Violence Against Women (Prevention)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01523, in the name of Michael Matheson, on violence against women, focusing on prevention as a means to an end.
15:36
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Government. Violence against women is never acceptable and has no place in modern Scotland. I have no doubt that the whole chamber can agree on that. There is long-standing cross-party support in Parliament for tackling violence against women, which is reflected in the work that has been undertaken over the years by the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children. The group has reconvened in this session. In previous sessions, the group provided an important forum for MSPs of all parties to hear more about the work that is being done to address violence against women in Scotland, to identify areas of concern and to seek parliamentary support to address them. The group’s new convener, Malcolm Chisholm, has a long and distinguished record of addressing these issues and I am sure that the group will be safe in his hands.
The issue of violence against women cuts right across the Scottish Government. Ministers with portfolio responsibilities for finance, employment and sustainable growth, for health, wellbeing and cities strategy and for children and young people have all recently attended a variety of events on the issue, such as the premiere of a film made by a group of young experts who have provided the Government with advice on domestic abuse, and the launch of a scheme that is aimed at supporting employers to tackle violence against women.
We are also very aware of the value of the work that has been done to end violence against women and to support victims. Although the Government’s budget is under considerable pressure at present, I am pleased to tell members that we will continue our commitment to support this area of work at the current levels over the next three years. That is because we recognise that, although we have invested some £55 million in the area over the past four years, a great deal of work still needs to be done.
In order to achieve the ultimate aim of making violence against women a thing of the past, we need to increase our focus on prevention and early intervention. Prevention is about stopping violence from occurring in the first place and early intervention can assist in decreasing the likelihood of violence recurring. A positive example of that is the work of the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust, which includes the role of co-ordinating the national violence against women prevention network. It connects organisations and individuals who are engaged in such work and enables them to share information and resources, to promote good practice and to develop stronger links.
In addition, the implementation in NHS Scotland of the proactive routine inquiry approach means that people who present to maternity, mental health, substance misuse, accident and emergency, sexual health and community nursing services are now asked direct questions about abuse. That form of early intervention aims to identify at as early a stage as possible those who may be at risk of violence or who have been the subject of it.
In recognition of our greater emphasis on prevention and early intervention, we have a separate strand of prevention-focused funding to drive forward positive change at a national level.
Although we aim to banish violence against women to the history books through prevention and early intervention, we recognise that we must support those who are experiencing and dealing with the consequences of violence in the here and now. Therefore, I assure the chamber that we do not intend to neglect front-line services. We will work to ensure that the work that is necessary to protect women and children continues to be taken forward.
Before I continue, I would like to congratulate Scottish Women’s Aid on its 35th anniversary and to thank it for ensuring that effective responses to domestic abuse have not been allowed to fall off the agenda of the Government or service providers. So much has changed for the better in how we address domestic abuse and all forms of violence against women over the past 35 years, and Scottish Women’s Aid has played an extremely important role in driving that change. I have pledged my support for its together we can stop it campaign, and I look forward to it continuing to further improve Scotland’s response over the next period.
In a time of spending constraint, we need to focus on the outcomes that we wish to achieve to an even greater extent than we have in the past. The work that Scottish Women’s Aid, in collaboration with the national violence against women network, initiated to develop the Scotland’s violence against women outcomes framework will assist us greatly in focusing on those outcomes. That framework will help the link to be made between local activities and long-term, high-level outcomes. It will also enable funding to be more strategically linked to long-term outcomes. The Scottish Government has adopted the framework, and I am pleased that we will support the development of its indicators in the new year.
The document “Safer Lives: Changed Lives”, which we produced in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in 2009, provides a shared understanding and approach that guides the work of all partners in tackling violence against women in Scotland.
Much progress has been made since “Safer Lives” was published. To acknowledge that and to recognise our increased emphasis on prevention, we will produce a refresh of that document, which we anticipate will be available in spring 2012. The new document will help to drive forward further progress at both national and local levels.
I am sure that the minister will recognise the important preventative and deterrent work that is done by the Glasgow domestic abuse court. Given that it has proved to be highly effective, could he give us an update on the planned roll-out of domestic abuse courts across Scotland?
The domestic abuse court in Glasgow has proved to be highly effective over recent years. Work is being done to establish a similar court in the Lothians and a tool has been developed, whose use is to be rolled out across all the sheriffdoms in Scotland, to make sheriffs more aware of the role that they can play by being more sensitive to the needs of people who have suffered domestic violence.
It is important to recognise that the Glasgow model cannot necessarily be applied effectively to other sheriffdoms, particularly those in rural areas. We must recognise that sheriffs have an important role to play in how the courts operate by being more sensitive to the issue. However, I hope that, at some point early next year, we will be in a position to see the opening of a domestic violence court in Edinburgh.
This year, two acts came into force that will increase the protection that is offered to victims of violence against women—the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011. Both will serve as powerful forms of early intervention. With regard to forced marriage and, more recently, stalking, I am pleased that the United Kingdom Government seems to be following our lead.
One of our main priorities is to improve the life chances of children and young people who are at risk as a consequence of domestic abuse. The national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people was successfully completed in June. The £10.5 million that we invested between June 2008 and June 2011 was intended to make swift progress by targeting resources in key areas. The plan’s legacy is well under way and we will ensure that progress continues to be made in the area.
Support and leadership from the Scottish Government are essential in addressing violence against women, but we cannot address the issue on our own. Our key external partners need to play their part, and I am pleased to say that they have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to do so. With their help and that of colleagues throughout the Parliament, we will make positive inroads to creating a future in which women and children in Scotland do not have to live with violence and fear.
I move,
That the Parliament reaffirms its continuing commitment to eradicating all forms of violence against women; notes the Scottish Government’s increased emphasis on prevention and early intervention to tackle this issue; celebrates Scottish Women’s Aid’s tireless campaigning for effective responses to domestic abuse and congratulates the organisation on its 35th anniversary; welcomes the Forced Marriage etc. (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2011 and the increased protection that these pieces of legislation provide for victims, and acknowledges the dedication, effort and creativity demonstrated by all the agencies working to address violence against women in Scotland.
15:46
When I think back to the inception of the Scottish Parliament, I recall early debates on the challenge of tackling domestic abuse and violence against women. Since then, there has been significant investment in—and attention from all parties on the provision of—services for women and children who experience domestic abuse, their protection in law and the real prize, which is preventing the abuse from happening in the first place. That consensus and that focus have been invaluable in allowing us to make progress. I associate myself with the minister’s comments on the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children and the commitment of its new convener, Malcolm Chisholm.
