Domestic Abuse
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-894, in the name of Adam Ingram, on a better future for Scotland's children: ending domestic abuse against women.
I want to put on record the Government's commitment to ending domestic abuse and male violence against women. I also want to acknowledge the leadership given by the Parliament and the substantial progress made by previous ministers.
However familiar we are with the figures, they still shock. There were 45,796 reported incidents of domestic abuse in 2005-06, and we know that there is under-reporting. Further, the number of rape incidents recorded by the police that lead to a conviction is far too low. Local prevalence studies, such as that in South Ayrshire, record that up to one child in three is growing up in an atmosphere of intimidation, fear and uncertainty created by domestic abuse. Their experience has a detrimental impact on their wellbeing, their health and their attainment. One young person said:
"I went from a straight ‘A' student to failing every class because I was concentrating on what was going on at home."
Getting it right for every child who is experiencing domestic abuse is one of the Government's priorities, but we cannot ensure the well-being of children unless we also protect their mothers and bring the perpetrators to account. We recognise that domestic abuse is only one manifestation of a continuum of violence that results from unequal power relations between men and women. We need to ensure that issues of gender equality are tackled in schools and communities. We cannot make Scotland a safe place for women and children without placing priority on tackling rape and sexual assault, and looking at prostitution, commercial exploitation and human trafficking.
In the wake of the spending review, we intend to invest some £40 million over three years to improve the lives of children and young people who experience domestic abuse and to tackle the wider issues of male violence against women.
Last night, I attended the annual general meeting of SAY Women in Glasgow, which provides—among other things—a unique support package for homeless victims of sexual abuse. One of the issues that was raised at that meeting was concern about funding. Can the minister reassure that group and others regarding future funding for their services?
The increase in resourcing will enable the Government to support many crucial services for women who are experiencing male violence as well as to progress work under the national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people. For example, over the next three years, we will continue to support Scottish Women's Aid, the Rape Crisis Scotland network and the domestic abuse and rape crisis helplines. We will also continue to fund a pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow and the annual domestic abuse campaign.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the changes in local government funding and how they will affect the violence against women fund and the children's services women's aid fund, which have been rolled up into the local government settlement. Our expectation is that local government will continue to support that work, not least because it contributes to national outcomes that have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with which we have already discussed the matter.
Will the minister clarify which outcome agreement in the concordat is the one by which local government's commitment to tackle violence against women will be tested? No matter how closely I look, I cannot find the phrase "violence against women" in any outcome agreement.
That is because it is spread over five or six of the outcomes that we have established, such as that on vulnerable children. I can give Johann Lamont a note on that after the debate.
The increase in funding will underpin a comprehensive programme of work that builds on the progress that the Parliament has already achieved. A substantial amount of work will involve the implementation of the national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people and the getting it right pathfinder. That work has been and will continue to be informed by the involvement of young people. Indeed, the Minister for Communities and Sport, the Minister for Community Safety and I had the opportunity to meet six remarkable young people who have experienced domestic abuse. Their priorities and views have shaped the development of the delivery plan.
The plan will build on some existing work that we will continue to support, including crisis support services such as those that are delivered through Scottish Women's Aid, and further work on the annual domestic abuse campaign. It will also outline new measures to tackle the attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate domestic abuse and to improve early identification of domestic abuse. For example, teachers are often the first to know when children are experiencing difficulties at home and it is important that they are able to take action to ensure that support is put in place. We are preparing a toolkit to advise them on how to deal with the disclosure of domestic abuse. It will be piloted in the four pathfinder areas and tested for national roll-out in 2009.
Relevant ministers will develop and implement the delivery plan with external partners including COSLA and local government. The plan is still being finalised and ministers will receive the proposals in the new year. This debate will be helpful to our consideration of the way forward, so I am keen to hear members' views.
Sunday marks the beginning of the 16 days of activism against gender violence. This year's theme centres around challenging obstacles that prevent real, sustainable progress in eradicating male violence against women. Despite Scotland's reputation as a world exemplar, we cannot afford to be complacent.
We will ensure the continuation of many of the crucial services for women who experience male violence. We will also develop measures in line with the progression of the strategic framework on violence against women. We are determined to tackle the low conviction rate for rape. In light of the Scottish Law Commission's review, we have committed to introduce a bill on rape and sexual offences in this parliamentary session.
We have to take action on these issues. We have to change attitudes, increase understanding and awareness, and provide the support and protection that is necessary to secure a better future for the thousands of women and children who are affected by domestic violence in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that it is unacceptable that thousands of children in Scotland are affected by domestic abuse, seriously impacting on their wellbeing, safety, health, schooling and life experience; pays tribute to those working in the field to help women and children affected by domestic abuse and those taking on the challenge of wider issues of violence against women; reaffirms its commitment to ending violence against women and recognises as part of its support for the UN 16 days of activism against gender violence, the importance of tackling not only domestic abuse, rape and sexual assault but also emerging issues such as human trafficking, and welcomes the establishment of the National Delivery Group on Children Affected by Domestic Abuse, the cross-cutting approach being taken and the involvement of children and young people.
As ever, it is an immense privilege to contribute to the debate, which marks the United Nations 16 days of action on violence against women.
It is always important to remember the violence and fear that women and their children suffer. We need to recognise the scourge that remains in far too many homes and take the opportunity to reinvigorate our commitment to act at every level of government and in our communities to eradicate the suffering that is the closest companion of too many families.
I appreciate the consensual approach that the minister has taken, but the irony is that domestic violence is a difficult issue—one that has not always gained the recognition or agreement that is often displayed in this place. We must be alive to the fact that, although we seek consensus, the reality for women is of having to live in a world where they are not respected and where violence against women is a weapon of choice, not a matter of regret.
There was a time when domestic violence was not seen as a matter for politics. We must commend those who forced the issue on to the political agenda. We commend the women survivors and others who spoke out, organised, and reached out to other women and children. We recognise that, far from being lauded for doing that, they were often condemned. When they spoke, they revealed a dark truth about the nature of the power relationship between men and women, and the nature of power in our society.
It is important to look at the impact of domestic abuse on children, but we need to place that consideration in the context of the nature of domestic abuse, where women are overwhelmingly the victims and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. We also need to place domestic abuse in the context of violence against women in all its forms, including prostitution and trafficking. Violence against women is the sharpest confirmation of the fact that women remain unequal and that to live as a woman is to have more limited life chances and economic and other opportunities than a man.
We recognise the work of women in engaging in shaping policy at Scotland level. We salute, too, the women on the front line, whether in the ASSIST—advice, support, safety and information services together—project, Women's Aid, SAY Women, or the national domestic violence helpline. All those women work closely with some of the most vulnerable women in our communities, and they do so because they recognise the importance of that work. They also work with women who are not seen as the victims of first regard. We have to be conscious of the fact that groups such as SAY Women, which have raised funding concerns, fear that the women with whom they work are seen as problematic and not necessarily worthy of sympathy.
The Labour amendment highlights the need
"to review the effect of current enforcement measures"
that seek to protect women and children. In particular, it highlights the need for the equalities and justice portfolios to share responsibility rather than pass the buck. In conjunction with the ASSIST project, we need to support the roll-out of domestic abuse courts. The project provides the critical risk assessment information that makes court decisions part of the solution rather than a means of reinforcing the problem for women and children.
