Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The first item of business is the Justice 1 Committee debate on motion S1M-1994, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, on the general principles of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill.
I am sure that the attendance in the chamber says more about the press function last night than the importance of the subject of the debate. I have great pleasure in opening on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee the stage 1 debate on the general principles of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. It is the first bill ever to be introduced by a subject committee in the Scottish Parliament. The bill is important, not only because of the increased protection that it will give to many in society whose rights are not recognised by existing legislation, but because, in a constitutional sense, it demonstrates the ability of the Parliament's committees to initiate legislation. That is one of the most important ways in which our system is innovative and fundamentally different from that at Westminster.
The bill is the result of a suggestion from Maureen Macmillan to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee as long ago as August 1999, which led to that committee's report last November. I thank everyone who was involved in the report: the various committees, the clerks, the Parliament's legal directorate, the Scottish Parliament information centre, Scottish Executive officials, the many organisations that gave evidence and, more recently, the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Finance Committee, which considered the bill and its accompanying documents.
In the stage 1 report, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee agreed that the best way to remedy the perceived deficiencies in the existing protection for potential victims of abuse was to attach a power of arrest to an interdict. That proposal was debated and agreed by the Parliament in January. During that debate, the Deputy Minister for Justice indicated the Scottish Executive‘s broad support for the bill, for which we are grateful. Since then, the Parliament's non-Executive bills unit has been given the task of drafting a bill that reflects the committee's intentions, as outlined in the stage 1 report. I thank the members of the unit for their hard work.
The current law does not protect all victims equally. The main statutory protection that is afforded to victims of domestic abuse is the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, but that protection includes only spouses and cohabitants who have occupancy rights. In addition, the courts have no power to attach a power of arrest to a common-law interdict, which means that many people who may be vulnerable to domestic abuse, such as divorcees, parents, grandparents, same-sex cohabitants and neighbours, are excluded from protection. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is intended to complement the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 by offering protection to those who are excluded from it, while not depriving a person of their occupancy rights to their home.
The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill will entitle any individual who has obtained, or who is applying for, an interdict against another person for the purpose of providing protection from abuse to apply to the court to have a power of arrest attached to that interdict. Victims of domestic abuse will no longer need to demonstrate a personal relationship with the potential abuser. The court will need to be satisfied simply that granting the power of arrest is necessary to protect the applicant from a risk of abuse in breach of the interdict.
Attaching a power of arrest to an interdict means that, in the event of a police officer having reasonable cause to suspect that an interdicted person is in breach of the interdict and considering that there will be a risk of abuse if the interdicted person is not arrested, the police will be entitled to arrest the interdicted person and remove them from the scene. For example, under the bill, an abuser who is interdicted from approaching a certain person—perhaps a former partner—but who approaches them can be arrested and removed, which is not the case at the moment. The bill also contains a provision for the person under arrest to be detained for up two days if the court believes that there is a substantial risk of the victim being subject to abuse.
The bill will make use of an existing common-law power of the Scottish courts—the power to grant interdicts. It is estimated that the Court of Session and the sheriff courts deal with more than 2,000 applications for abuse-related interdicts per year. Such an interdict may order the alleged abuser not to approach the applicant, or to stay away from the applicant's home or place of work. However, many more people—at least as many again, it is estimated—do not seek such interdicts, because they believe them to be ineffective. The main problem with the current law is that the police are powerless to arrest a person who is in breach of an interdict unless they have also committed, or are about to commit, a crime, but the bill will change that.
Safeguards have been built into the bill to ensure that the alleged abuser also has the right to be heard. If the court is satisfied that the applicant is at risk from abuse from the person to whom the interdict applies, it will order that a power of arrest be attached to the interdict. Under the bill, the police will have the power to arrest an individual for breach of interdict where a power of arrest has been attached to the interdict. If no criminal proceedings are to take place against the alleged abuser for another offence, the provisions in the bill will allow the alleged abuser to be brought to court.
The procurator fiscal will provide the court with a statement of the circumstances giving rise to the arrest and if, after giving the alleged abuser a chance to reply, the sheriff is satisfied that there has been a prima facie breach of interdict and there is a substantial risk of the arrestee breaching the interdict again and causing further abuse, the sheriff will have the power to detain the abuser for a further two days. The arrestee will have the right to be heard at court and be represented by means of legal aid, if that is required and appropriate. The Executive has indicated that arrangements will be put in place to enable a duty solicitor scheme to be set up, because this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I thank the Executive for its co-operation.