It is always worth while to remind ourselves of the scale of the challenge that we face. Domestic abuse affects thousands upon thousands of people. There have been 51,926 reported cases since last year alone, and 80 per cent of them were women. It impacts on women in each and every part of the country and women from all backgrounds—rich and poor, working class and middle class alike. It is unfortunately the case that one woman in four will experience domestic abuse in some point in her lifetime.
It is right that, in the early years of the Parliament, we focused on securing services and put in place the domestic abuse service development fund, with £11.5 million to provide a much-needed increase in refuge accommodation so that, wherever a woman lived in Scotland, she would have access to safe, supported accommodation—a place of refuge.
We also recognised the need to provide support for children who are caught up in such circumstances. We developed a network of children’s support workers to help those children work through the trauma of experiencing domestic abuse. Then came the pilot domestic abuse courts, which have made a significant and positive difference to the approach of the legal system. I hope that they will be extended elsewhere, most notably to the other cities. That was followed by the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which, members will recall, was ably taken forward by my former Labour colleague Maureen Macmillan on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee. It ensured that powers of arrest were attached to interdicts.
We then saw the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005, the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2011. Members will recall that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill was introduced by my Labour colleague Rhoda Grant. It built on Maureen Macmillan’s earlier efforts and strengthened the process of obtaining interdicts.
In all that work, we have been encouraged and advised by organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, Zero Tolerance and many others. Their views and experiences informed and shaped the approach that was taken by the previous Government, as they inform and shape the approach that is taken today by the current Government.
I join the minister in congratulating Scottish Women’s Aid on its 35th anniversary. I recall that one of my first ministerial engagements in 1999, as a brand new and fresh minister, was to speak at a Women’s Aid rally. It was clear that I had not done something right, because the civil servant who accompanied me almost died of shock when I joined the march and demonstration before speaking. That was certainly a first for him and I suspect that it was a ministerial first in Scotland.
The timing of today’s debate is fitting, as 25 November was the international day for the elimination of violence against women. It also marked the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, which end on 10 December—international human rights day. That makes it clear that violence against women is a human rights violation. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child all provide a framework for action on violence against women and children.
The challenge that lies ahead is about prevention—how we stop violence against women or at least reduce its incidence. That requires understanding of the causes, education, awareness raising and nothing short of societal change. That is easy to say but much more difficult to deliver.
The groundbreaking and hard-hitting advertising campaigns that we all remember, which run on television and radio particularly at this time of year, must continue. However, we need to build on that and take other action, too. As I am sure many other members were, I was struck by the letter to Santa initiative from the violence reduction unit and Children 1st, which starkly highlights the impact of domestic abuse on children and young people. No one can fail to be moved or challenged by the contents of the heartbreaking letter from a young boy to Santa, which many members will have seen in today’s Daily Record. Most children wish for toys or gadgets whereas, in that devastating letter, a young boy begged for an end to the violence that blighted his childhood.
The organisations in that initiative revealed that, last Christmas and new year, cases of domestic violence rocketed to 9,812, compared with 7,900 in the previous year.
Given that alcohol abuse plays a significant part in domestic violence, does Jackie Baillie agree with and support the Government’s policy on minimum alcohol pricing?
That comment shows a lack of understanding of the complexity of domestic abuse. I encourage Mike MacKenzie to look further into some of the causes. It is too easy simply to blame alcohol. We need to deal with an underlying societal problem, so I encourage him to consider the complexity further.
Earlier in the week, we heard about a study that was undertaken by eight young people who had been victims of domestic abuse and who came together in the voice against violence project. Their study revealed some shocking attitudes—one in 10 young people thinks that it is okay for a girlfriend or boyfriend to force them to have sex and 28 per cent would accept violence from a partner. It is clear that we need to make education a priority. If we can shift attitudes early, we have a chance of preventing the unacceptably high levels of violence against women.
I remember the Zero Tolerance respect materials that were used in primary and secondary schools and I welcome the updated resources and websites aimed at schools and young people that were launched in June. However, the funding for that project has ended and the websites are not being refreshed. What support is available for teachers who are struggling with a wide curriculum and who want to use such materials in schools? If we are serious about the issue, we need to adopt a much more systematic approach to delivering preventative education in our schools.
I commend the National Union of Students for its campaign to tackle violence against women. Its “Hidden Marks” report found that one in seven female students had been the victim of serious sexual assault while at university or college, that 14 per cent had been stalked and that 60 per cent of cases of sexual assault involved another student. The NUS has taken robust action, is looking at creating zero tolerance organisations and accepts its responsibility to help end the culture of acceptability by challenging the behaviours that I described.
The task that we face is ending the culture of acceptability in our schools, colleges and universities, on our streets and in our homes. We will do that by working with those who have expertise, such as Women’s Aid, Zero Tolerance, Rape Crisis and young people who have been shaped by their experiences. We must harness their knowledge and match their determination to create change.
The challenge for us to meet is to ensure that it is never in any circumstances acceptable to use violence against women. Prevention is indeed a means to an end and is absolutely the right approach. We will work with the Government in seeking to end violence against women.
I move amendment S4M-01523.1, to insert after “victims”:
“building on the work taken forward under the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration that was informed and shaped by the views and experiences of a wide range of women’s organisations including enacting the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005, the establishment of a National Group to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland and a comprehensive national strategy, including substantially increased funding and a groundbreaking advertising campaign aimed at changing wider public attitudes as well as encouraging reporting of abuse”.
15:55
Presiding Officer, I begin by apologising to you and the chamber on behalf of Miss Goldie and myself for missing the start of the debate and the minister’s opening remarks.
This debate is a hardy annual in the parliamentary calendar but none the less important for that. I welcome the opportunity to contribute for the first time in my new capacity as justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives. Let us not forget that the object of public policy, in this country and internationally, is to work towards the day when violence against women based on their gender is no longer a subject for debate in its own right, and when the attitudes that promote such abuse are no longer a feature of our society.
I have no problem with the motion that has been lodged by the Government, or with the amendment that has been lodged in the name of Jackie Baillie. We should recognise the contribution that everyone in the Parliament has made over the years towards tackling this problem; not to do so would be churlish. In that same generous spirit, I acknowledge the contribution that was made to these debates in the past by my colleagues Bill Aitken and Margaret Mitchell.
The motion focuses on preventative and early intervention strategies. Attitudinal change is clearly a prerequisite of behavioural change, but we all know how long that can take to achieve. Equally, the motion and the amendment acknowledge the role that is played by legislation passed in the Parliament to extend the legal protections that are available to women, although l think that we are all acutely aware of the limitations of a legislative approach.