I ask the minister to confirm that the Government recognises the critical value of multi-agency risk assessment work and multi-agency partnerships. In particular, I ask the minister to respond to the concerns of the women's organisations that have expressed fears that the decision to lift ring fencing at the local level, particularly for supporting people, has the potential to wipe out all local women's aid provision and services. I ask him to acknowledge—as those groups do—that ring fencing was put in place for a purpose, which is to protect services that are not necessarily popular at times of budget constraint.
Why was there no consultation with Women's Aid and others before the decision to lift ring fencing was taken? Will women's groups and equalities groups be represented on the monitoring bodies that consider the single outcome agreements? If the minister could point out the relevant outcome agreement in the concordat, as I have already asked him to do, that would be immensely helpful.
We also seek reassurance in relation to the prostitution legislation. The challenge is not simply to legislate to support women who are suffering in prostitution, but to provide funding to support women out of prostitution. What role will Scottish Enterprise and other agencies play in supporting those women's specific needs as they move into employment and in providing them with opportunities to move out of prostitution?
We seek the minister's assurance that the three-pronged approach continues, combining protection, prevention and provision. I trust—the minister has given us some comfort in this regard—that he will support a review of all the enforcement measures and that justice measures will be seen as part of that process; not as a bonus to the courts in their support to the women, but as a critical means by which women as complainers achieve real access to justice in our courts.
Will the minister immediately address the funding concerns of a range of women's organisations that support vulnerable women? Will he outline—and confirm—how his budget will deliver services and measures to address the broader issue of equalities and the rights of women across the range of our responsibilities, to ensure that in addressing those inequalities we begin to move the process on so that we can challenge the issues of violence against women, which are the sharpest and most difficult expression of violence in our communities and for vulnerable groups?
As I have said, there is an important debate to be held, but I challenge the minister to recognise that consensus is built through action, and I look forward to hearing about the actions that the Government will take.
I move amendment S3M-894.1, to insert after first "violence against women":
"acknowledges the need to review the effect of current enforcement measures to tackle violence against women, in order to ensure that women and children receive the protection and security that they require".
This is one of those debates that are necessary but which we all wish were unnecessary, but it is important to recognise the facts of life. I shall accentuate the positive first by saying that, like sectarianism, domestic violence is a reducing feature of Scottish life, but at the same time it remains totally and utterly unacceptable.
The minister was quite right to draw attention to the number of incidents—the figure he gave was something like 45,976—but perhaps even more concerning is the fact that 23,558 of them were repeat incidents where a woman was assaulted by her partner on two or more occasions. It has been calculated, although I was unable to get specific figures for Scotland, that some 750,000 recorded incidents of domestic violence throughout the United Kingdom were witnessed by children.
I am sure that many members agree that I have had hard words to say about Scottish Government and Scottish Executive advertising campaigns, but one of the most evocative is the one in which we see a happy family scene. It is tea time on Friday and the mother is there with the two kids. Then the father comes in and his tea is not ready. That is the night that he goes out with the boys, and because his tea is not ready he thumps the wife. One can imagine the impact that such an incident would have on the children. Unfortunately, it is far too common an occurrence.
The Parliament and the previous Executive have, to their credit, done a great deal to ease the problems. We have legislated, passing the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 and the Prevention of Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, and we have taken determined measures to deter people trafficking, which is surely one of the most odious facets of criminality. We have set up the domestic abuse court in Glasgow, which has worked—although not without hiccups, it is true. The principal advantage of that type of court is that cases are fast-tracked. It is unacceptable that proceedings drag on for months when cases need to be disposed of quickly. As Johann Lamont said, there is a risk assessment aspect to those proceedings, which is something that we could with advantage copy elsewhere, but it is particularly apposite when dealing with an offence of this type.
Things have got better, but we need to give thought to how they can be improved further. The domestic abuse court in Glasgow has worked and it is certainly worth considering whether similar courts could be established in other cities. I accept that, in other jurisdictions, particularly small or rural ones, resourcing such courts satisfactorily might be a problem. However, the Scottish Government could consider the advantages of such a measure.
Does the member agree that further domestic abuse courts would not have to be exactly the same as the one in Glasgow and that, with a bit of imagination, we could combine courts throughout the country to give sheriffs the relevant experience to which he referred?
The member will know that I am always one for imagination and innovation—I largely accept her point. As I have said previously, an awful lot of law and the administration of justice is common sense. I would be disappointed if we had many sheriffs who could not deal with domestic abuse cases appropriately. It is not rocket science, although I accept that a degree of training in the specifics is needed. I am all for specialisation, but if somebody is appointed to sit on the shrieval bench—which nowadays is a well-paid occupation—they should be able to deal with the wide variety of cases that come before them with the required degree of knowledge and sensitivity. I have no objection to going down the route that Mary Mulligan suggests.
It is important that we stress that a large part of the debate relates to the effect of domestic violence on children, because it can be traumatic. At the lower end of the scale, the effect could be a failure to achieve academic expectations but, at the higher end, as a result of witnessing violence in their home, children may demonstrate serious behavioural problems and, later in life, delinquency and violent behaviour. If children regard violence as acceptable in their home, they think that it is acceptable to impose violence on other people. It is important that we realise the impact on young children of the type of behaviour that we are considering.
We disagree with nothing in the motion. Johann Lamont's amendment is eminently sensible and along the lines that we should frequently examine legislation to find out whether it is effective. We will not divide the Parliament on the issue.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like Bill Aitken, the Liberal Democrats will support the motion and the amendment. The debate has become an annual event to call attention to the UN international day for the elimination of violence against women and to the wider issues around that. We welcome the minister's comments about the work of the previous Executive and the Parliament. Despite that work, we still face an epidemic of violence against women and children in our country. Scottish Executive figures suggest that one in four women and 100,000 children in Scotland experience domestic abuse, and that in 90 per cent of cases the children are in the same or an adjacent room when the abuse takes place.
I welcome the motion's focus on the impact that domestic abuse has on children. We have heard about some of the impacts already, such as on schooling or health, but there are also long-term impacts on children's views of how men and women should behave toward one another. Girls can grow up thinking that it is okay to stay in an abusive relationship and boys can grow up thinking that it is okay to solve any disagreement with their fist and to dominate any woman with violence. How much more difficult is it for people to form relationships that are built on trust when they have been so badly let down by those who should have cared for them as a child? It is small wonder that I repeat what I have said in other debates: that we in the Parliament should do all that we can to ensure that children are brought up in loving homes.
There are instances of women being violent to their male partners, but most manifestations of one person's power over another are of male violence against females: Barnardo's tells us that 87 per cent of the 45,796 incidents of domestic abuse that were recorded in 2005-06 involved a female victim and a male perpetrator.
The motion is right to welcome the establishment and cross-cutting nature of the national delivery group on children affected by domestic abuse, which was set up last year to advise ministers on delivering better services for children and young people who experience abuse and to oversee the getting it right for every child pathfinder projects on domestic abuse. It is essential that our national strategy is implemented and I welcome the details that we have heard about the progress that is being made on the three Ps—protection, prevention and provision.
