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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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?