I will focus on how the criminal justice system treats the victims of domestic abuse. As Jackie Baillie said, 51,926 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded by the police in 2009-10. That is actually a modest decrease, of around 4 per cent, on the previous year, and it would be nice to think that that is the start of a trend rather than a statistical blip. Moreover, 83 per cent of the victims of domestic abuse in that year were female, although that should not blind us to the reality of the domestic abuse of men by women, which has been raised in the chamber in the past and which we should also take seriously.
It is interesting to note, from the statistics, what happened in relation to those 51,926 incidents. In relation to 20,000 of them, the answer is nothing. They did not result in the recording of a crime or an offence. Of the 32,066 that were so recorded, only 21,660 were then reported to the procurator fiscal. Once in the hands of the procurator fiscal, proceedings were initiated in only 10,259 cases. By that stage in the process, 80 per cent of the reported incidents had been written off. We then find that 8,837 convictions arose from those prosecutions, so we are now down to only 17 per cent of the incidents that were originally reported.
What happened after that is interesting. Only in a mere 949 cases was a custodial sentence imposed. That represents less than 11 per cent of the total number of convictions, and less than 2 per cent of the number of reported incidents. Members will find that the percentage of cases giving rise to a term of imprisonment has been pretty steady at that level for several years.
It is interesting that half of those custodial sentences were for periods of less than three months. As we all know, the Scottish Government has pursued and enacted a sentencing policy that creates a presumption against the imposition of sentences of that duration. It is possible that some perpetrators might now receive longer sentences, but it is indisputable that others who would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the past will now be the subject of an alternative disposal. What are those alternative disposals? In 2007-08, 19 per cent of perpetrators were given a community sentence, 39 per cent were given a fine and 29 per cent were admonished. That hardly inspires confidence, does it? Zero tolerance is looking more like zero sentencing. Many women will look at this Parliament and ask how we can say that we take violence against women seriously when the perpetrators of violence are let off so lightly.
We should track carefully the pattern of sentencing in such cases over the next few years, and insist as a Parliament that our courts treat these crimes with the seriousness that they deserve. At the time of the passage of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, we warned that the drive to abolish short-term sentences could have a negative impact on women and their families, as they would no longer have a period of welcome respite from such abuse, or the opportunity to make a break from the past and create a new home and a better life with the assistance of organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that do such sterling work in that regard. It is wrong that women who are trapped in a vicious cycle of abuse are given no assistance by a criminal justice system that puts their abusers back in their homes.
I hope that those of us who gave such warnings are proved wrong, and that alternative strategies will produce better results for abused women in Scotland. I do not mean to imply that the minister and supporters of the Government are in any way indifferent to any of these crimes. However, they must be prepared to look dispassionately and objectively at the evidence that emerges over the next few years as a result of the implementation of the policy and ask themselves—as we all should do—whether it has made a positive difference to the women who are victims of domestic violence.
I support the motion and the amendment.
We now come to the open debate: speeches of four minutes, with a little bit of time for interventions.
16:01
I am pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate. I have heard that it is a perennial December activity, but it is a very important one, as members have stated. In addition to supporting our Government minister’s motion today, I am happy to support the Labour amendment that Jackie Baillie has lodged.
Violence against women is an issue that affects society as a whole. It cannot be put in a box entitled “Women’s issues”, for it goes to the very heart of how we judge the existence of a civilised society. Violence against women can take many forms, but the underlying issue very much appears to be control. Whatever form such violence takes, it is absolutely unacceptable in this country, and indeed in any country. I know that that is the united view of members in the chamber and of all the political parties that are represented here.
There has been a significant change in my lifetime in how society regards violence against women. I recall my time as an apprentice lawyer in Saltcoats from 1984 to 1986—that is quite some time ago, which is an admission of my age bracket. I worked for a small legal practice that was well known locally for its pioneering work in taking on cases of domestic abuse in its family law practice. It was started—members will not be surprised to hear—by an inspiring female solicitor who has now reached the very top of the legal profession.
At the time of my apprenticeship, the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 had been in force for only a few years, and some of its provisions were less well understood and quite novel from a court practice perspective. I remember how hard it was on occasions to secure evidence that would satisfy the court such that the sheriff would agree to grant an exclusion order—indeed, at that time, that was a very rare occurrence in Kilmarnock sheriff court.
The difficulty was not just down to the novelty of the legislation and the resultant approach of the sheriffs concerned. It reflected the fact that, in many cases, the family of the abused woman did not wish to get involved and would not give a statement. I recall clearly that, on far too many occasions in the cases that I was responsible for preparing for the court lawyer, family members would simply refuse to give any statement. Although they may have witnessed the violence at first hand, heard the violent activity taking place or seen the extensive bruising, many family members felt that, ultimately, it was a matter between the husband and the wife, and it was simply not for them to get involved.
Happily, those days are past. Much of the credit for that societal change must lie with Scottish Women’s Aid, which has been a force for good in our country. I, too, congratulate Scottish Women’s Aid on its 35th anniversary. Among its many activities, it provides refuge at the critical point when a woman has initially taken the decision to flee the family home. That is a brave and hard decision and one that the woman might have taken years to reach—long years of physical and mental abuse.
I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to funding violence against women initiatives. I note that the funding for the current financial year alone is £11.5 million. However, more can always be done, and I believe that we have an opportunity to do something as a result of the return to the Parliament of proposed legislation on minimum pricing for alcohol. I listened to what Jackie Baillie said on that in response to the intervention from my colleague Mike MacKenzie; although I accept that there is a complex mix of issues, one clear underlying issue in that mix is alcohol. A significant number of domestic abuse incidents are fuelled by alcohol. I believe that a failure on our part to take the opportunity to start to change our drink culture will mean that we in turn fail to tackle violence in our society and, in particular, violence against women.
16:06
Violence against women is preventable but, tragically, as Kofi Annan has put it, violence against women and girls is
“perhaps the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.
It is therefore absolutely right that successive Administrations and this Parliament have focused on the issue in the past 13 years. They have gained recognition for that work. As the UK End Violence Against Women coalition has put it,
“Scotland should ... be regarded as a benchmark with respect to its strategic approach, its recognition that violence is a cause and consequence of women’s inequality”.
That gender-based analysis has recently been challenged in a petition to the Parliament and by one or two members in a debate on violence against men last year but, to the Government’s credit, it has stuck with the gender-based analysis. There is no doubt that male violence against women is a profound societal and cultural problem that is rooted in gender inequality, rather than just in the psychopathology of individual men.