We record our appreciation of the work of organisations that help women and children who are the victims of abuse and of organisations that focus on prevention. Barnardo's points to schemes such as the Tayside domestic abuse initiative as models of good practice that support children and families. A crucial point is that the previous Executive funded that project from the violence against women fund. That funding is in place until March next year, but the Government intends to roll up that fund and the children's services women's aid fund into the local government settlement. I share the concerns that other members have expressed about that and I would welcome more information from the minister. In real terms, how much funding has the Government allocated in the rolled-up settlement? How will central Government ensure that, in tight budgets around the country, appropriate money from the local government settlement will be used to tackle violence against women? That is crucial. It is essential that the change does not lead to a more patchy and geographically based approach to service provision.
The budget raises several questions about the funding of support services for women and children who are affected by domestic abuse. We have a budget of £14.4 million in 2007-08 for promoting equality, but in real terms how much of that has been allocated to dealing with violence against women? These are serious questions that are genuinely posed. The services that are in place cannot deal with demand. It is chilling that, on average, women contact 11 agencies before they receive the help they need. That is why there can be no cuts in those services.
Protecting women and children in law is essential, so it is important that the Government rolls out the pilot of domestic abuse courts more widely. The Glasgow pilot, which uses dedicated sheriffs—we have heard some of the issues—has been generally successful. In a higher proportion of cases, a guilty plea has been made at some point; access to justice has been speedier—75 per cent of cases have reached trial diet in six weeks, in contrast to 13 per cent of cases in comparator courts; and the number of convictions has been higher. Does the Government intend to roll out domestic abuse courts—in whatever form they might take—to Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland?
Will the member comment on the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's statement in the chamber that he could not support a domestic abuse court in Edinburgh because of the cost of the Edinburgh trams project, which seems to bear the responsibility for many funding decisions?
I am disappointed at that. If the cabinet secretary has said that, we will ask the Government to reconsider its decision.
For all sorts of reasons, on average, a woman does not come forward for help until after the 35th time she has been assaulted. Some women never make it to the 35th attack. We know that one half of all murders are of partners. We must address that.
We must also deal with the unacceptable rate of rape convictions in Scotland, which is at an all-time low of 3.9 per cent. That is a pitifully low proportion of the women who are brave enough to come forward—thousands do not. We know that difficulties exist, but all parties stand ready to develop the Scottish Law Commission's report and to work with the Government when it introduces its rape and sexual offences bill. We have a justice system that fails thousands of women—thousands of victims of sexual assaults and rapes—and we need to modernise the law.
We need to fund services—if we do not, we will fail women and children. We also need to focus on changing men's behaviour—if we do not, we will be complicit in it all happening again.
We now move to the open debate. Because of the subject of the debate, I would like to call everyone who wants to speak, but to do that I will need to limit speeches to five minutes.
Scottish Women's Aid has said:
"Since 1999 Scotland has been an international example of excellent work in tackling domestic abuse and one of the first countries to adopt a national strategy. Now is the time to capitalise on our global reputation and to demonstrate that the safety and wellbeing of women and children is fundamental to a safer, stronger and healthier Scotland."
It is good that we are debating the issue today—it is not until one is outside Parliament that one can appreciate what people say about the effect that what happens in Parliament has on this issue.
Another voluntary organisation, the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust, says:
"The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines violence against women as ‘any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.' It includes; rape and sexual violence, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, stalking, commercial sexual exploitation such as prostitution and pornography, crimes and murders committed in the name of ‘honour', sexual harassment and domestic violence and abuse."
That is a catalogue of serious crimes against women and children.
There are two common factors. First, almost everybody who works in the voluntary sector in this field is female and, secondly, almost everyone who commits the crimes against women and children is male. I recognise, however, that some women are abusers and that a growing number of adult men are coming forward about being abused by other men.
My final quote is anonymous, because I do not want to detract from the good work that is happening. It says:
"The elimination of violence against women is the subject of international attention at this time of year as countries across the world take part in various campaigns to raise awareness of this issue. And to encourage local women and children to get involved in this year's campaign"—
and so on. I have misgivings about that statement, as it gives the impression that such violence is a women's problem. Leaving it to the women is not good enough. Although I acknowledge that women and children are the most adversely affected by these things, as men are the problem—or, should I say, are most likely to be the abusers—we need to engage with male society to make the difference. We need more men to support women by taking a stand and not letting abusers get away with it, and we need to start early.
Prevention is much more effective. Some good work is already being carried out in schools, but it is not enough. Some children think that it is okay, and even normal, for a boy to hit a girl. Some young people even think that men are and should be allowed to hit women. All that starts in the home. We have to change attitudes and habits at an early stage in order to break the cycle. Give me the bairn before he is nine and I will give you the man who will march to my tune.
A few years ago, in South America, some brave males joined forces with women's groups on a zero tolerance anti-macho campaign. Violence against women and children was common but, because high-profile males took up the challenge, the campaign was effective and improved matters significantly.
The poster that I am holding up, which came through my mailbox, is a great example of Scottish men reaching out to other Scottish men and taking sides for the protection of women and children. It shows a whole series of men who will be wearing the white ribbon over the next 16 days. They are people whom other men look up to and who have influence in our society. My challenge to my fellow parliamentarians over the coming 16 days is to get an invitation to or turn up at one of the events that is taking place; to get up on their two hind legs and support the women who will be there doing the hard work; and to ensure that the Parliament continues to be at the forefront of the campaign to end violence against women and children.
Today's debate sends out a strong signal that it is time for zero tolerance of violence against women. Nevertheless, strongly worded motions and tributes are not enough to stop the violence. To make a lasting difference, we need to make fundamental changes to women's position in our society. How can our young people—in particular, our young women—grow up freely and in safety unless we give them a proper sense of their own entitlement and rights? We need to make explicit the obvious links that have been shown time and again to exist between domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, human trafficking and commercial exploitation—all of which are included in the definition that is given by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, as outlined by Gil Paterson.
Our culture increasingly normalises violence and pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable further and further until what would have been classified as extreme pornography seems to be normal in pop culture, TV shows and all-too-accessible internet pornography. At last night's meeting on keeping women on the agenda, which was organised by Engender, hard evidence was given about women's place in our society and an urgent call was made for the Scottish Government to act. Labour has long led on the issue and our important work in the area must continue and be developed, but the issue transcends party politics and is fundamental to our society. The Government must follow up the warm words of the motion with guaranteed funding and action.
Although Scottish Women's Aid needs and wants funding for refuges, increasingly the question is not just about the lack of refuges but about the fact that we need refuges at all. To quote Lily Greenan, who is in the public gallery along with other supporters of Scottish Women's Aid, violence against women is a symptom, not the problem in itself. We need to tackle the problem head on. A fundamental question for the minister is why funding to prevent violence against women is in the equalities budget rather than the justice budget. Violence is a crime, and violence against women must be treated as such. Domestic violence is estimated to account for about a quarter of all violent crime.
Last session, with the passing of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Act 2007, a small step was taken towards redressing the balance by criminalising the purchasers of sex for the first time. It is a matter of regret that the Government did not mark the launch of the act with a great deal of publicity, to send the signal that violence against women is taken seriously however it manifests itself. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the UN, described violence against women as
"perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and … perhaps the most pervasive."
