Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister. People on the earlier panel, who were really excellent, were trying to pinpoint priorities for what needs to be fixed and where the gaps are. A couple of things came out of that discussion: first, an issue exists about recruitment and the funding of posts—some of the posts are temporary, so staff are not applying for posts that need filled; and, secondly, the whole funding process seems so bureaucratic that it seems to me that simplifying it might be an important step. What do you think about those two points?

I will follow that up with a specific question. What progress has been made on expanding residential services? I know that that is only one part of the picture, but it is an important part. Has there been an expansion of services? Can you tell us now, or will you be able to tell us later, what exactly that amounts to?

Thank you for your presentation, which was really informative.

Reading through all the information that we have been given, we can see that the plan and law reform are needed and that we have additional Government funding of £50 million a year. How wisely is that money being spent or being planned to be spent?

There are a lot of priorities. One of the key points for me is that men are by far the biggest cohort of people who are losing their lives. Is the money being directed in the right way? Can we see where it is being spent? Are you, as the experts in the field, clear that the £50 million is being spent in the right places?

I feel that the committee needs help in drilling down into that. Karen Reynolds talked about where the money would best be spent. Justina Murray said that there is not a shortage of money. Can you help the committee with that? From what people are saying, there does not seem to be a clear picture of where the money should be spent to get the results that you want.

Lots of pleas have been made about the importance of residential rehabilitation and connected services. Is that an important starting point to fix this? As a legislator and a committee member, I am struggling to understand what it is that you want to say to me about that. Where should we push Angela Constance to get results with the money that you say is available?

It is for Karen Reynolds and Justina Murray, if that is okay.

I want to start by wishing everyone a happy international women’s day.

I was not involved in it at the time, but I am fully aware of the significance of the legislation that Scotland passed. Indeed, it was identified as world leading, and we are proud of that aspect of it.

That said, I am not really familiar with the detail. What I want to get into is how we can fix the situation, which Amanda Masson finished off with, where clients are reluctant even to raise the question. Moreover, how can we do better at creating the understanding that is needed and proving these cases in court?

I guess that, when we as legislators pass legislation, we think about what we would like and then the agencies have to work out the practicalities on the ground. I am sympathetic to Police Scotland in that regard. I do not know what guidance it was given or what the act says about what it should be looking for when it sees something that might be regarded as coercive behaviour or psychological damage to a woman or, indeed, a man.

What should the police look for? Is the act clear about what needs to be shown before they hand the case over to the Crown Office to make the final decision on it? I would welcome anything that the witnesses could tell me. Is the act clear enough? If it is not, what do we need to do around providing the relevant evidence or creating understanding of those provisions?

Yes—I thought that that was what you had said. I am trying to work it out. Where there is no violence, how can you possibly pick up cases of coercive control? You have mentioned that there have been a couple of cases already, and that the judgment has endorsed the Crown’s approach, which is good. How would those be picked up, if there is no physical abuse? I am really struggling to see how they would get into the system.

Thanks for that. I was not suggesting that. I totally accept that we need our front line.

Moira Price, to follow on, does coercive behaviour tend to go along with physical abuse? Are there any patterns, or is it a stand-alone crime? I am trying to visualise that behaviour in the context of what Sam Faulds said. Obviously, it can be a stand-alone crime. That is the point of the act. Coercive behaviour can be a course of conduct over a long period. It is not physical abuse but mental abuse.

It is just my perception, but I would not have thought that someone would lift the phone and say, “I think that there’s been a crime of coercive control against me.” I am trying to visualise how coercive behaviour would be captured. Does it tend to coincide with physical abuse? If you could help me on that, that would be helpful.

Do they simply report it like any other crime?

Good afternoon. I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far—I have found it helpful, in particular Moira Price’s responses to Katy Clark‘s question on coercive behaviour. I want to get Sam Fauld’s view on it as well, so I put my question, which follows on from that, to her.

We heard in evidence from the previous panel that it tends to be tier 1 officers rather than more specialist officers who are trained to identify abuse who respond to domestic violence abuse cases, because the tier 1 officers are on the front line.

I am particularly interested in the coercive behaviour side of things. By the very nature of that crime, I imagine that it is always going to be difficult to identify it or to provide evidence on such a course of conduct. Do you have anything to offer the committee on how coercive behaviour can be better identified on the front line?