The Justice 1 Committee believes that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is a positive and necessary step towards increasing existing protection, and providing new protection for victims of domestic abuse.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill.
I am glad to give the Executive's support to the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which is an important bill in two ways. As the Justice 1 Committee convener said, it is the first bill to be promoted by a committee, but its greater importance lies in the fact that it will give better protection to people in Scotland who are at risk from violence and abuse, no matter what their relationship to the potential abuser is.
Combating domestic abuse is an important aim and a key part of the Executive's programme, but it is fair to say that it is driven by the Parliament as a whole. I am conscious that many of the measures that we have taken on domestic abuse had their origin in an important members' business debate early in the session. Today, we progress that agenda through the Justice 1 Committee's bill.
Domestic abuse is a key factor in social exclusion. It has an unimaginably disruptive effect on people's everyday lives, so we must offer as much protection as possible under the law to its victims. In September, our family law white paper "Parents and Children" set out our proposals to reform the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, to which Alasdair Morgan referred. That act protects occupancy rights for spouses and cohabitants whose home is with the abuser and allows interdicts with powers of arrest. Our proposed changes are essential to keep the act up to date. The bill goes further than the 1981 act, as the protection that the bill provides does not depend on occupancy rights, which means that any victim of abuse can benefit, whether or not she or he lives with the abuser or has ever done so.
I note in passing that the drafters of the bill have gone to great lengths to eliminate gender-based language. Although the great majority of victims of domestic violence in Scotland are women, men can also be victims. Nevertheless, it is a fact that in 92 per cent of recorded domestic abuse cases a woman is the victim of a male attacker. That was amply borne out in the evidence that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee heard last year. It is right that the bill is comprehensive.
As I said in the debate on the proposal for the bill, we commend the work of the Justice 1 Committee—formerly the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—in considering a wide range of evidence and introducing the bill. I, too, single out the contribution of Maureen Macmillan as reporter to the committee and in many ways the originator of the bill. I also pay tribute to the constructive convenership of Mr Morgan and his predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham.
To many, the distinctions between bills that are introduced by the Executive, by members and by committees may seem unimportant and an uninteresting aspect of parliamentary procedures, but members know well that a big gap exists between the resources that are available to the Executive and those that even the best-organised member can bring to a subject. The standing orders that allow committees to introduce bills are a most important and interesting innovation in the Parliament. The committees have developed their knowledge of, and experience in, particular interests. With the non-Executive bills unit, they now have the resources to give legislative effect to their policy proposals. It is no insult to the drafters in that unit to say that we are scrutinising the drafting of the bill and that we may wish to lodge Executive amendments at stage 2. They are likely to be technical and designed to help achieve the purposes of the bill. We will consider them further over the recess.
As members will appreciate, much legislation has financial and resource implications. As I said to the Justice 1 Committee on 19 June, the Parliament and the committee will have to bear it in mind when developing policies that have financial implications that our Scottish budget is finite. Resources that are committed to one area are denied to another.
The financial memorandum that is attached to the bill estimates that if the take-up is between 2,000 and 5,000 interdicts a year, the cost will be between £800,000 and £2 million each year. That money will have to be found from the justice department's budget. I cannot predict the exact terms of the financial resolution that the Executive will lodge in due course, but I fully expect it to allow the bill to progress.
Compliance with the European convention on human rights has provoked a little interest this week, so members will understand that we must consider carefully legislative competence. A virtue of the bill is that it has broad coverage. We must ensure that it is not so broad as to be oppressive and that it restricts liberty or private life only in proportion to the aim of protecting others. As with all other cases, the rights of the people involved must be balanced when the bill is used.
We all agree on the objectives of the bill: to provide effective laws and to give all the people of Scotland the protection that they need from violence and abuse. We will do our best to find the means. We are delighted that the first committee bill should be so worth while. I pledge the Executive's support for the principles of the bill.
It is a great pity that the Parliament has received such bad publicity, as it is ill deserved. People just see First Minister's questions, which tends to be a bit yah-boo. When we discuss a sensible and sensitive bill that has cross-party support and will impact on people's lives in an important manner, our discussion is not reported and is not considered spectacular. The minister outlined well the devastating effects of interdicts that lack a power of arrest for technical reasons. I hear what he says about finance and resources, but I hope that the bill becomes practical legislation as soon as possible.
