. Members should make no mistake—it took courage to do what those women did. They campaigned persistently and effectively to obtain the change in the law. More members of the group will be present this afternoon, when I hope that they will see a bill to which they have contributed voted into law.
This is a good day for those people and a good day for the Parliament.
I hope that my speech will be short and to the point. It goes without saying that I welcome the bill very much. Many individuals and groups have campaigned on the issue for a long time and we must thank them for their persistence.
The bill deals with the situation of women and children who are down and almost out and who need help. The system used to let them down. Once the bill is enacted, when a woman or a child—those abused are almost exclusively women and children—is being abused or is under the threat of abuse from a man, the police will do what they and many people in society have always wanted to do, which is to stop the abuse. The granting of an interdict against a man to which the power of arrest is attached will allow the police to do that, no matter what the marital status of the woman is.
There is no doubt that today is a good day for the Scottish Parliament—in fact, it is a great day for the Parliament—but it is an even better day for those women and children who are under threat from abusive men.
As a new member of the Justice 1 Committee, I can dispassionately give the committee credit for its work on producing the bill. Procedurally, it is important that a committee bill has passed through the legislative process and helpful that the first committee bill has been the subject of consensus. I look forward with some interest to committee bills about which the Executive is less enthusiastic. They may cause some interesting debates in future in the Parliament.
I will make one constructively critical remark about our proceedings. It was well known that because the bill was the subject of such consensus, debate on it would not fill the whole morning. The Parliament should be sufficiently flexible to have allowed the Parliamentary Bureau to install in the timetable a members' business debate or a new motion on a topical issue such as racial harassment. I hope that that point will be taken up.
The main thrust of the bill is unacceptable activity in the home—violence by men. Johann Lamont made a powerful speech on the issue, as she has done several times. It is an important point and other members dwelt on it. However, as a non-lawyer, I read the bill as helping people outwith matrimonial situations. The bill says that abuse is conduct that is "likely to give rise" to "fear, alarm or distress" and includes speech. It will help people with neighbours from hell who continually make their lives misery and will strengthen people's position in dealing with such neighbours.
The bill will also help those who suffer from persistent racial or religious abuse, such as the shopkeeper from the Pakistani community who must roll up the shutters of his shop every morning to see fresh abuse or whose car is vandalised by a group of children. Such people can obtain assistance from the bill. Its impact will be not just on domestic situations, although that is the most important element; it is wider than that.
It is good that the Parliament is showing that it really cares. I take the point that having more women in Parliament shows that we really care and that my party is not good at getting women into the Parliament. The bill is good. I am sure that all parties are happy to support it.
It gives me great satisfaction to wind up the debate for the Justice 1 Committee and to see the first committee bill reaching the statute book. The bill is a tribute to the Parliament. As it came through the committee system, political interests were put aside. The bill has total cross-party support.
I thank members of the justice committees and those who were members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, who made time in a busy schedule to deal with the bill. The scrutiny to which the Justice 2 Committee has subjected the bill is welcome and worth while. I am confident that the bill has improved as a result.
On behalf of all members of the Justice 1 Committee, I thank clerks past and present for their contribution. They provided invaluable support. Without their help, I do not believe that we would be debating the bill at stage 3. I also thank David Cullum and Alison Coull of the non-Executive bills unit for their immense help and support.
The Executive has always supported the principle of the bill, recognising that the bill progressed its agenda for dealing with domestic violence issues. I thank Jim Wallace and Iain Gray, from the justice department, and also Jackie Baillie and her predecessor Wendy Alexander who, as Minister for Communities, was of great support to me when I was progressing the bill.
The difficulties over who would draft the bill were resolved by the setting up of the non-Executive bills unit. That was a great step forward. Its work has resulted in a bill that is professionally drafted and written in language that is accessible to the lay person.
The bill is also a tribute to those women who have worked to support abused women and their children throughout Scotland. Those women have known for a long time that more needed to be done to protect those whom they sought to protect through societal and legislative changes. I believe, as does Johann Lamont, that the high percentage of women in the Scottish Parliament has played its part in having the issues addressed.
A number of organisations have supported the bill by giving strong evidence to the committee on the need for legislation: the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Sheriffs Association, the police, the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence and the Crown Office.
When the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 was enacted, many of us who were working to protect abused women welcomed it as a step forward. However, since the early 1980s, it has become clear that there is a need to protect those in relationships other than marriage. When I was elected to Parliament, I was determined to try to bring about a change in the legislation. The bill will protect from violence and abuse those who cannot at present access the protection of an interdict, with its powers of arrest. Those include people who are divorced, were never married or perhaps never cohabited. It will also protect those who are a grandparent, sister, brother or same-sex partner, rather than a spouse.
On Tuesday, I spoke to a worker at Ross-shire Women's Aid. She told me that she has been involved in an outreach project in Caithness and Sutherland that has supported 47 women. Out of those women, only two wanted to go into a distant refuge. The rest wanted to stay at home, in their communities, but they wanted to be safe. The bill will enable greater protection for women who choose to stay in their own communities. It will be of particular advantage to those who live in rural communities some distance from a refuge.
I believe, on this historic day for the Parliament, that an important piece of legislation is about to be passed. I believe that it will make a difference to the people whom we represent—that is what we were sent here to do. I therefore ask members to support the first committee bill. I commend it to Parliament. [Applause.]