He also described it as
"the most atrocious manifestation of the systemic discrimination and inequality women continue to face".
The Home Office estimates the cost of domestic violence at a staggering £23 billion a year. The question is how much it will cost Scotland if the preventive funding is not guaranteed core funding. Margaret Smith cited the figures for children who witness abuse at home and talked about the consequences of that. As well as that, the resulting psychological harm cannot be overemphasised and needs to be addressed. Knowing the interest that Adam Ingram takes in mental health, I stress the importance of mental health funding in that context. Without intervention, there is the reality of a downward spiral of the abused and neglected continuing learned patterns of abuse and neglect.
Although, as has been said, the work with women themselves is crucial, it can be undone completely if the man or men involved do not change. Women may be helped to leave an abusing partner, but that partner can go on to abuse other women if there is no intervention. That is why Amnesty International's white ribbon campaign, which was set up last year, is important. Violence against women will not stop unless men are part of the campaign to stop it.
I conclude by strongly urging the minister, the Government and all MSPs to support the women's coalition's statement of intent and its themes of prevention, provision and protection. I call on all MSPs to sign up to and fully support the motion and the amendment, as I do.
This is one of several such debates that I have taken part in—indeed, I once led for the Scottish National Party on this topic. I recognise the progress that has been made both inside and outside the Parliament during its lifetime, through policy, legislation and debates such as this, as we seek to minimise, if not eradicate, the misery of women and their children caused by the violence that pervades their homes, which ought to be places of security, sanctuary and loving care.
Today, I wish to focus on a specific group of women and their children that I feel has not had the attention of the Parliament. They are not specifically described in either the motion or the amendment and no parliamentary questions or motions referring to them have been lodged, as far as I can determine, in eight years of devolution. They are the women who are trapped, silenced and imprisoned, with their children, in forced marriages, as referred to by Gil Paterson in connection with the UN declaration.
Let me emphasise clearly and emphatically the distinction between arranged and forced marriages. In arranged marriages, the families of both spouses take a leading role in arranging the marriage, but the choice of whether to accept remains with the individuals. The crucial element is the consent of both parties.
The reality and horror of a young woman confronting a forced marriage—although it can sometimes happen to young men, too—was brought home to me when I read the account of a young woman called Inshana. When Inshana was a virginal 16-year-old, little more than a child herself, two uncles arranged a marriage with her first cousin, who lived in Bangladesh. Her mother agreed to the wedding and, a few weeks later, she met her husband to be. This is part of her account.
"It was like a bad dream. He was 49, bald and weighed 19st. He waddled into the room, and the smell of his stale body odour almost made me ill. He sat next to me, and I saw that he was sweating heavily. He kept wiping his face with a handkerchief, looking me up and down.
My uncles were laughing and joking, and when they all started to talk about the ‘marital bed' I felt physically sick. As soon as my cousin left, I threw myself onto the floor and begged my uncles not to make me marry this man.
Their answer was to drag me into my bedroom and stub out a cigarette on my foot for being disobedient. They were both upstanding members of the Asian community yet they treated me like a piece of dirt. My virginity was a mere bargaining point for them - while my happiness and future was irrelevant."
The young woman was taken to the registrar's office. The registrar knew that there was something amiss but, she continues,
"My aunt, sitting next to me, grabbed hold of my leg under the table and pinched my skin with her long nails. She warned me, in Bangladeshi, ‘If you say anything we will kill you' so I remained silent - rigid with fear."
With the help of another aunt, the young woman managed to escape. Her story is one of many. She was both brave and lucky. For others, the future is bleak. It is a flight full of dangers, sometimes culminating in death, through so-called honour killings, in which there is, of course, no honour—only killing. Girls who do not escape often suffer a life of sexual abuse and domestic violence. Of course, children will tether the women to those violent homes.
Christine Grahame is probably aware of the legislation that was passed at Westminster. I think that it was introduced by Lord Lester, a Liberal Democrat peer, and was then supported by the Government. Scotland now has less protection than the rest of the United Kingdom. Christine Grahame is indicating that she was going to mention that.
The member has anticipated where I am going.
I do not know how large the problem is. The forced marriage unit that was established by the Home Office deals with 250 to 300 cases a year. The problem affects children and adults of many races and religions—Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Sikhs. The Home Office deals with cases in the middle east, the western Balkans and Africa.
In England, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 received royal assent this year. Such legislation is not necessary in Scotland. Section 2 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, which came into force last year, made a minor change in our marriage legislation. It inserted into the earlier legislation a section stating that, among the "Grounds on which marriage void" are cases where the party
"was capable of consenting … but did so by reason only of duress or error."
Legislation is only a small and final part of the solution. I suggest that education is a preventive tool, as is early identification of those at risk, so that sensitive and supportive intervention can take place.
For those in homes in Scotland today who dare not speak out for fear of retribution from family and the community, we must put in place secure routes out of these dreadful marriages. We must face head on any false accusations of our being racist, because every young woman—some of those involved are barely past their childhood—or young man should have the right to choose their partner and be offered the protection of the state if that right is under threat of abuse. They deserve no less than any other citizen.
The development of policies and programmes to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and children has been a priority during the first eight years of devolved power in Scotland. We were one of the first countries to produce a national domestic abuse strategy.
Scotland is highly regarded throughout the UK and internationally not only for our commitment to addressing domestic abuse but for our strategy, which is based on recognition of the relationship between domestic abuse and gender inequalities. It is significant that those involved at the front line were at the forefront of the policy process; Scottish Women's Aid and others helped to frame the national strategy. That is best practice in my opinion.
The strategy led to a growth, nationally and locally, of multi-agency partnerships, which developed refuge provision, services and training for those whose work involves contact with or impacts on the lives of women and children who have suffered sexual, physical and emotional abuse.
Initiatives such as the domestic abuse court have been piloted successfully and the advice, support, safety and information services together—ASSIST—project has brought together all those involved in supporting victims through the court.
Changing attitudes was never going to be easy, but attitudes are changing. The struggle to end the scourge of gender violence now receives support right across the political spectrum, albeit that some people are more active than others. Things are changing.
We must ensure that the skills and capacity that we have developed are not lost and that training is further developed. That means that we must protect the funding that currently goes to a wide variety of projects and services. We must adopt long-term, sustainable funding to secure services for women and children. Funding for children and young people is welcome, but they cannot be safe and secure unless their mothers are protected and supported, too.
There are major obstacles to securing domestic abuse services for women. Existing support for that work via supporting people funding is seriously at risk, because the spending review removes ring fencing from such funding. Local authorities will decide their spending priorities and they will have many competing pressures. There is concern that that will put at risk housing support services with a more preventive focus, such as those provided by Women's Aid. At present, there is no indication in the single outcome agreement that that is a priority area. That means that refuge and support services could be vastly reduced, which will undo much of the work that has been done.
What is the Executive doing to safeguard the role of groundbreaking developments? Although it is important to continue existing work, there are still a number of gaps that need to be addressed.
We could reduce the number of women and children made homeless by improving the use of protection and exclusion orders. Women experiencing domestic abuse need better access to legal aid. Conviction rates for domestic abuse and rape are abysmally low and those who are convicted often receive derisory sentences. Domestic abuse courts should be introduced throughout Scotland. I recently dealt with a case in which the evidence of violence and other abuse was overwhelming but, astonishingly, the perpetrator was admonished. I doubt that that would have happened if there had been a domestic abuse court in Falkirk.