The SNP fully supports the bill and congratulates Maureen Macmillan and the rest of the Justice 1 Committee—to which I am returning like a rubber ball, thankfully—which introduced the bill. I am mindful of Paul McCartney's "The Long and Winding Road" when I think of how the committee went up roads, down valleys and everywhere in trying to think of a way to attach a power of arrest to a common-law interdict. At first, we did not think of introducing a bill. We kept tinkering around with the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, which concerned occupancy of the matrimonial home and left huge gaps in the law. I am pleased that we will have a piece of stand-alone legislation that is easily accessible to practising lawyers, let alone anyone else.
I will give two examples from my experience as a matrimonial lawyer of the great gaps that existed. I would often deal with a woman who was in a cohabiting relationship that had broken down and become somewhat violent at that stage or before. Such a woman would be under the misapprehension that she was in a common-law marriage and think that she somehow had the protection of the 1981 act—I realise that the issue is a slight diversion. I would have to explain to such a woman that to establish a common-law marriage, the elements of habit and repute must be present. The couple would have to hold themselves out as a married couple to the world and obtain a court decree to tell everyone that they were married. If people hold out to the world that they are living together, they are not married and will not incur the protection of the 1981 act. Many people had a shock when they approached a lawyer and said, "I can get a power of arrest attached to my interdict, can't I?" I would say, "I am afraid you cannot."
Great gaps existed in the law when a decree for divorce was issued in the case of a particularly violent relationship. The interdict with the power of arrest would then fall because the two people were no longer married, despite the fact that great stresses might be placed on a couple at that stage, especially when access to and contact with children continued, which would leave an opportunity for violence to erupt or for someone to use children while being aggressive towards their former partner.
Gaps existed for other people. I had a client who had a difficult neighbour—a lady who, at night, banged doors, ran water and poisoned my client's hedge, for example. After months of that, my client—a very nice woman—was in a terrible state. All that I could do was obtain a common-law interdict. I did not take decree on that interdict, because if I kept it as an interim order, I could keep returning to the court when the lady next door breached the interim order. However, I could not have a power of arrest attached and I could do nothing else. If I had taken a final decree on that interdict and the lady next door had breached it, I would have had to raise a separate action for breach of interdict.
That device was clumsy. I am pleased that, in such circumstances, it will be possible to attach a power of arrest, subject to important tests to protect the defender or the person who is accused of breaching an interdict. First, it must be necessary to attach a power of arrest—that places a high degree of evidential responsibility on the person who seeks a power of arrest to produce evidence to the court that they are entitled to take away those rights. Secondly, the interdict must be specific, so that everyone, including the police, knows exactly what the person is prevented from doing.
I welcome the bill and look forward to its becoming law quickly.
I welcome unequivocally the objectives and aims of the bill. I congratulate Maureen Macmillan on her relentless pursuit of those objectives in questioning aspects of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's work when she was reporter and in developing the bill.
I accept that such a bill would have been unlikely had there not been a Scottish Parliament. That is a benefit and perhaps a danger. I am advised that, later today, an Executive bill will be announced—ECHR-proofed—to prevent those who are charged with rape or, I hope, serious sexual abuse, from cross-examining their alleged victims. The Conservatives will welcome that bill too; it is another benefit.
However, creating a plethora of legislation has the danger of producing a nightmare for future generations that have cause to access the law. I hear what Christine Grahame says about stand-alone legislation, but having a range of stand-alone bills will create problems for future generations when handling the law. In the not too distant future, there might be advantage in examining the ever-increasing number of minor—but important—bills and racking them up in all-embracing bills.
I am aware that consideration was given to amending the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It was thought that those acts, in particular—influenced by its title—the 1981 act, were not appropriate. Irrespective of that, some thought could be given to the point that I have made and I ask the minister to take it on board in his future deliberations.
As has been well explained in the debate, the bill will allow sheriffs to apply powers of arrest to interdicts that are granted against male or female abusers. At present, such powers exist only in the case of married couples. The telling point is that, when a divorce takes place, the victim of abuse loses protection. In practical terms, that makes nonsense of the law. I believe that the Justice 1 Committee is right to seek change at that point.
