Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay—I was going to come in on the domestic abuse angle. I apologise for the misunderstanding. That is one of the risks with an informal round-table session. I totally messed up there.

Good morning, everybody. I have a question about services, which is probably for Rachel Moon initially and then maybe Jim Stephenson; Pam Duncan-Glancy might have touched on this. I am a Lanarkshire MSP, and I know that there are differences in services across the country. Rachel, is it correct that Govan Law Centre deals only with people with a Glasgow postcode? People who are in Lanarkshire, which is close to Glasgow, do not have a similar service. Your service is very well known and well thought of. What do you think about the provision of services across the country? What more can the committee do, in conjunction with the Scottish Government or other partners, to ensure that there is a consistency of service across the whole country?

I was trying to catch the convener’s eye, as my question might supplement Pam Gosal’s, and they could be answered together.

I also sit on the Criminal Justice Committee. Last week, we did some post-legislative scrutiny work on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which criminalised coercive control. How is that overlapping with some of the work that you are doing on domestic abuse? To follow questions from Karen Adam and Pam Gosal, are you seeing any overlap between coercive control being recognised as a form of abuse and cases that involve that offence going to the civil courts? Have you picked up on that in your work? I hope that that will supplement Pam Gosal’s question, in which she referred to a specific case.

Do you want to let Karen Adam in now? I do not want to step on any toes.

My question follows on from what Pauline McNeill and the convener have asked, and from my line of questioning for the previous panel. It is about victim confidence in the legislation. In fact, “victim confidence” is probably not the right term. This is about public confidence and the public realising that there is a new offence that deals with something that is as wrong as a physical assault.

There are similarities between the two crimes. The evidence that we have heard suggests that domestic violence would not have been seen as an offence several decades ago, although most people now understand that it is. They may not report it, which is a completely different matter that can also involve control issues, but most people now understand that an assault is an offence.

How can we get the wider public to that same place with this offence? I am assuming that both the police and the Crown will know of situations in which officers will have said that something might be an offence but the victim has not known that. Is there anything more that the committee or Parliament can do to promote that understanding?

Good morning to the panel. It has been quite an interesting discussion. I was a member of the committee that considered the legislation in the previous parliamentary session, along with Rona Mackay. It is fair to say that one of the highlights of the session was when it was passed in the chamber. It is good now to do the post-legislative scrutiny of it.

My questions are on an area that has had a wee bit of coverage—Amanda Masson raised it first—which is information on the legislation for victims and the wider public.

When we take bills through the Parliament, we sometimes concentrate on how the police will implement the provisions and how social work services, the third sector and the courts will react, but we sometimes forget to ask what the public’s perception is.

Amanda, you put it really well when you described how people would come to you not thinking that an offence had been committed because they had not been physically hit or assaulted. They might say, “This is just the way he has always treated me,” for instance.

How can we make it clearer to the public that coercive control is an offence? How do we make what it is clear and change the culture around it? I am not expecting that to happen overnight, and it has clearly not happened over the four years since the act has been in place—although that is not that long a period of time. Is there more that we can do to speed up the process, however?

Since I have mentioned you Amanda, you can perhaps respond first, followed by the other panellists.

Given the previous two answers, before I bring you in, Michele, let me save some time by suggesting that, when you respond, you might reflect on one thing that the committee could take away from today’s evidence session when we go back to the Government. Might that be public awareness?

I agree with that. There is perhaps some overlap in that with work that is done by the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Craig Naylor, do you want to add anything?

I remember the bill in the previous parliamentary session. As I said, I was on the committee and there was a lot of talk that the bill, while bringing in a new offence, was also trying to change the culture around the issue. I remember members from all parties speaking about that in the debates. Are we changing the culture? Are we on the right track?

I thank the minister for the letter. It is a bit of a mixed bag. We have heard a more critical view so far, but what is in the first two bullet points, to which Russell Findlay referred, is good. It is reassuring that some of the provisions will come in before bonfire night, which is obviously the season that is being targeted. The commencement of the pyrotechnic possession offence is also a positive.

With regard to the last two points, however, I find myself agreeing with colleagues who have already spoken. What is set out is a bit watery. On the licensing system, which is a key part of the legislation, the letter says:

“it will commence mid-2024 at the earliest”.

I would rather that we were working towards mid-2024 for definite, albeit that there could be mitigating circumstances.

On the final point, I do not think that it is good enough to say that implementation could be delayed until “a future ... year”. We need something a wee bit more definitive.

The letter is a mixed bag. Given the work that all members of the committee put into the legislation, it is good to see that some of it is coming forward, and we hope that it will make a difference to our constituents. However, there are areas that need to be tightened up, so we will need to write back to the minister on those.

Thanks, convener. I am a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee that Rona Mackay referred to. Yesterday, the committee again considered the petition that she referred to and has agreed to do some further work around the area. Was the review team aware of that petition and, if so, did it take it into consideration?