I have seen at first hand the perpetrator work that is being done by organisations such as Sacro in Falkirk and the change programme, which is based in Grangemouth. Such work with perpetrators is being undermined by inadequate funding for partner work. If the Scottish Executive is to show a commitment to consolidating the work that has already been done and moving forward and addressing the challenges that still have to be met, it desperately needs to demonstrate that there is a funding resource. Ring fencing is vital; otherwise, we will stand in Parliament next year lamenting the important work that was done but has now been lost. I support Johann Lamont's amendment.
The debate on violence against women has become an annual one. It is entirely right that that is the case, as it is a problem on an international scale, not least through trafficking, which has become big business and is the new slave trade. Organised crime syndicates are targeting women and children who live in extreme poverty, are unaware of their rights and are preyed on as disposable people.
The first line of defence against this horrific industry must be individual countries, through advocacy by parliamentarians, who can raise awareness and put the issue on the national agenda. That was almost certainly the thinking behind the UN General Assembly's decision in 1999 to designate 25 November as international day for the elimination of violence against women, and to encourage Governments, non-governmental organisations and international organisations to participate in awareness-raising activities.
In Scotland, that activity has taken the form of a debate, which is now in its seventh year. This year, it focuses on domestic abuse and the effect that that has on children and young people. The facts speak for themselves. There are 125 recorded incidents of domestic abuse every day. Repeat incidents are on the increase, with 55 per cent of victims having experienced a previous incident. According to ChildLine in 2004, in nine out of 10 cases children are in the same room.
I am intrigued that the member quotes statistics showing a rise in domestic violence, given that the Conservative front-bench member said that it was diminishing. Which is it?
I believe that Bill Aitken said that incidents were decreasing, but repeat incidents are on the increase—the figure refers to repeat incidents.
It is therefore not surprising that the collateral damage of domestic violence is immense; it exacts an horrific toll on the physical health, emotional well-being and education of those children and young people.
Where do we go from here? I very much welcome the Government's commitment to a media campaign that focuses on domestic abuse and highlights the effects on children. It is to be launched on boxing day, in recognition of the fact that the festive period is a time that traditionally triggers incidents of domestic abuse.
I also acknowledge and pay tribute to the sterling work that the previous Administration carried out in tackling the issue, in particular the £6 million national violence against women fund that was established to support projects such as the pilot pathfinders project. That project has been trialled in four local authorities, including Falkirk, where it has concentrated on key stakeholders working together to identify victims at risk and to gather and share information in an effort to ensure that accurate information is recorded, because without accurate data it will be impossible to tackle the problem effectively. The project goes live on Monday and the organisers are extremely optimistic that it will result in positive outcomes.
The £6 million fund also supports a project in Edinburgh that works with men to address their abusive behaviour. It is another essential project, which aims not only to raise awareness but to change a culture in which domestic abuse thrives and is almost accepted.
In conclusion, much good work is being done, but I have one major concern. In many cases, the only respite that children and women get from violent partners is when they know that their abuser is safely behind bars but, more often than not, the sentence is short term. How does the minister square that with the Scottish National Party Government's commitment to replace short-term sentences with community service orders and other alternatives to custody?
Violence against women is simply an abuse of human rights. It is incredible that in modern-day Scotland we are still faced with the problem, which is why it is so important that Parliament debates the issue to demonstrate our commitment to tackling violence against women.
Most of us are familiar with the shocking statistics: almost half of all women in the UK have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking; on average, victims suffer 35 episodes of abuse before they call the police; and perhaps most unbelievably, one third of people believe a woman to be partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously. We often talk in this chamber about the need to change attitudes, whether in respect of drinking, smoking or exercise, but on that evidence surely we must do more to tackle the idea that violence against women is acceptable.
The motion mentions the impact of domestic abuse on children. As Margaret Smith said, we all know that children learn through observation, and research shows that 90 per cent of domestic abuse incidents take place when children are in the same room or in the next one. What impact will that have on them in later life? Children are resilient, but although some will get through such traumatic experiences relatively unharmed, many will not. Some will turn to self-harm, some to drugs. Some will become isolated from their peers. Further research shows that children who witness domestic violence are at an increased risk of having abusive relationships as adults. By not tackling the problem today, we are storing it up for future generations.
Does the member agree that we must be a bit cautious with that argument about the cycle of violence? There are some men alive today who suffer every day because they believe that, when they were young, they failed to protect their mothers. Their courageous voices have also been heard in this Parliament.
The member makes a good point; I was making a general point, but I accept that there are exceptions.
If there was an easy fix for this problem we would have used it by now. The previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive put in place important measures to tackle violence against women. As Bill Aitken mentioned earlier, the domestic abuse court in Glasgow offers a supportive and fast-track service to those who have experienced abuse. The Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 and the establishment of the violence against women fund have also been helpful. The fund helped to develop projects for organisations to work together to provide a better response to violence against women.
I welcome what the Government has said about tackling the issue and the establishment of the equalities fund. However, as Scottish Women's Aid has clarified, last week's budget removed ring-fencing from the violence against women fund, and the £6 million allocated to it in the previous budget will now be part of the local government settlement.
At this point, I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of Scottish Women's Aid and, more particularly, Dunfermline Women's Aid, which was set up by Cicely Whitelaw, a close friend of mine. I know that many women and children in and around Dunfermline have benefited from the caring nature and sheer determination that Cicely and many others have shown over the years.
However, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that the settlement is inadequate to do all the things that the Government says that it will do. Maybe that debate is for another day, but in his summing up, will the minister reassure the chamber that, given that such projects are competing with other local government priorities such as education and social services, he will ensure that they will be protected and will continue to receive real-terms increases through the local government settlement? In its short life, the Scottish Parliament has taken important steps to help end violence against women. However, a lot still needs to be done and it needs to be backed up with sufficient resources.
Finally, I say to Gil Paterson that I am proud to wear the white ribbon, today and every day for the 16 days of this important campaign. If I forget to wear it, I am sure that my wife will remind me to do so.
The trauma caused by domestic violence runs deep. The physical trauma that is suffered in each assault is only the start of the damage chain. The deep wounds inflicted on the victim's self-belief, self-respect and self-image have effects that last long after the physical damage has faded from sight.
The damage inflicted on children in the household can be just as severe. Even when they suffer no physical violence, children can find the psychological and emotional violence debilitating both at the time and in later life. There is sometimes no escape from the childhood trauma; the captivity persists throughout life, even after apparent physical liberation through being removed from the place where the damage was done. Children who have lived their childhood in homes where they regularly witnessed domestic abuse can fail to thrive. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable in Scotland today. Domestic violence is not acceptable anywhere in the world, but it is certainly not acceptable in Scotland in the 21st century.
No member of the Parliament would argue, as some people have in the past, that domestic abuse is a private matter that should be left well alone. The scars carried as a result of our society's failure so far to end domestic abuse are heavy wounds. [Interruption.]
Order. Somebody's bramble is turned on. It should be turned off, as it interferes with all the sound systems.