The opinion of the wide range of bodies that gave evidence to the committee is that there is considerable support for a bill. That body of opinion came from a wide spectrum including the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Family Law Association, the Law Society of Scotland and a range of women's organisations. It was interesting to hear Sheriff Wilkinson, president of the Sheriffs Association, put in a plea for the interests of grandparents to be heard. My impression is that the wording of the bill will protect the interests of grandparents who have responsibility for their grandchildren. I welcome that. I am also happy to say that, although I am a grandparent, I do not have a specific interest that needs to be protected at this time.
It is disturbing that the victims of abuse are frequently failed by the legal aid system; that is a matter for the Executive to consider. As there is current committee activity on legal aid, the minister is aware of the concern on the issue. No doubt legal aid will be debated at a later date. To return to the bill, and to Alasdair Morgan's motion, I have no difficulty in giving it our full support.
On a personal note, over the past two years I have enjoyed my involvement on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and then the Justice 1 Committee. I was disappointed at the splitting-up of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, as the position of the two justice committees that replaced it was weakened as a result. Irrespective of that, I will miss my participation in the committees.
I congratulate the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on the work that has been done in the past and wish the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee well for the future.
I commend much of what is in the bill as there is much in which we can take satisfaction. The bill is necessary and timely and its genesis and development demonstrate that the Scottish Parliament works well.
The necessity for the bill is all too demonstrable, as the domestic abuse statistics are horrifying. We are told that at least a quarter and possibly as many as a third of all women in Scotland will experience domestic abuse. At its first meeting, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee highlighted the necessity of tackling the issue. A month later, Maureen Macmillan spoke about a bill that would amend the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, which is the main legislative protection that is available to victims of abuse.
One of the main limitations of the protection is apparent, as the word "matrimonial" is in the title of the 1981 act: people have to be married to come within the scope of the act. In its white paper on proposed changes to Scottish family law, the Executive addressed measures to address that problem, but it will be some time before the white paper will be translated into law. I am glad that the Justice 1 Committee took the view that it could not wait for a family law bill and that action was needed.
What has happened since then has demonstrated a number of the strengths of the Scottish Parliament. I am not a member of the Justice 1 Committee, but what struck me most forcibly, as I watched the progress of the bill from the sidelines, is the way in which common sense was applied as the bill developed. The committee recognised the need to do something as quickly as possible. We might measure delays in weeks or months, but some people measure delays in how many more hidings they will get.
The committee realised that it needed to step back from the complexity of the 1981 act and opt for a stand-alone measure. That led to a shift in the focus of tackling abusive relationships from the relationship to the abuse. Although work to combat domestic violence has concentrated largely on male violence against women and children—in 93 per cent of incidents where the victim's sex was recorded, the victim was female—men can also be victims of domestic violence. Both men and women can perpetrate violence against children.
As I said, the significant realisation was made that it was the abuse that had to be tackled. Having shifted the focus to tackling abuse and removed the complications of defining which, if any, relationship was a prerequisite for legal protection, it was seen that an effective way forward would be to make a small extension to existing law.
The bill that has resulted from that process is a short, straightforward measure that addresses a real and urgent need. That we have got to this point demonstrates what we can do in the Scottish Parliament. Maureen Macmillan, a determined back bencher, has made a large contribution to the bill and we have used the powers of a committee to originate legislation.
The bill is an excellent and much needed measure. It is great to see it progressing more quickly than would have been the case had back benchers and committees not had the powers that we have in the Scottish Parliament.
I commend the bill.
As the debate is short, we now come to winding-up speeches, which we will take in reverse order of parties. That means, oddly enough, that we start with Tavish Scott. [Interruption.] I did not mean "oddly" in any sense except that it is unusual to have two Liberal Democrats speaking one after the other.
I take your point, Sir David.
I share the unequivocal welcome that the bill has received this morning. Like many colleagues across the chamber, I deal with issues of domestic violence in my constituency, and our constituency casework reflects the fact that the issue is one that worries Scotland today. The Scottish Parliament can, quite properly, act to deal with the issue, which is difficult and precise. I suspect that I am not alone in having received representations from advocacy groups that campaign on behalf of women and deal with violence and domestic abuse.
There are two main points to today's debate—first, the parliamentary process and how it is followed and secondly, the very real nature of the subject. Alasdair Morgan rightly pointed out the importance of the Parliament's ability, through its committee structure, to initiate a bill. Today is of considerable importance in that respect.