For several years, policy has been based on the three Ps—prevention, provision and protection. I will talk mainly about the first two, although I welcome the development of the domestic abuse court in Edinburgh, which is an important further initiative in the protection part of the agenda. Prevention should not involve only targeted early intervention, but should take a population-based approach. That is because violence against women is not limited to certain classes or areas but applies across society, and because everyone is responsible for recognising, challenging, speaking out against and educating on violence against women.
The population-based approach was pioneered in Edinburgh 20 years ago by Zero Tolerance. I thank the minister for his too-kind words about me, although I should point out that Christina McKelvie is the co-convener of the new cross-party group and will in fact chair its first meeting, at 5.30 next Wednesday, to which all are invited. Certainly, anything that I know about the issue I have learned from Zero Tolerance, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and the many women who have educated me.
I was pleased to attend the launch of another Zero Tolerance initiative this morning. The initiative, to which the minister referred, is called PACT, which stands for policy, action, communication and training. The focus of the PACT initiative is on employers and the workplace. It provides employers with a package of materials with which they can begin to engage with issues of violence against women as they apply to the workplace.
Mainstreaming prevention and early intervention across agencies is crucial. I was concerned to hear at the launch this morning, from somebody who is involved in the local multi-agency partnership on violence against women, that education is not involved in the local partnership here. I do not know whether that is the case throughout Scotland. Schools are central and have been flagged up by the End Violence Against Women coalition as a key area for prevention, but Zero Tolerance has pointed out how patchy treatment of the issue is in schools. It is launching an updated respect education programme in the spring. Evaluation of the pilot of that programme some years ago indicated that 78 per cent of primary school children said that their behaviour had been changed as a result of the programme. I hope that more work can be done by schools because that is central to the prevention agenda.
The health service is also an important area for prevention and early intervention, as the minister reminded us. Concern has been expressed by some people that the national domestic abuse delivery plan has come to an end in health with the disbanding of the dedicated team within the health and social care directorate. I am sure that that work will continue in other ways, but perhaps the minister can say in his summing up how that work will be carried forward, because health is also central to the prevention and early intervention agenda.
I would be grateful if you could come to a conclusion.
I am sorry. I thought that I had six minutes—my mistake. I meant to spend my last two minutes on funding, but I cannot, for which I apologise.
Speeches this afternoon are of four minutes.
16:11
The debate is timely not just because we are in the 16 days of action, but because the issues surrounding violence against women are always relevant—they have been debated in the Parliament many times before.
Evidence suggests that there is a correlation between economic stress in households and society, and increased incidence of abuse of women. That is why, at times such as those in which we are living now, we must be particularly vigilant in ensuring that women do not end up becoming victims of the recession twice over—not only being disproportionately disadvantaged by cuts to pensions and services, but finding themselves on the receiving end of violence. I strongly welcome the Scottish Government’s emphasis on prevention and early intervention, on working to identify and address circumstances that exacerbate violent behaviour against women and on empowering women to take early action to protect themselves and their children if they think that they are at risk.
On the recession, I am sure that Christina McKelvie would not want to perpetuate the myth that violence against women occurs in particular communities. Not class, nor occupation, nor income will keep a woman safe from a man who is violent.
I could not agree more—I thank Johann Lamont for that intervention. As I continue with my speech, she will see that I do not think that. My point is that families face additional stress during a recession, and that is not a class issue either.
I add my voice to the congratulations for Scottish Women’s Aid on its reaching its 35th anniversary and on the incalculable contribution that it has made to increasing massively awareness and understanding of violence against women in our society, and to greatly improving the response to it.
As Jackie Baillie did, I welcome the letter to Santa campaign by the violence reduction unit and Children 1st, and I urge all members to sign the motion that I lodged today on that subject.
There is still a long way to go to eradicate gender-based violence, but we can be certain that the difference between how public agencies responded to women who experienced abuse in 1976 and how they respond in 2011 is like night and day. I am glad that Lily Greenan, the director of Scottish Women’s Aid, who has braved the wind to be in the public gallery today, will provide the secretariat to the reformed cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children, which was approved by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on Tuesday. I am proud to co-convene the group with Malcolm Chisholm, and I am sure that I will learn a lot from him in the process.
One particular stain on our country’s record of responding to violence against women has been the pitifully and stubbornly low rates of convictions for rape and sexual assault. For many years, it was all too easy to get away with rape in Scotland. I am quietly encouraged, therefore, by the early indications that the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which came into force a year ago, is starting to have an effect in increasing conviction rates. It is early days, but I believe that we can be hopeful that the act will finally improve the deal that women who have been raped get from our justice system.
I want to add an international dimension to the debate, which may be where the continuum of violence against women is witnessed to its fullest extent. Hundreds of women arrive in Scotland every year seeking asylum from countries where war and conflict are used as justification for systematic acts of physical and sexual violence against them, and where the chaos and lawlessness of war create fertile conditions for crimes such as so-called honour killings and human trafficking.
I call on the UK Government to consider signing the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. A recent amendment to a European qualifications directive requires European Union member states to fully consider gender, including gender identity, when assessing asylum claims. That means that women who seek refuge from gender-related persecution such as female genital mutilation, forced abortion or rape in war should receive greater protection. That is an important step forward in embedding protection for women in the asylum system.
I regret, however, that the UK Government has opted out of the directive, thus effectively blocking the right to equal treatment for vulnerable women who come to this country to escape gender-based persecution. Yet again we see a Westminster Government taking a blinkered, tabloid approach to asylum and putting it ahead of its international duty and basic humanity.
What is the Scottish Government doing to eradicate violence against women? I also ask it to challenge the UK Government in all its forms. I hope that the minister will today take the opportunity to raise the matter with the UK Government. I support the motion and amendment.
16:16
I hate to start a sentence with “As a man” because it is usually the same sort of odious sentence as those that start “Some of my best friends are”.
However, when thinking about today’s debate, I was struck by an experience that I had with the reclaim the night campaign in Edinburgh two years ago. One of the organisers, who is a long-standing friend of mine, went out of her way to find a male speaker for the rally. Her reasoning was very simple: men commit the vast majority of violence against women, so male voices must at all times be heard to condemn that violence just as strongly. The reclaim the night tradition is a bit sensitive about female-only spaces, and clearly there is a need in services for such spaces.
However, I am glad that the cause has never been allowed to become a female-only campaign. Initiatives such as the White Ribbon Campaign, which calls on men to work to end violence against women, are laudable and I only wish that they had a higher profile. The issue is too important to be thought of as anything other than one that demands the attention of everyone in Scotland.
Violence against women is unacceptable. All criminal violence is unacceptable, but violence in which a man exploits gendered power over a woman through physical or mental means is more than a crime against an individual, as Malcolm Chisholm said. The effects of such violence are very real. Lives are blighted and some people face every day with fear.