In delivering on the promise to end domestic abuse, we will help to heal our society. The minister's motion pays tribute to those who work to help women and children who are affected by domestic violence. I add my voice to that tribute in thanking those workers who strive to heal our society. They seek a better future for Scotland, in which people are not held back by what goes on behind closed doors.
I am pleased that the minister's motion acknowledges that the scope of the campaign to end violence against women should include rape and sexual assault. Defeating those crimes is a massive undertaking, but it will set our society on the road to properly acknowledging equality between women and men. On that note, I welcome the moves by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to seek changes to increase the pitifully poor conviction rate in Scotland.
When we take a serious look at the crimes of violence known as sex crimes and seek to mend the problems that we find in our nation, we are in a position to start helping to prevent the slave trade in sex workers. As Margaret Mitchell said, human trafficking is nothing more and nothing less than a slave trade. Passing people across international borders, denying them the human rights that we all take for granted and using them as pieces of property instead of respecting them as human beings are defining points of a slave trade. We cannot be complacent about that trade.
None of this is someone else's problem; each and every bit of it is our problem. I welcome the establishment of the delivery group for children affected by domestic abuse. We have a long way to go before we really start addressing the issues that we have heard about today, but I am glad that we are at least stepping out on to that road. Nothing is achieved by wishing that it was already done. The commitment to action that I hope we get from all members today will act as a driving force towards a more just society.
I support the motion in the minister's name.
I start with the voices of children with whom South Ayrshire Women's Aid has worked: "Dad burned mum with the iron because he said she hadn't ironed his clothes properly." Another said: "My dad was fighting with my mum and he kept kicking her. My wee brother was going to phone the police, but I told him not to because I was scared my dad would hurt him too."
We have heard today the statistics and facts and figures, but behind those are the real-life stories of the women and children who experience domestic abuse. Those stories reveal the pain, the fear, the isolation, the shame, the loss of self-esteem and identity and sometimes the ultimate loss—death. The themes that I mentioned from South Ayrshire Women's Aid are echoed in the report that Scottish Women's Aid recently published on the support needs of children.
We have come a long way—as a student in the 1970s I was employed as a play leader with Glasgow Women's Aid during my summer holidays—in that we now recognise the value of having children's workers in refuges who can work with young people who have experienced domestic violence. However, we must be concerned about where the funding for those projects will lie in the future. If Scottish Women's Aid is saying that it is not clear to it where the budgets will be and whether they will be protected, then it is not clear enough. Ministers must make it clear—I look forward to their doing so.
I will say a few words about domestic abuse courts, which Bill Aitken and Margaret Smith discussed. The evaluation of the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow shows that it has made a real difference to the lives of women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse. The report makes it clear that in around a quarter of the more than 1,400 new cases that were called in the domestic abuse court over the evaluation period it was identified that children were present during an incident and witnessed it. That is a sobering statistic.
The domestic abuse court was reckoned to have many benefits compared with the traditional courts and to have improved outcomes. We have heard about the higher proportion of cases before the court in which a guilty plea was entered at an early stage and about the speeding up of the process. That is good, but it is not the whole story. Johann Lamont highlighted the importance of the support services that go with the court. In the pilot, there was also a difference in patterns of disposal. Probation with conditions was used more commonly; that is important, given the sobering statistic that 60 per cent of victims reported that the perpetrator had been drinking before the incident occurred. That gets to the nub of the matter. The point is not simply to have a domestic abuse court in each area, but to learn the lessons from the Glasgow domestic abuse court and to apply those in each area in a way that is meaningful for local communities.
The evaluation also made it clear that we must increase the capacity of social work to deliver the change programme to perpetrators and identified the need for written good practice information and guidance. Will ministers indicate whether that recommendation has been taken forward? In the current year, £374,000 is being provided to community justice authorities to deliver perpetrator programmes. Today I would like ministers to make a commitment to ensure that that funding continues. They should indicate exactly where it appears in the budget and assure us that there will be associated funding for the partner work that Cathy Peattie identified as necessary.
I am aware that this afternoon's debate is short, so I will conclude with a couple of points. Ministers in the new Government often refer to Scandinavia. I commend to them the Swedish approach, given that 55 per cent of cases that are reported to the police involve repeat victimisation. The Swedish police consider that violence against women is the most extreme example of the imbalance or disparity between the sexes and a phenomenon that cannot be explained in the same way as other crimes. That is why in July 1998 a new offence, described as a gross violation of a woman's integrity, was introduced to the Swedish penal code.
Part 1 of that law covers repeated acts that are committed by men against partners or ex-partners; part 2 covers the impact on children or other close relatives of the victim. Those points are important, given what we have heard in today's debate. Basically, if a man continues to commit particular criminal acts—assaults, unlawful threats or coercion and sexual or other exploitation—against his partner or ex-partner, the courts can sentence him for the gross violation of her integrity, as well as for a traditional crime, such as aggravated assault. That allows the whole situation of the abused woman to be taken into account, instead of each incident being considered in isolation. It would be worth our exploring such an approach. I look forward to hearing whether ministers will commit themselves at least to considering it in more detail.
We now move to wind-up speeches. I apologise to the one member whom I was unable to call.
Clearly, the Parliament would rather not be having this debate. Tremendous contributions have been made from all quarters by members who are much more knowledgeable about the issue than I am. I want to address and to seek clarification from the minister on some of the issues that they have raised.
In real terms, how much of the funding in the promoting equality budget is for tackling violence against women over the duration of the comprehensive spending review? How much funding, in real terms, has the Government allocated in the rolled-up settlement for the women's aid fund and the violence against women fund? Most crucially, how will central Government ensure that the rolled-up fund will not result in money disappearing to the competing priorities that local government will inevitably face? Cathy Peattie and other members have referred to that.
The SNP's motion expresses concern for victims and families, which is only right, but the SNP's funding plans lack clarity and involve an apparent sleight of hand that David Blaine would be proud of. I would like factual answers to the questions that I have asked. It is clear from the debate that we are not discussing an issue that divides the political parties. Simple clarity from the minister when he sums up would be helpful.
The 18th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was two days ago, so it is right that we should consider how children are affected by domestic violence.
As members have said, we should take some pride in the progress that has been made since 1999. Some 21 new laws have been passed and there have been 27 national policy initiatives. However, I am disappointed that the figures for domestic violence are still too high and that there are still too many repeated incidents of domestic violence, as Margaret Mitchell said. That is unacceptable. We have a positive track record, but that does not mean that we can be complacent—far from it.
Research from New Zealand shows that children born and raised in homes where they are at risk are more likely to go on to suffer substance abuse, get involved in crime and have poor health. Those things have wider implications for society, and we must take them into account in deciding how to put together funding packages. We are not talking about a stand-alone issue. There is no silver bullet; rather, a joined-up approach is needed.
Those involved in front-line services throughout Scotland have no doubts about the long-term impact of domestic violence on children. Boys may become violent when they are older—whether any violence by males or females is acceptable is questionable—and girls may start to self-harm when they are older. People may have dietary illnesses or longer-term mental health issues. There is also the guilt factor—which must be huge—for a young boy who suffered watching his parent physically beating his mother or psychologically damaging her. Johann Lamont mentioned that.