Currently, the Procedures Committee is asking members to consider the principles of the consultative steering group. We are being asked to consider power sharing between the Executive, the Parliament and the people who live in our communities. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is an example of power sharing at work.
Alasdair Morgan mentioned his experience of Westminster and how power sharing is a refreshing change to the processes that go on in that place. In that respect, I return to a point that was made by Phil Gallie about the need for a miscellaneous provisions (Scotland) bill to tidy up a plethora of smaller measures. Mr Morgan has direct experience of such bills, whereas I remember working behind the scenes on the plethora of measures that such bills can encapsulate. My concern about the miscellaneous-provisions approach to lawmaking is that the level of scrutiny is perhaps not all that it might be, because of the breadth of legislation under consideration. The Parliament and the Executive will want to reflect on that.
I congratulate Maureen Macmillan on her considered work on the bill. I also congratulate her colleagues on the Justice 1 Committee. The issue is important, and the law as it is currently constituted does not provide equal, and therefore fair, treatment to the people who are affected. As the minister said, we need to provide as much protection under the law as is possible. Given the unimaginable horror of events that can affect women, providing that protection is extremely important. My colleague Nora Radcliffe set out the Scottish domestic violence statistics, which are awful and serve to illustrate why it is important that the measure is being debated today and why the bill must be progressed with as much speed as is consistent with good lawmaking. As other members have said, the strength of consultation and the number of bodies that have given clear support and guidance are to be valued.
On that basis, the Liberal Democrats support the bill.
Speaking as late as this in the debate leaves little opportunity to contribute something new, especially in view of the exposition that Mr Morgan gave at the outset of our proceedings this morning. Members will be grateful to learn that I propose at this stage merely to add my support, and that of my party, for the bill.
Other speakers have highlighted the situation of women after divorce: just when they think that things will get better, they could become profoundly worse. There is a definite need for the bill, because many areas in the provisions for victims of domestic abuse need to be reformed or changed so that victims are dealt with more coherently. We also want those victims to have the full weight of the law behind them, so that they are not forced to remain in abusive situations.
Women who are being abused, molested or harassed by a partner share the same need—protection—yet the law discriminates among women because of the status of the relationship. Ease of access to protection and the degree of protection that can be obtained differ depending on whether a woman is married, divorced, cohabiting, in a relationship but not cohabiting or has ceased cohabiting. Equality of access to the system of protection must be at the heart of reform, and an element of consistency and harmonisation in the penalties for breach of orders is essential. The bill seeks to resolve those shortcomings.
I pay particular tribute to Maureen Macmillan, who was very persuasive at the outset of the bill. She came up with an idea and the other members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee were readily persuaded that it was something worth pursuing. However, Maureen Macmillan did the reporting work, challenged people, got the evidence and chased up people to find out why we could do some things and not others. That was not easy, and I pay tribute to Maureen Macmillan for what she has done. She was relentless in her pursuit. The fact that the other committee members were so easily persuaded serves only to underline how necessary the legislation will become, so I give Maureen Macmillan special thanks. The Parliament seems to have specialised in domestic abuse, but that is because debate on the issue is necessary. People ask why we keep harping on about domestic abuse; it is because it still happens. Until we change that, we will continue to harp on about it.
Having stuck with the justice committees through thick, thin, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the Justice 2 Committee and so on, I am sorry to be leaving and wish all those who are pursuing this matter every success. They will continue to have my support.
Having been a practising lawyer in my previous life, I did not have to be persuaded that we needed such a bill. Anyone who has operated in family law knows the great difficulties that are faced and how one can feel unable to help clients, who—as I explained earlier—sometimes cannot understand those difficulties.
I would have spoken more slowly if I had known that I would be summing up as well. I would have kept my second half for the second half.
The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is a good stand-alone bill. I understand what Phil Gallie means by a plethora of legislation, but the bill is good because lawyers have to know where the law is. As Tavish Scott said, if important sections of the law are buried in a miscellaneous bill, which tampers with some primary legislation, some family law and so on—as has happened at Westminster—and one has to dig around in that bill, the process is made complicated. I know that we are professionals and we are supposed to know what we are doing, but there is no need for it to be like that. The clarity and simplicity of the bill are its great assets.