I agree with other members that attitudes matter. As a society we have long since left behind any open suggestion that women are anything but equal. We now have unity in Parliament and across civic society that condemns domestic abuse; there is no political divide on the issue. Anyone who was to suggest that hitting a woman every now and then does her good would be ostracised and condemned, and rightly so. I do not think that the same could have been said just a few decades ago.
Unfortunately, we are still struggling with attitudes that are usually, although not exclusively, held by women; for example, that women are “asking for it” because of their behaviour or their dress. I see women out on Friday nights and sometimes wish that they would put on more clothes in case they catch their death of cold, but never do I think that skimpy clothes give a man licence to rape them. That is a real attitude that I have heard on the lips of everyday people in this day and age—not many years ago, but just a few months ago on “Call Kay”. It is abhorrent to suggest or to encourage the belief that women are somehow responsible for men’s violence against them. As well as Scottish Women’s Aid, which has been working on the issue for many years, I single out Rape Crisis Scotland, which has recently taken the initiative in tackling that attitude head on. The “This is not an invitation to rape me” campaign is hard-hitting and is aimed at men. It is all the more commendable for that.
True equality in our society would go a long way towards preventing gendered violence against women, but if we had true equality in our society, women would not be paid 20 per cent less than men are for doing the same job.
I will add one sad caveat, which is that the UK Government’s on-going insistence that there be no recourse to public funds in this regard conjures up the grubby picture that perhaps the rights of women to services and support are more dependent on the passport that they hold than they are a genuine universal human right. I know that charities and agencies across Scotland have done everything that they can to get around that, and have done very well in that regard.
I am proud of the unity—in this chamber and in the country, on the part of leaders and civic society—that is evident when it comes to facing up to and condemning the blight of violence against women and what it does to Scotland. I congratulate all the charities, agencies and many informal campaign groups, such as the Edinburgh feminist network, that work tirelessly on the ground, day after day, to end violence against women. I am honoured to have had this brief chance to speak in support of them.
16:20
I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate that is now rightly established as an annual fixture in this chamber. No woman should ever endure the physical and psychological trauma that comes from violence in the home or anywhere else. It is vital that we keep this issue in the national consciousness, so I welcome the regularity with which we debate the issue.
We should be proud of the progress that has been made in Scotland. The Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2011 are welcome steps towards the goal of improved protection of women. In the case of the latter act, Rhoda Grant and others should be praised for their work in bringing the original bill to Parliament.
There is still much work to be done, however. Last year, there were 51,926 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police in Scotland. Although the number is down on the previous year’s figure, it is still far too high. Figures that have been revealed by Scottish Women’s Aid provide sobering reading. In one 24-hour period this year, 54 women, with their 51 children, requested refuge accommodation. Unfortunately, only 17 of those women and 24 of the children could be accommodated. Although the long-term aim is to eradicate the scourge of violence against women, I would like the Government to strive, in the short term, for a target of ensuring that no woman or child who seeks refuge is turned away. That will be a challenge, particularly with a real-terms cut of 7.5 per cent to the equalities budget over the spending review period. However, I understand that there is, as yet, no level 4 information available for the equalities budget, so I would be grateful if the minister could, in his summing up, assure us that the Government will continue to support initiatives that are doing a great deal of important work across the country.
It has been widely acknowledged that our relationship with alcohol needs to change, and alcohol is clearly a factor in many abuse cases. In September, Strathclyde Police highlighted that the number of reported domestic abuse incidents in their area doubled in the aftermath of an old firm match. With such matches taking place in the early afternoon, alcohol consumption begins much earlier than usual, which explains that troubling statistic. Minimum pricing will have a role to play, which is why the Liberal Democrats are now committed to supporting the measure, but so will education, culture and many other matters, which is the point that Jackie Baillie made.
A large part of our making progress involves changing of attitudes. Of course, that refers chiefly to men, who should be in no doubt that striking a woman can never be justified and will never be tolerated, but it also refers to women. Too often, a woman who has suffered abuse will feel obliged to pass off any such incident as being out of character or a result of the drink.
However, women should never feel the need to explain away the actions of their abusers. Unfortunately, I have witnessed exactly that kind of behaviour first hand. When travelling home with my family one evening, I witnessed a well-dressed young woman being literally kicked into the gutter by her suitor. We turned the car around to help her. When we were driving her home, she immediately stated, “He’s not normally like that. It’s only when he has a drink.” Obviously, she said that because she was embarrassed. There can never be an excuse. We should ensure that everyone is in no doubt about that.
I commend members who have taken part in the debate, which has featured some excellent contributions, and welcome the spirit in which it has taken place. I also welcome Marco Biagi’s remarks on why men should take part in the debate. At one stage, I noticed that there were 26 MSPs in the chamber, 13 of whom were male and 13 of whom were female. I am sure that that is a good way forward.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats will, of course, support the Government’s motion and Jackie Baillie’s amendment.
16:25
The motion reaffirms the
“commitment to eradicating all forms of violence against women”.
I welcome the Government’s strong commitment to that, and the resources that it has committed to tackling the problem, but I do not think that that objective can be achieved without reducing all forms of violence in our society. There is still far too much violence in Scotland, which is why it is important that the violence reduction unit, for example, works not only with gangs on knife crime, but on violence as a whole; that we have the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill; that we have anti-bullying measures; and—I say to Ms Baillie—that we have a bill to tackle alcohol abuse. It is important that the police, social workers and community and sports groups that work with cashback for communities money all take a holistic approach to reducing violence throughout our society.
Many aspects of our lives and our decision making are involved. In my view, we still have gender equality in name only. As Marco Biagi said, pay rates for women for some jobs are still well below what they should be, not least in the oil and gas industry in my area. The gender balance in boardrooms is still woefully inadequate, the gender balance in this chamber and council chambers remains a challenge to all of us, and women are more likely than men to be in part-time and low-paid employment. We must all accept that we have a long way to go to reach equality of the sexes.
As others have said, domestic violence is not confined to one section of society, and it is not only physical abuse that is involved; psychological abuse can be debilitating as well. I remember that my first knowledge of domestic abuse came from hearing about a university professor. Outwardly, he was a very respectable married man when he was out with his wife at social functions, but he kept her locked in the house at all other times. She escaped when he inadvertently left a window open one day.
As others have said, women have far too often had to fob off concerns about a black eye or other injury as resulting from falling down stairs or walking into a door. All of us who confront such situations must offer a listening ear and assistance, as we must do with women who have changed from confident and outgoing individuals to withdrawn and frightened individuals.