There is also evidence from the United States. Children there were followed for more than 20 years. It is regrettable that a pattern seemed to emerge. Males who had witnessed domestic violence seemed to be more prone to perpetrating it; strangely enough, the females were more likely to accept such violence as the norm. We must be aware of such issues and cautious about what we do.
We must ensure that the violence against women fund and the front-line services to which many members have referred are properly protected and do not become further victims of budgetary sleight of hand. We do not know how easy that will be now that the figures have been rolled together, but I look forward to the minister assuring us that that will not happen, because we cannot allow it to happen.
I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate the ending of domestic abuse against women, although it is sad that, in 2007, Scottish society is still wrestling with the problem despite the efforts of many people, including those in Government agencies and voluntary groups, to raise awareness of such abuse.
Domestic violence is an atrocious and inexcusable crime that has been proven to have a severely negative impact on families, especially when children are involved. As Margaret Mitchell pointed out, statistics have shown that 125 incidents of domestic abuse occur every day in Scotland. The fact that 55 per cent of those occurrences concern victims who have previously been involved in recorded incidents suggests that there is a repetitive pattern in domestic violence. If we keep in mind the minister's point that three out of four crimes are never reported, we must surely find the figures concerning. Given that the rise in the number of incidents of domestic abuse has been mirrored by an increase in the incidence of serious crime, that is surely representative of a wider culture of crime that can be addressed only through enhanced law enforcement and tougher court sanctions.
As a number of members have already said, domestic abuse encompasses a wide range of victims, including children, families and males and females, and consists of various forms of violence, such as rape, indecent assault and lewd and indecent behaviour. The effects of domestic violence on children, which are the focus of the motion, are particularly concerning.
According to the British Medical Association's report on domestic abuse, each year 750,000 British children and young people are witnesses to domestic abuse. On nine out of 10 occasions, the child is in the same room, or the room next door, when events of domestic violence take place. A significant amount of evidence has been gathered on the horrific toll that violence against women has taken on the physical health, emotional well-being and education of children.
According to police figures, 659 incidents of domestic abuse were reported in my constituency in the Scottish Borders in 2006-07. Those alarming statistics have led to the Scottish Borders Council participating in the white ribbon campaign, which, as other members have said, is part of the largest campaign to end men's violence against women to have been developed and run by men. In the space of two weeks, the Scottish Borders community safety partnership and the domestic abuse working group aim to collect 2007 pledges from men in the Borders. The pledge includes a promise
"never to condone, commit or remain silent about violence against women".
As Jim Tolson said, I am sure that all members would support that, and I am pleased that a number of male members are sporting white ribbons.
In recent years, various Government initiatives in Scotland have attempted to remedy the growing problem of domestic abuse. As members such as Margaret Smith and Cathy Jamieson have said, the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow that was launched in October 2004 had administrative success, but victims' safety remained a problem. The 1998 domestic abuse campaign sought to use the press to spread knowledge of domestic violence and to gain public opposition to such behaviour. Bill Aitken told us about the success of a particular campaign. The domestic abuse hotline that was created in June 2000 as part of the national strategy to address domestic abuse in Scotland offered support to victims of domestic abuse and provided them with the information that they needed for their recovery. Those initiatives have proven to be successful in educating the public about the widespread effects of domestic abuse, but there remain concerns about the safety of victims and preventing repetition of incidents of domestic violence.
We believe that domestic abuse is an appalling and unjustifiable crime that impacts on children and families all over Scotland. Legislation is not and cannot be the only answer to the problem; there needs to be culture shift on domestic abuse, which can be achieved by increasing public confidence in the criminal justice system. We believe in stricter enforcement of legislation and sanctions, in conjunction with the creation of a stronger criminal justice system to battle the growing problem of domestic abuse in today's society. We are happy to support the motion.
As ever, the debate has been wide ranging and well informed, and there has been much agreement across the Parliament—but maybe that is the problem. How much coverage of the debate will there be in tomorrow's media? Not much, I suggest. In that regard, I refer to Bill Aitken's comments about the Executive's highly effective advertisements, to a continuing programme of which I hope that the Government will be able to commit.
Media coverage is only one of the issues. Like Marlyn Glen, I attended the Engender meeting last night, where I was struck by the comment that, although it is good that services have improved, we have perhaps become more involved in administering those services than in opposing violence against women and its corresponding impact on children. We need to guard against becoming accepting of domestic abuse and viewing this debate—a debate that we seem to have annually—as our contribution to the issue. "Domestic Abuse—There is no excuse" was the famous headline. Maybe, as politicians, we need to refocus our efforts so that we give a clear message and so that we spend as much time and as many resources on prevention work and education as we do on service provision.
I want to comment on the services available to children and young people, but I will first talk about prevention. Back in 1998, the Zero Tolerance Trust issued a questionnaire on young people's attitudes to sex, violence and relationships. In response to that, the Zero Tolerance campaign, jointly with local authorities throughout Scotland, developed the respect education initiative. The scheme was piloted in schools and youth projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the pilots were evaluated in 2003. It was found that there was a clear need for prevention work, on domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women, to continue within a consistent national framework, and that that should be undertaken with children and young people as part of the school curriculum. Of the 32 local authorities, 21 are making progress implementing the respect project, and I am pleased to say that my local authority, West Lothian, is one of them. Unfortunately, my former local authority, Edinburgh—the founding authority of Zero Tolerance—is not one of them. Why is that? Challenges can be overcome by chief officers and politicians promoting prevention at local and national levels. Continued Government support, including financial support, can provide the necessary programmes.
During any work with children and young people, it is possible that those suffering the effects of domestic abuse may be identified. It is absolutely essential that children and young people in those circumstances should be offered the appropriate support. Again, progress has been made in supporting children and young people, but there is more to do. As Children 1st tells us, ChildLine Scotland still receives a significant number of calls regarding the impact of domestic abuse.
At a conference that I attended recently in West Lothian, I heard Sandra Paton speak of the programme in which she was involved, which was referred to earlier by Cathy Jamieson. South Ayrshire Women's Aid was invited into secondary schools to raise awareness of domestic abuse. Ninety-eight per cent of the pupils agreed to participate and, of them, 32 per cent disclosed that they were currently experiencing domestic abuse. The project clearly showed the impact of domestic abuse on young people, which was that it is highly negative, particularly in terms of their mental health. The project highlighted the crucial supporting roles that schools could offer, and may already be offering.
Does the member agree that, although often not measured, emotional abuse is just as important and can be quite dramatic for families?
I agree that that is an important aspect to take on board.
Research tells us that if mothers are not safe and supported, it is unlikely that their children will be, so while funding has been made available for children and young people, there is a constant need for funding for domestic abuse services for women. The move away from ring-fenced funding puts the existing support for domestic abuse services for women, via the supporting people programme, seriously at risk—there is no indicator in the single outcome agreement which demonstrates this. I was not reassured by the minister's comments to Johann Lamont. He gave examples of children who would be covered by a range of situations, not just domestic abuse.
We need to stay angry that some men use their power to abuse women, and angry at the damage that that causes to the children and young people caught up in it. We need to channel resources into prevention, support services for victims and children, the justice system and perpetrator programmes. However, for any of that to happen, two things are needed: we must have the political will—we have heard that this afternoon—and, most importantly, resources must be targeted appropriately. Many members have echoed the voluntary sector's concerns about the removal of ring fencing. As Heather Codie of Scottish Women's Aid said:
"ring-fencing existed for a reason."
Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland said:
"There must be a consistent approach across the country to the funding of these services."
Are we to have a postcode lottery for domestic abuse services? I hope not. We will be able to say that this debate was more than warm words and achieved something for the women and children who are at risk of, or are experiencing, domestic abuse only if the minister can tell us where the resources are.
I welcome the debate not only because it has been wide-ranging but because of the cross-party support and commitment to eradicating domestic abuse and violence against women. As my colleague Adam Ingram said in his opening speech, we should all be concerned about the scale of the violence that women and children in Scotland experience. What we know from the statistics is the tip of the iceberg, so the challenge remains great and the necessity to act is absolutely clear.
Children who are exposed to violence are deeply affected by it, as we have heard from members and as young people have made clear to us. We have heard moving testimonies and stories from young people through the listen louder campaign and through the participation work in which we are currently involved. In the words of one young person, living with domestic abuse
"makes you feel like you want to kill yourself."
If anyone needs a reason to act, I urge them to read or listen to those young people's words.
As all members do, I want a Scotland in which women and children can live in safety without fear or intimidation and where children can enjoy their childhood without trauma, violence or loss of their homes and education. For that better future to happen, we need to end violence against women.
Many excellent speeches have been made during the debate and a number of points were raised to which I will try to respond.
Margaret Smith mentioned the attitudes of children: boys who think that it is okay to resort to violence and girls who think that it is in some way agreeable to accept violent or abusive partners. That goes to the crux of the matter and demonstrates why this Government has put early-years intervention right at the top of its agenda. In fact, the report that the chief medical officer published yesterday has a whole chapter on the need to reduce violence, particularly in the early years, to prevent children growing up thinking that violent behaviour is okay.
Margaret Mitchell talked about sheriffs. They will always be free to act and will always have the power to hand down appropriate sentences.
Cathy Jamieson mentioned the Swedish model. I will ensure that my justice colleagues are aware of the detail that she provided today and they will, I am sure, write to her about it.
Mary Mulligan asked a direct question about the advertising campaign. The answer is that we will run a campaign over Christmas and new year. Officials are currently working on the final details, but the previous campaign has been evaluated as being successful and positive, so I am pleased to announce that the campaign will carry on this year.
Will the minister provide clarification on his thoughts on whether an alternative to custody, such as community service orders, should replace short-term sentences in cases of domestic abuse?
That is for sheriffs to decide based on the nature of cases. It is not for me or other Government ministers to determine and micromanage what sentences should be allocated to cases.
Will the minister give way?
No, I want to try to answer some of the many questions that members have asked.
Multi-agency partnerships and the commitment to provision, prevention and protection were mentioned. We are committed to multi-agency partnership working and to working on the basis of prevention, protection and provision for women and children. However, the fourth "P" was not mentioned: participation. We engage in partnership with women who experience violence and domestic abuse, and we are now working to increase involvement of children in that work. Their participation has been welcome over recent years.
On supporting people, what consultation was there of women's organisations before the decision to lift ring fencing was taken? What participation will those groups have in monitoring single outcome agreements?
If Johann Lamont gives me a moment, I will talk about funding issues in some detail.
Marlyn Glen raised a number of issues. I am aware that she could not stay until the end of the debate. One question was on the statement of intent. I am pleased to announce that the First Minister has agreed to participate in the launch of the statement on 6 December. She also asked why the violence against women budget has been included in the equalities budget. Clearly, we all agree that domestic abuse and violence against women are crimes. There is no argument about that—[Interruption.]
Order. Far too many conversations are going on. If members wish to converse with each other, they should leave.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We recognise that the issue is also an abuse of power, and that it has its basis in gender equality. It makes perfect sense, therefore, for our work on violence against women to be led from an equalities perspective, which is why the budget rests in that area.
Will the minister give way?
Unfortunately, I do not have time to give way. Members raised a number of points and I want to get through as many of them as possible.
Many members mentioned the pilot domestic abuse court. The Government set up a feasibility study group to advise how to best support a domestic abuse court for the whole of Glasgow that would be cost effective and sustainable. We are also developing a toolkit guide to research and practice that will help criminal justice partners in each area to examine their practice and to pursue new approaches where appropriate.
On 29 August, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave a rather extensive written answer to question S3W-3782 from Johann Lamont. Instead of going through the written answer, I refer members to it, as it gives detailed answers to questions that have been asked in the debate.
I turn to the violence against women fund. Only a small proportion of the fund will go into the local government pot. The rest will stay with the equalities unit for the Scottish Government to allocate. I understand concerns that external stakeholders and members have expressed on the matter, but the total that has been removed and transferred into the local government pot is £1.4 million, a sum which comes from the violence against women fund, children's services and women's aid fund.
In the settlement, funding under the violence against women portfolio is a good news story. The allocation for the violence against women team budget for 2007-08 was £7.2 million. We intend to spend around £8.7 million. In the next three years, we will spend approximately £9.9 million, £11.9 million, and £12.58 million, which is an increase of £8.2 million over the three-year period from the 2007-08 baseline figure.
Will the minister give way?
In addition, coming from the education budget to deal with the domestic abuse delivery plan will be £5 million in the first year, £3 million in the second year, and £2 million in the third year, which is a total of £10 million. We are going from an allocation of £7.2 million to £8.7 million in this year up to a total of more than £40 million. That is a massive increase in the amount that will be spent on tackling violence against women. It is an incredible good news story and I hope that it reassures members who asked questions on the detail of the project.
Will the minister give way?
I have time only for one intervention. I give way to Margo MacDonald.
I was unable to speak in the debate or I would have asked how much of the fund will be used for an evaluation of the kerb-crawling legislation. The evidence to date is that violence against women has increased—the situation has deteriorated.
You are in your last minute, minister.
I appreciate the question. The fact is that there is a huge increase in funding. A lot of work will not only be supported but expanded—new areas of work will be taken up. We have a good news story, which Parliament should welcome.
I turn to the single outcome agreements and the supporting people budget. I understand the concerns that have been expressed from around the chamber. We have to work in partnership with our local government colleagues. Local government has played a significant role in moving forward the agenda to address domestic abuse and violence against women. The new national outcomes provide a framework for that work to continue.
Will the minister give way?
No. I am afraid that I am in the final minute of my speech.
The Scottish Government must set the direction of policy and the overarching outcomes under the terms of the new relationship that is proposed in the package. It will stand back from micromanaging service delivery, thus reducing bureaucracy and freeing up local authorities and their partners to meet varying local needs and circumstances across Scotland. That is another good news story from the Government.
Christine Grahame raised the issue of forced marriage. I can tell members that the Scottish Government is currently funding a number of organisations that support those who are affected by forced marriage.
I apologise to other members whose points I have not managed to cover in my closing comments and I close by saying that it is a strong characteristic of our work in Scotland that we work in partnership with outside organisations, external stakeholders and local government. Without those strong partnerships, particularly with women's organisations, we would not have developed such an effective analysis and understanding of the issues. I hope, therefore, that we can continue to demonstrate a common purpose to eliminate male violence against women. To that end, I ask Parliament to support the motion.