The test is how the bill operates. We already have a system in place for powers of arrest attached to matrimonial interdicts. When one has an interlocutor with an interdict with the power of arrest, there is a requirement to notify the police constable in the area; I always made a practice of notifying the local police station. In addition, I always gave a copy of that interlocutor with the power of arrest to the client and told him or her to keep it by the phone, so that everyone knew what the interdict said.
In evidence to the committee, the police and others made it plain that the interlocutors had to be tightly drawn; people's liberties could be taken away if the interlocutors were fuzzy at the edges. In my experience, that did not happen, because sheriffs would challenge a solicitor who did not make it sufficiently clear what a person was being prevented from doing. If a certain street was involved, one had to make that clear, even down to the street numbers. Primary schools or places of work also had to be made clear. Interdicts—which take away people's liberty—are drawn very narrowly. They are specific and local; sheriffs do not prevent people from wandering the whole of Edinburgh. Notification is important.
Something that is important and that may be of interest to members is the response time for police. I once had an interdict with a power of arrest attached to it for a lady who lived just outside Corstorphine. Corstorphine police were pretty handy, but—through no fault of their own—it sometimes took them six to 10 minutes to get to her door. In those six to 10 minutes, the woman's violent partner, who had a criminal record, could batter on her door and break windows; neighbours tended to back off. I found that, in practice, the lady would not use the power of arrest attached to her interdict.
I would like the minister to consider the operational issue of whether, when violent people are involved, we can speed up police response times so that women—or men—have something in their hand that does not make things worse. In some circumstances, a power of arrest is attached and the violent person goes ballistic, to use the common expression; some partners see it as a challenge. Response times are terribly important. The person with the court order must feel that the interdict is a firewall.
I hope that the committee gets credit for the bill and that somebody out there starts listening to the work that the committee is doing, which is at the core of the Parliament's progress.
Members of all committees know the effort that lies behind the committees' work—I know that not from experience, but because members often point it out to me. No committee has a wider range than the Justice 1 Committee: the committee that was so good, we named it twice—or three times, or more.
I am pleased that the Justice 1 Committee has been rewarded by the widespread support today for the principle of its bill—that there should be no occasions when help is denied simply because the threat comes from someone who is not a spouse or cohabitant, or because the threat has not been repeated often enough.
Christine Grahame is right: changes in the law will help—indeed, they are necessary—but they are not sufficient and must take their place in a wider range of practical assistance to those who are vulnerable. That is why we have a national strategy to address domestic abuse in Scotland and an action plan, which we are already implementing. That work has been developed by the national group to address domestic abuse in Scotland, which met earlier this month under the chairpersonship of Margaret Curran. That group will review legislation in this area and may advise on a more comprehensive amendment on modernisation of legislation. However, where we can see something that needs to be done, that is not a reason to wait.
We have allocated £10 million for refuge development over the next three years. The first ten projects, which will provide more than 40 completely new refuge spaces and more than 20 improved spaces for women and children, have recently been approved. Those are measures of profound practicality and a significant investment of resources. I can assure members that our support for the bill is a commitment to make it practical legislation, which is used and useful for the purpose for which it is being developed. We are working to develop effective and affordable ways of getting advice to victims and of getting access to courts where necessary. Legislation is of no value if those who could benefit from its use cannot receive the advice that they need in order to benefit.
We are debating principles this morning. On the broader issue of domestic violence, the principle is simple and straightforward: there is never, ever an excuse, nor should there ever be a loophole. This has been a short debate—perhaps not the best-attended debate—but a good morning's work for all that.
As Alasdair Morgan said, this is a very special occasion: the stage 1 debate on the first committee bill of the Scottish Parliament. I feel privileged to have played a part in it, and I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate.
Iain Gray is here representing the Executive, and I welcome the Executive's support for the bill. The support of ministers is a crucial part of the jigsaw of measures that will deliver protection and support to people who have suffered abuse and are afraid of continuing abuse. As Iain Gray said, the Parliament and the Justice 1 Committee are both committed to dealing with domestic abuse. As Nora Radcliffe said, the committee was able to deal swiftly with this measure.