I was struck by an article in this month’s Red magazine, which I read in the hairdressers—about the only time we get to read magazines these days. The article was written by Ruth Elkins, who is a victim of domestic abuse. She wrote that attachment for the sake of attachment is bad; that behaviour that makes a person feel bad is bad; that if the relationship that a person is in makes them scared, sick and upset, it is time to get out; that the most important thing is that people rarely change, at least not without professional help; and that a person cannot change someone just because they love them. Let us not kid ourselves.
I went to Rhoda Grant’s event last night and was struck by the fact that virtually all the women said in their stories that they had had to leave. That has to change. Why do women and children have to flee their family homes? They have not only to live with violence, but have the further traumas of having to move house and perhaps school, and of leaving their friends and relatives. That is unacceptable.
At yesterday’s Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee meeting, we took evidence on the homelessness target and heard about how much homelessness is due to relationship breakdowns. I firmly believe that more effort needs to be made to redress the balance, so that women can know that their first action does not have to be to flee, and that they can instead access services in order that they can stay in their home and the perpetrator of the crime has to leave.
In conclusion, I believe that social work, medical staff, police, women’s aid organisations and locksmiths must work together to exclude the perpetrators of the crime, who desperately need professional help away from their families in order to address their issues. Jackie Baillie rightly highlighted the Christmas message. It is heart-rending:
“all I want for Christmas is for the violence to stop”.
16:30
Today’s debate is welcome, as it is about ending an issue that is not welcome in our society. Unfortunately, it is well known that violence against women remains all too common across the country. Be it domestic violence, rape, prostitution or any other form of violence, there are various situations in which women across Scotland suffer abuse and live in fear.
Today’s debate is not about seeing one particular area of violence against women as more important than any other; it is about recognising that all forms of violence against women are wrong and that stopping the cycle is a must.
The term “hardest hit” is often used in this chamber, and I thought very carefully about using it today, given the topic. However, I feel that this debate gives us a chance to show that women are often hit hardest in society.
People will argue that in the 21st century it is wrong that violence against women still occurs far too regularly, and they are right to do so. However, we must also recognise that in the 21st century there is still sizeable inequality between pay for men and women—hitting women harder. In the 21st century, there is still a glass ceiling in the workplace for many women—hitting women harder. It is therefore imperative that in dealing with the most horrific examples of injustice for women, such as violence, we continue to educate people about and legislate against every other injustice that women may face today.
Scottish Women’s Aid has stated that violence against women is not solely a women’s issue, as it diminishes each and every one of us and Scotland as a nation. I totally agree with that statement, but it is similar to statements about another problem in Scotland that is currently receiving far more attention than violence against women.
Members will be aware of the statistics that suggest that a particular form of domestic abuse tends to increase during the weekends of old firm matches. We need to act on the wider repercussions associated with those fixtures. If, as appears to be the case, there is an increase in domestic violence in the wake of those games, we need a concerted effort to ensure that we are prepared to deal with the outcomes.
In order to target resources where they are most needed, the Scottish Government should commission independent research into the correlation between the 48-hour periods surrounding old firm matches and levels of domestic abuse. I am happy to see that Nil by Mouth is calling both for that measure as part of its 13-point plan and for the expertise of Scottish Women’s Aid and others to facilitate that mapping exercise, which could play a vital part in future preventative measures to tackle one area of violence against women.
It is essential that we substantially increase funding to deliver those plans as well as others, such as a groundbreaking advertising campaign aimed at changing wider public attitudes. I therefore call on all members to support the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie in relation to focusing on prevention as a means to an end.
16:34
I commend the minister for lodging the motion and Jackie Baillie for lodging her amendment, which I will support.
We have heard, in well-articulated speeches, about the impact of violence against women. In my previous role, I witnessed that impact all too often. I heard the feeble and the inexcusable from men when I went to family homes to speak to women and to try to offer some degree of protection and understanding. All too often, men would say that the violence was out of character and had happened because they were fuelled or because they were driven to it. None of those excuses is acceptable. They were not acceptable then and they should not be acceptable now.
We have been congratulating Scottish Women’s Aid on its 35th birthday. I am sure that an outcome that the organisation would seek would be not to have another 35 years of existence.
We need a zero tolerance approach. I am grateful to the NUS for its brief on the “Hidden Marks” report. Jackie Baillie rightly set out some of the statistics, which are of great concern, but there were one or two that she did not mention. For example, only 4 per cent of the women who are affected by violence at our colleges and universities report the violence. The reason that more than 50 per cent gave for not reporting the violence was that they felt ashamed. It is shameful that society has put women in such a position.
As members have said, the issue is about equality. Women have the right to equality. Equality is not something that they need to earn; it is a right. Men should not be and never should have been in a situation in which they are in control of women and what they do. Other members have probably articulated that better than I can do.
However, what I can say is that in Aberdeenshire there is education and there is partnership working. The Aberdeenshire gender-based abuse partnership, which is multidisciplinary, goes into schools and works with police liaison. We are taking education to the primary schools, the secondary schools and tertiary education.
There is support in hospitals for women and children who come to hospital, often with horrific injuries. The sad thing is that so many women feel that they need to go back. As Maureen Watt said, that should never be the case. If anyone needs to leave the family home because of abuse, it is the person who perpetrated the abuse—the man. Women and children should always be protected.
The minister said that prevention is about outcomes. The only outcome that should be acceptable to the Parliament and Scottish society is zero tolerance and the day when the Parliament no longer has to debate violence against women.
16:38
This has been a worthwhile debate. The debate is an important annual reminder of events, behaviour and attitudes that are completely unacceptable. We have all welcomed the emphasis on focusing on prevention as a means to an end.
As Jackie Baillie said, it is a positive feature of the Parliament that since its inception we have frequently debated these issues in a constructive manner. I remember speaking in a debate in 2003 in support of the then national strategy to address domestic abuse in Scotland and another national strategy to prevent domestic abuse. At the same time, we celebrated the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. Since then, devolved Governments have brought forward a variety of measures, initiatives and legislation to address the challenge, endeavouring to improve the situation for victims and potential victims.
As the minister said, the Scottish Government has taken a proactive approach, which has included raising public awareness through media campaigns and increasing support for courts in Scotland by drawing on the experience of the domestic abuse court in Glasgow. I echo Johann Lamont’s positive comment about the domestic abuse court in Glasgow and I have a suggestion for the minister. Why do not we consider having a floating expert sheriff in domestic abuse, who would go to the court that has the problem, rather than use a more rigid structure and try to create a court in the location?
