Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Craig Naylor, you look as if you want to say something.

That is really helpful; thank you.

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and thank you for the summary of the instrument in front of us. I do not have any particular issues with supporting it and I welcome what you have said about the UK and Scotland not recognising Russia in the provisions for assistance.

From the paperwork, I am trying to ascertain what level of crime the order would cover. Would it cover all crime? From what you are saying about the Lord Advocate being involved in certain proceedings, I assume that we are talking about more serious crime. Given the provisions in relation to bank account information, is this all about dealing with serious and organised crime? I just want to understand the parameters of the powers given under the instrument.

Theoretically, then, it could cover, say, shoplifting.

Thank you. You all think that the law is clear.

Michele Burman made an important point about who goes out to visit when a crime is reported. Amanda Masson, at what stage in the process would you start to gather the relevant information to show that there was coercive behaviour? Is it maybe more practical that the initial report is done by the police, with someone then needing to look at it? I imagine that you need to gather evidence or you will fail in court. At the end of the day, the accused will not be convicted unless the crime can be proved, which requires substantial evidence. Where in the process does it make sense to gather the relevant evidence on, for example, the victim feeling fear and alarm over a long time and not being free to make decisions in the relationship? I presume that that is what you are looking for. All those things need to be proved.

Where in the process would it make sense for someone to gather that information for the court?

I welcome the fact that the letter sets out the situation quite clearly. From my reading of it, the implementation issues seem to be to do with the financial context, but it would be good to get clarification on that.

I welcome the fact that firework control zones “will commence”. For me, the test is whether they, and the offence, will be used by local authorities. That is what I am interested in.

I had concerns about the licensing scheme anyway, so I am not at all concerned about that delay. We had also raised concerns about the costs. I would not be happy if those powers were used without our having some indication of the cost of the scheme.

I am actually quite supportive of the letter’s content. It is an interesting lesson for people who are observing the legislative process. We think that we have passed all the laws, but we have not—what matters is when the statutory powers are drawn down in each section of the act. The letter clearly sets that out.

Surely, the only way that the situation can change is if there is an alternative to calling 101 or 999, so that people can call someone else. Otherwise, it will always fall back on the police. I cannot see how that could possibly change.

The only way that that can change is if the police take the initial call and then hand the case over to someone else.

Would that be quite a radical change to make? I do not know enough to know whether it would be.

Do you feel optimistic? Given what I have heard, I am not that optimistic that things will change. We have heard evidence that the police are the first responders for everything, including this. For that to change, there has to be a structural change in service. Otherwise, I do not see how things will change.