As I am talking about the Executive's contribution, perhaps I should address the question of ECHR compliance. Phil Gallie also raised that subject, and members will be aware that any arrest or detention must be compatible with article 5 of the ECHR, which guarantees a person's right to liberty and security. Members will also be aware that the arrest and detention procedures in the bill are no different from existing procedures in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. In several respects, the procedures in the bill give the alleged abuser more protection against the possibility of arbitrary detention. The Justice 1 Committee is satisfied that the arrest and detention procedures are compatible with article 5 of the ECHR, and in particular with article 5(1)(b). Members will also be aware that the Presiding Officer has issued his statement on legislative competence, which says that, in his view, the provisions of the bill are within the Parliament's legislative competence.
Alasdair Morgan outlined the details of how the bill will work, and I will not repeat what he said. As members have said, the bill was necessary because the protection available under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 did not address the realities of today's relationships. Because that act was related to rights to occupy property as an adjunct to particular kinds of relationships, too many people were excluded from protection under it. As Lyndsay McIntosh and other members said, divorcees were excluded from the protection of police powers of arrest, because they were no longer married to their abusers. Many cohabitees were excluded, because pursuing occupancy rights through the courts would only leave them open to an escalation of abuse. Same-sex couples were excluded, because their relationships had no legal standing. The extended family was excluded, although there is much evidence of abuse across the generations.
As Christine Grahame mentioned in a previous debate, the idea for the bill was a flash of inspiration from the Sheriffs Association, which was warmly welcomed by the committee and by other witnesses. I thank Christine Grahame for giving us examples today of how the present law has failed those who are abused.
The bill is welcomed by all those who deal with people who are suffering abuse. It is welcomed by organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid and Enough is Enough. It is welcomed by the police, who are often frustrated in their attempts to prevent abuse by the fact that, in most circumstances, they have no preventive powers of arrest and must wait until there is a breach of the peace or an assault before they can intervene.
Of course, abuse is not just about physical violence; there is also sexual and psychological abuse. The stage 1 debate on the bill sends several messages. It states that abuse, wherever it is found, is unacceptable to society, and that abusers will feel the force of the law. I hope that the new remedy will be widely used. I believe that, in the long run, it will be cost-effective, although there seems to be a question in the Executive's mind about how much it will cost. In the end, however, I think that we will find that it takes up less court time and less police time. It is better to prevent serious crime than to have to deal with the consequences of serious assault or even murder. The bill will prevent fear and psychological suffering. Too many people live in fear of an ex-partner or family member, and I hope that the bill will liberate them.
As Tavish Scott said, today's debate sends a message about what this Parliament can do for Scotland. This is a committee bill, which was formulated because the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee considered that there was a serious gap in the law. The bill has been thoroughly researched by the committee through extensive evidence taking, and members of the committee were ably assisted by the committee clerks, past and present. We then handed over to the non-Executive drafting team, which turned our ideas into a draft bill. Many people have commented on the bill's user-friendly language, and I thank the draftsman for his skill. I thank the head of the non-Executive bills unit, David Cullum, who oversaw the process, and Alison Coull, who provided legal advice.
I ask ministers, who support the bill, to consider closely the question of eligibility for legal aid. That issue has also been raised during the debate. People need to be able to access the justice that the bill offers. As I have said in other debates, the proposed legislation could save lives. Anyone in such danger, be they man, woman, girlfriend or grandfather, must have the protection of the law. I also ask the Executive to put in place systems to monitor the bill closely when it is passed. That is something that Christine Grahame mentioned. We want to ensure that the uses of the powers under the bill are noted and that proper provision continues to be made for people who want to use those powers in future.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee worked hard during its inquiry and I pay tribute to all members for the consensual way in which we worked towards the solution that is being presented to the Scottish Parliament as a bill today. We have had two very useful debates on the bill and, on both occasions, the Parliament has been whole-heartedly supportive. I speak on behalf of the committee when I say that I am most grateful for that support. Once again, I thank the members and clerks of the Finance Committee and Subordinate Legislation Committee for their part in scrutinising the bill at stage 1 and in ensuring that today's debate could take place.
We have investigated thoroughly all possibilities and I think that we have come up with a bill that will genuinely help victims of abuse. The work that has been done by our committee is a great example of what can be achieved in our committee system. In my opinion, it is entirely appropriate that the first committee bill to begin its parliamentary journey is one that will genuinely help vulnerable people in Scotland. I am grateful for the support that the bill has received in the chamber today, and I am pleased to commend it to Parliament.