As others have done, I applaud the tireless and outstanding work carried out by Scottish Women’s Aid and the other organisations that, together, have been such powerful influencers and effective advocates for those who live in the dark shadow of abuse.
All these activities and achievements suggest that positive progress is being made and that something that has stained and diminished Scotland is being tackled head-on and might be receding. However, the debate has highlighted that the unacceptable attitudes and bullying behaviour towards women of so many men—conduct that we find repugnant and unacceptable—are still out there, as Anne McTaggart and Dennis Robertson ably described. That is why we must never cease to investigate and challenge such behaviour and to intervene to support abused, fragile and frightened women. They need the reassurance that they are not alone, that they are not forgotten and, perhaps most important, that they are not in the wrong.
When I looked back to 2003, I was struck by the figures. Recorded incidents of domestic abuse against women in 2002-03 totalled just over 32,000. Although the 2009-10 figure represents a welcome decrease from the preceding year, let there be no complacency. The stark fact is that since 2000-01 there has been a 33 per cent increase in the number of female victims of domestic abuse.
On the positive side, I am clear that prevention and early intervention are the way to go. However, we have to be vigilant in monitoring current strategies and initiatives. Some approaches work and some do not.
The official data discloses a repeat pattern of abuse. That is obvious from some of the recent data. We have to be clear about whether we are putting the necessary emphasis on the first report of an incident, because if we are not, a repeat pattern of abuse is likely to emerge. We also know from the Scottish crime and justice survey 2009-10 that more than six out of 10 of those who had experienced partner abuse in the previous 12 months had told at least one person or organisation about that most recent incident. Given that we know of the tendency towards repeat patterns of behaviour, are we sure that we are highlighting to victims and to their friends, their relatives or whoever they have confided in that intervention could achieve prevention? It is better to be safe than sorry.
I conclude with two observations. First, as David McLetchie ably and extensively described, despite our best efforts to focus on intervention and prevention, some perpetrators will end up in the criminal justice system. I say to the minister that it is essential that judges have the option of custodial disposals available to them. I hope that the Scottish Government will rigorously track what is happening to ensure that no judge is being denied that option.
Secondly, the statistics confirm that too many men still behave towards women in a disgraceful, inexcusable and utterly unacceptable manner. As Jackie Baillie said, it is a societal issue—Marco Biagi eloquently referred to that aspect. The debate sends out a message to those men that Scotland is on their case. They must stop this behaviour. They will not win. They will eventually be found out, shamed and dealt with. I support the motion and the amendment.
16:43
I welcome the debate. The useful speeches that have been made across the chamber reflect the unity that exists around the recognition of both the seriousness of the issue and the challenge that it presents.
This is an important debate. However, as Dennis Robertson said, we must be wary of appearing to make excuses for men who perpetrate violence against women. Although there is an important debate to be had on the issues around minimum unit pricing, I urge members to be cautious about bringing those into the debate.
Violence against women is a problem in countries where there is alcohol and countries where there is no alcohol. In our own communities, there are men who perpetrate violence against women whether or not they drink. Domestic abuse and violence against women have been with us on good days and bad days, in recession and out of recession. We must be careful that we do not create an excuse or an explanation that does not address the key problem.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government, in its own document, does not perpetuate the idea that this is about alcohol. The document does not identify alcohol as an explanation for or a cause of violence by men against women, for a very simple reason.
I have listened carefully to the member and I do not disagree with what she says. However, the point that I was making and that others have made is that a complex mix is involved and it is clear that alcohol is part of that mix. The forthcoming legislation that the member refers to presents us with an opportunity. It is surely important to seize that opportunity, even if it prevents only some of this horrendous activity.
The fundamental issue is that men have said, over the generations, “It is the drink that does it.” These are men who manage not to pick a fight with anybody in the pub and who are not routinely violent in their workplace or when they are out among their colleagues, but who are violent when they go home. As soon as someone says that it is about the alcohol, they create a different attitude and understanding of what has been going on. As Marco Biagi and others have said, this is about power and inequality, and we have to confront that and deal with it.
I assure the member that on this side of the chamber there are people with a long record of raising issues around violence against women. If they believed that minimum unit pricing would sort out the problem, they would have used it to sort it out. I am not arguing that we should not have a debate around the misuse of alcohol, but it would be dangerous and misleading to create the impression in this debate that alcohol is the cause of domestic abuse when it is not even present on many occasions. The issue is dangerous. There are loads of people without very much money who are not violent and who do not have other problems, and there are people with addictions who are not violent.
We need to focus on the way in which violence against women permeates the whole of society. I welcome the important point that Marco Biagi made about men speaking out, too. Violence against women should be as unacceptable as racism to men in their working and social lives. The men responsible for forcing women into refuges have somehow not been ostracised as we might hope they would have been.
There is an important issue around prevention and challenging attitudes, but as David McLetchie has said, we cannot wait for attitudes to change. It is important that the justice system marks the seriousness of violence against women. It is critically important that we interrogate the figures that David McLetchie presents, because they send out a very worrying message about short sentences. We raised the risk that that strategy would have a disproportionate impact on some of the most vulnerable people and families in our communities, at the very basic level of women being able to get order into their lives, organise themselves and perhaps get the perpetrator excluded from the home.
I raised with the minister the issue of domestic abuse courts. I think that the model in Glasgow could easily be used in other cities. I hear what Annabel Goldie said about sheriffs with expertise perhaps going into rural areas, but there needs to be monitoring of the toolkit to make sure that it is being applied. There is also a key role in the Glasgow model for the advice, support, safety and information services together project, which does risk assessment, supports women, takes them through the court system and has an important role in informing the court about disposals. In any model we develop, that approach needs to be encouraged.
We know that violence against women does not just involve domestic abuse. It is important that we raise issues around rape, prostitution, trafficking and the way in which young men are in control of some of our communities through their aggression, which also feeds into their homes.
We also have to be mindful that women are at risk when they decide to leave. When they have left the home large numbers of women, sadly, end up being murdered by ex-partners. We have to reflect on the impact of that on women who may be making a choice and a decision to leave. Again, the sentencing issue is critical.
In the short time that I have left I want to say something about the power of testimony and the role of survivors. Women’s Aid and other organisations have allowed the voices of those who have survived abuse to speak out and to shape policy. We must hold on to that approach.
During the recent elections, I had the privilege of attending a hustings organised by voice against violence—an organisation of young people who describe their experience in a moving, powerful and challenging way and who demand that Government acts on their behalf. I hope that that powerful testimony is being used to shape current Government thinking.
I would welcome the minister’s comments on whether funding is continuing for the children experiencing domestic abuse recovery project. I know that further funding was given, but I would welcome his comments on where it has gone.
The challenge for us is how we deliver. I want to make one point about preventative spending and intervention. As a teacher in a school, I worked to challenge attitudes, which is critically important for all our young people—both boys and girls. However, school is often a place where someone can intervene and where youngsters who are experiencing domestic abuse can describe that experience and be supported.
In any budget approach that we take there needs to be an equality impact assessment that can protect critical intervention funding for young people. I have still got in my head the faces of those youngsters who needed help and support; it is not just about messages but about intervening to support such youngsters directly.
We all know the importance of vision in this area, but we also know that vision without action is daydreaming. I think that members across the chamber recognise the Government’s critical heavy-lifting role in working with women’s organisations so that we act to protect women and their children and ensure that the justice system protects them and keeps them safe and challenges the perpetrators.
I think that we all share the determination that the Parliament, with its powers, can make a difference to the lives of individual women and children and, in the longer term, put out the very strong message that we want a different kind of Scotland—one that is free of that kind of violence—and that we want women’s equality, which would make that possible.
16:51
The debate has demonstrated yet again the cross-party support for the issue of tackling violence against women in Scotland. There were a number of excellent contributions to the debate.
It would be fair to say that the Parliament has made a significant journey in the past 12 years in dealing with the issue. I can recall from my early days back in 1999 on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that when we started to look at some of the issues around domestic violence one of the most significant problems that we identified was the lack of recording of domestic violence incidents by the police. The way in which our police forces in Scotland address the issue has significantly changed as a result.
Earlier, Jackie Baillie set out the scale of the problem and David McLetchie echoed that in terms of the overall numbers. The scale of the challenge is significant, as members will recognise. The number of incidents of domestic violence recorded in 2010-11 was 55,423. That in itself demonstrates the scale and nature of domestic violence. Alongside that, the statistics show that a woman is six times more likely to be killed by her partner or ex-partner. That underlines why we as a Government have seen it as a priority to focus on the need to support women who may be subject to violence.
The Parliament has risen to the challenge. I recall, from those early discussions in the first session, Maureen Macmillan’s contribution to the legislation that we took forward. The first committee bill in the Parliament, I think, was on protecting women who were subject to domestic violence. Action by the current and previous Administrations shows that there is a continued commitment to put in place, where appropriate, legislation to assist in protecting people.
Jackie Baillie was correct to say that we should now focus much more on prevention and early intervention. The challenge is to have an effective multi-agency approach so that we do those things properly and there is a need to continue the zero tolerance approach. Jackie Baillie raised concerns about provision for schools and being able to get access to resources. In that regard, the domestic abuse resource and training system—DARTS—is available online for schools to use. We also have a couple of pilots taking place. A mentoring and violence prevention pilot is taking place at Portobello and Inverclyde schools that focuses on training S4 pupils to do some peer-group work in order to promote an ethos of non-violence in schools and to challenge attitudes and behaviour.
Up in Dundee, an interesting pilot is taking place to look at how we can ensure that kids have more awareness of domestic violence and how we can embed that in the curriculum for excellence programme at pre-school, primary and secondary levels. Work continues to be done on such integration, and respect resource packs that schools can make use of are available from the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust.
David McLetchie made an extremely good point when he said that if we want to change people’s behaviour, we must tackle their attitude. A key part of addressing the issue in the future is to ensure that we do that more effectively.
I recognise some of the concerns that he raised around sentencing policy and the approaches that courts may be taking, which there would be value in monitoring, but it is also important that we ensure that the interventions that courts use are effective. A short time in prison for an offender may give someone a period of respite, but it will not necessarily address the offender’s behaviour effectively. We must look at other mechanisms that can be used to do that. The Caledonian system, which has been rolled out in four of our community justice authority areas, is one such mechanism. It focuses on addressing the behaviour of those who have been convicted of a domestic violence offence with a view to preventing them from committing such an offence again. That said, it is equally important that we send out a strong message that the courts will take these issues extremely seriously.
David McLetchie also raised the issue of domestic violence against males, and I confess that I thought that he did so in a much more constructive way than some members have done in the past. It is interesting that, since 2000-01, the level of reporting of incidents involving male victims of domestic violence has almost doubled. We have commissioned a piece of research so that we can get a much better understanding of why that has happened. Part of the difficulty in addressing some of these issues is a lack of understanding of what is causing such violence. There is further work for us to do in taking that forward.
I know that there is interest in domestic abuse courts. Annabel Goldie’s point was well made, and we might consider her suggestion to see whether there is another model that we can adopt. As regards my remarks to Johann Lamont, I would like to clarify that the domestic abuse pilot in Lothian and Borders will start next month, and we will look at how it progresses.
Will that domestic abuse pilot include the advice, support, safety and information services together project that goes along with the domestic abuse court in Glasgow, which is critical in assessing risk for women and informing the court?
I recognise that the ASSIST project in Glasgow has been particularly helpful, but we must ensure that we take forward the programme in a way that delivers what is necessary in individual areas. We must recognise that a model that works in one area will not necessarily always work in another.
Malcolm Chisholm made an extremely good speech. I apologise to Christina McKelvie for not acknowledging that she and Malcolm Chisholm are co-conveners of the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children. I was confident that the cross-party group would be in good hands when I thought that Malcolm Chisholm was its convener; now that I know that he shares that role with Christina McKelvie, I am all the more confident that it is in good hands.
Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the health programme that has been run. The routine inquiry approach that I mentioned earlier has been embedded in the normal practice of health boards across Scotland, and we expect that to continue. In addition, we have retained the post of gender-based violence team manager to ensure that that embedding of practice continues to take place in health boards throughout the country.
Malcolm Chisholm recognised that, as a Government, we have decided to focus on women who are affected by domestic violence. We have done so because the issue of violence against women is a social construct, which is about the balance between the genders in our society. Women tend to be the victims of the greatest amount of domestic violence that takes place, so it is only right that we continue to have a policy that recognises that.
Christina McKelvie mentioned the Council of Europe’s convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. That is an issue for the UK Government, on which we have been in touch with the Home Office. It is looking to take a position on the matter early in the new year, and we will continue to monitor that.
Marco Biagi made a first-class speech on the importance of males’ questioning the whole issue of violence against women. I have no doubt that members throughout the chamber recognise the role that they have. I say to Jim Hume that we have made a commitment to continue the current funding levels in this area of work for the next three years because we continue to recognise its value.
In concluding my remarks, I am delighted to accept the Labour Party’s amendment and continue the cross-party support that has always existed for addressing violence against women in Scotland.